Great theological debate

So many questions. I'll probably have to do this in several installments.

I doubt that without God I'd be an uncaring sociopath, but who knows? There are plenty of uncaring sociopaths, and lots of them are Christian. My particular exposure to religion and my particular life situation inclined me toward an understanding of God that's radically different from, say, Rev. Phelps. I was attracted to Jesus at an early age (5), because I was told he was kind and loved everybody, and I liked that and wanted to do the same. It grew stronger in high school when I learned he cared for misfits and losers, since I considered myself to be one. The mean-spirited fundamentalist version of Christianity is something I encountered later, as I moved to the Bible Belt. I don't regard those people as true Christians, and I'm sure they feel the same way about me. If I read the Bible literally, I'd reject it and the God who supposedly dictated it, because it justifies genocide, sexism, slavery, and homophobia. [/Quote]

I don't hold God responsible for much of anything. I think of God as the felt presence of a benevolent Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being".
But earthquakes, hurricanes, pestilence, etc., are the result of natural forces, and atrocities are the result of people. I guess we could blame God for making a universe that way, but I don't know enough about God to know whether or not (S)he had any choice about it, and it doesn't seem productive. I think of God as a felt presence of a benevolent Higher Power, "in whom we live, and move, and have our being". "Felt" is an ambiguous term, leaving open the question whether or not there is a presence or I just feel one. I operate "as if" there is one.

This is Paul's understanding of Jesus: Jesus as the sacrificial Paschal lamb, given by God to God in atonement for our sins. As you say, it is rooted in Jewish tradition, and is a view widely held among Christians today. I can accept it metaphorically, without getting too analytical about why God would need to let His own son be tortured to death to appease Himself. I do regard the crucifixion as a moving reminder of personal sacrifice on behalf of unorthodox beliefs offensive to the powers that be.

I agree. I don't regard events like that as part of God's Plan. They are a product of human depravity, which is an unfortunate by-product of free will.

Yes, I mean it non-literally: see him in my mind's eye, so to speak. I had a life-changing "born again" religious experience years ago that fundamentally altered my view of reality. It involved a new insight into a passage in Genesis that says God created humans in his image and likeness. Since then, I've never been able to encounter humans without regarding it as an encounter with God--similar to the "namaste" phenomenon with the Dharmic concept of atman.













[/QUOTE]

 

That statement is an eyebrow raiser...

Do you beleive the bible is the word of god?

If so how are you able to discredit what in your mind is simple flim flam from what is to be taken seriously?

I could go places witht his but will take the high road.

Who would put that thought into your mind, did you attend church regulalry at all during your time as a misfit?

You seem like more of an agnostic in many of your views, I find it odd that you are able to take comfort in the story of Jesus, do you believe the KJV account of his life is literal?

What parts?

In my opinion if there were a god of the christian faith it would be pointless to, I can't think of anyone alive or dead that could have lived to his supposed standards at all times, another thing I've noticed is that the bible attempts to set unacheivable goals for its followers and the guilt from being unsuccesful at living strictly by them binds tham to the cult.

Just my opinion of course.

I've never felt the presence of a benevolent higher power, where does this tie in with him wanting his followers to give worship to him?

What would be the point?

So contrary to what many christians believe you do not say he is a loving god, or at the least say he is not omnscience?

Do you take it as literal?

I would need to know your answer to the question of whether or not you belive god is omnisciencent to ask you about the free will that was supposedly given to us by god, the follow up would go as follows;


I often here free will used as an excuse to justify gods non action in aliviating the torment from his followers, but if god is omnisciencent as the bible claims he is it would be a contridiction for him not to know before free will was given that people would choose to cast him aside and worship other things instead, football,boxing,sex with numerous partners and so on and so on.

Minds eye and imagination are often said to be one in the same...

That sounds like an incrediable story would you like to give a few details as to what emotions and physically what you were doing when it happened?

I guess reading the bible, but were you on a mountain top or something?

How do you interpret that passage?

I am your God, and I want you to take off your pants and sit on the garden hose in the front yard so all the neihborhood kids can see.

Also wear a chefs hat on your head and hold a loaf of italian bread as you earn my atonement

Sorry couldn't resist...

 

For my own part, I do not and would not take comfort in a story. Jesus set forth a practice for peaceful and abundant being. It is the practice that demonstrates that the words are true.

 

I think I'd agree with that. I tend to be a pragmatist, and I think so was Jesus. He gave us a simple test to tell the false prophets from the real mcCoy: By their fruits you will know them. If people claim to be following Jesus but are bearing bitter fruit, as so many are, I tend to think they're off base. A true Christian's conduct is the best witness of the truth of Christianity, and if more people would actually live their lives according to His teachings and example, the world would be a better place.

 

No it does not, just because people may choose to listen and heed Dr. Phils redundent folky advice does not mean that the things he says are true.

Same goes for Buhda, Mohamad, Cthullu, Jesus and Bewolfe.

 

It depends on whether or not they work.

 

Before getting into your new questions, I'd like to address one I didn't get to in my previous post:
"So with your belief in god you beleive that you actually have a deeper sense of understanding than of someone who simply would say the earthquake was caused by our planets cooling crust and the fissures that dot it's landscape, and that the people who have died did so because of the stretch of land and the buildings they inhabbited?"

No. My belief in God gives me no understanding at all of science or scientists. I don't believe religion has anything to do with science, history or an understanding of natural phenomena. I'd turn to science and scientists for that. Religion is about meaning and morality, things that are outside the province of science. I think religious truth has to be consistent with science, and if it isn't, the religious doctrines need to go or be modified. I'm currently embroiled in a discussion in the Christian "Sanctuary" on this subject, where some of the posters still cling to the Bronze Age view that the earth was created in 4,000 B.C. and are willing to dismiss whole fields of science to defend their position. It amazes me that such ideas can survive and frightens me that they may be spreading.

 

I should have taken Truman's approach. he never answered iffy questions. What you were asking is what I'd be like if you took away the core values and beliefs that I've held most of my life. I suspect I'd be different--how different is impossible to say.

No. I believe the Bible is the words of men in quest of God.

The short answer is: I use my best judgment. I spend a good deal of every day reading and thinking about this, and I draw on my experience, the best evidence available, and intuitive risk-taking. That's my answer to secularists. Privately, I'd add the Inner Light, an approach which is associated with Quakers.

The thought that I was a loser and misfit or the thought that Jesus looked after losers and misfits? The former came from my experiences of rejection by peers. The latter came from reading the Bible. And yes, I did attend church regularly and still do.

No, I don't believe the KJV or any other version of the New Testament is a literal account of Jesus' life. Like other Progressive Christians, I believe in the historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible. As Marcus Borg put it: "The Bible should be taken seriously, but not literally."

I believe it's likely that Jesus was a real person and that he was crucified by the Romans, although the evidence is sparse and debatable. I believe that he was a righteous hippie who preached unconditional, non-judgmental love for everyone, including society's outcasts. I tend to accept Crossan's view that Jesus was an itinerant Galilean Jewish peasant rabbi, faith healer, exorcist, social prophet and Cynic of exceptional charisma who challenged established social conventions. I also agree with Ehrman that Jesus was a "spirit person" with "vivid and frequent subjective experiences of another level or dimension of reality". And I tend to give credence to what has become a minority position that Jesus was an eschatological prophet who preached the coming of the Kingdom of God as an event that was happening in His own lifetime, although I share the view of the "Gnostic" gospel of Thomas that this was not a future political event but a matter of enlightenment concerning a situation that is "spread out everywhere around us, and people do not see it."

Actually, I think this is more true of Catholic doctrine than for Protestants who tend to emphasize Paul's doctrine of justification through faith alone rather than works. By accepting Jesus as our personal savior, we are relieved of that guilt. The downside of that is that the emphasis is shifted to proper belief. I tend to agree with Marcus Borg that faith is better understood as fidelity to Jesus' example and core teaching of the agape principle than in believing unbelievable doctrines.

Excellent question. I've argued elsewhere on the subject of prayer that worship is for our own benefit, not God's.

I've been influenced by Protestant theologian Charles Hartshorne's book Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Omnipotence doesn't mean being able to do logically impossible things, like making black whiteness. And it is therefore possible for a deity to limit His own powers without ceasing to be omnipotent. In granting free will to humans, God has chosen to limit his powers to control their behavior. And if He does that, he thereby limits His ability to know what they're going to do. He continues to be omnipotent and omniscient in being able to do as much as could possibly be done, or to know as much as could possibly be known. But He has self-imposed limits on what is possible.

I think I've answered this in my previous response. God didn't know, because of the self-imposed limited predictability inherent in his grant of free will.


That's all for tonight!

... [/Quote]

 

Have you taken up the practice? If not, then you can not make a determination on the matter that would be superior to mine, because as i say, it is the practice that shows you the words are true.

 

I consider myself different from an agnostic in that I'm willing to take a chance and commit my life to God on the basis of what I consider to be the available evidence, while remaining open to new evidence and argument. That's what I call faith.

I take special comfort in the Jesus story: a Jewish Hippie Radical hanging out with lowlifes, sticking it to the Man, looking out for the poor and outcasts--that's my man!

Minds eye also involves interpretation and perspective. I could look at a person from a strictly scientific perspective as say "balding obese male with some missing teeth and body odor picking his nose in the WalMart checking line" or I could look at him as the image and likeness of God (at the risk of insulting God). Admittedly, the latter course does require a lot of imagination, but I have faith that every human has positive qualities and that it's useful to be aware of them. To use religious language, everyone reflects an aspect of God. Sometimes, the positive qualities are so eclipsed by the negative that it might seem obscene to notice them. Are we to get all warm and fuzzy about the art loving qualities of Nero or Hitler, or the fact that Himmler was a dog lover? But they make us aware of a potential gone terribly unfulfilled as a result of bad life choices. I think of the negatives as illusions, in the Buddhist sense; not that they don't exist but that they are out of touch with spiritual reality.

No, I was sitting in a chair doing paperwork. I wasn't reading the Bible. The words came to mind and took on a meaning I never noticed before. And I experienced what the Freudians would call a "shock of recognition". The "pink cloud" (we're talking figuratively here) lasted for several days, and I had the sense of being a new person. I haven't been the same since. So was this a moment of clarity, an experience of the numinous, a psychotic break, or what? I don't know for sure, but I think I've been a happier, better person for it.

I interpret it to mean that every person reflects an aspect of God. God is a spiritual entity, so they would reflect spiritual qualities of divinity. This isn't a statement that can be proven or disproven. It's an attitude that effects how I view the world around me and relate to other people. As often say, Hell is a bad attitude, while Heaven is everywhere around us if we look for it.

Hey, man. Just because you reflect an aspect of God doesn't mean you are God and I have to drop trou for you!

 

Many people live happy non violent non psychotic lives without needing to find morality in a book, it seems odd to me when people say that the bible or koran is the center to their ability to live a moral life, most people seem to be born with an innate sense of right and wrong.

Men are falliable, wwhats to say the entire book is either a misunderstanding of the events around them at the time or an outright scam?

How could a man write about the beggining of time in a way that is supposedly litteral or no the mind of god to a point that they could no his wishes?

So you simply choose what fits into your world view and toss the rest out the window?

Do you believe that the passages of the bible you choose to consider salient were put there specifically with you in mind?

So you take John 1-9 to be literal?

The thought that you were a loser / misfit was what I was reffering to.

So loneliness turned you to the good book, and a chance to become art of a larger group without the chance of alienation or as long as you believed as they did judgement?

What do you believe the metaphores in the bible are based from, or are they just farications used to set an example?

How convenient, this way nothing said in the bible can be fallsified because it litteraly could mean anything at all, seems to take away any authority the book may have had however.

If you admit that the evidence for his life is sparce why throw your vote in with him being an actual historical figure as opposed to a metaphorical amalgamation of everyones best friend / hero of all mankind?

Which sounds more plausable?

Sounds like you would like Jesus to be more like what you would want to see yourself as.

You take the miracles performed by him as literal?

You believe he chased demons into a herd of swine and drove them off a cliff?

Mst people are, although not all go about telling those that will liten to them that they themselves are a product of a virgin mother and a force so great it made existence.

I agree with this, take no thought for the marrow becuase soon this veil of tears will be gone and in death you will find eternal happiness, can't get more cynical than that, maybe leader of death cult could be stapled to his resume as well?

Are we talking have tangable half intangiable

Why did it not help him make accurate predictions?

Incorrectly I might add.

Omniscience was what my point was, if I wrote something else it was a mistake, an omniscient being could not "hide" outcomes from himself and remain omniscient I often talk with people who would like to have it both ways as a means to square the circle of there faith.

Incorrect.

Omniscience is not being able to know what is possable to know, it is knowing everything, if a god was to choose to block out his ability to know even one certain thing then by definition he can no longer be omniscient.

If ther are limits self imposed or otherwise the being in question would not meet the criteria for being omniscient or omnipotent.

Again, using free will as the reason for suffering in the world and imacipating the supposed creator by saying that he chooses not know of the sufferings of it's people.

All to attempt to explain the simple question of why do bad things happen to good people, which it clearly fails to do.

 

And many people don't. I think that whether or not a person is happy, non-violent and non-psychotic depends more on nature-nurture than what they read. But the Bible and the Qur'an can be helpful (or harmful) in refining and guiding their thinking. I lived for awhile with Muslim Berbers in the Sahara and was struck not only by the extent to which Islam permeated their thinking, but also by the beauty of the results in their lives. But as we know, that isn't always the case, And the same can be said of Judaism and Christianity. I personally can't say that the Bible, as a whole, is the center of my ability to lead a moral life, and I know atheists who are at least as moral as I am. But I still see the value of reading and taking courses on ethics and moral philosophy in deepening our understanding of these important aspects of our lives. And I imagine atheists and agnostics experience inner moral doubts, conflicts, and dark nights of the soul like I do, and hopefully have something to turn to to get them through these challenges.

Again, its a question of looking at the evidence an using good judgment. There are certain parts of the Bible that strike me as quite similar to Greek mythology, the Illiad, the Arthurian legends, etc., and anyone who takes these literally is messed up and missing the point. The Bible, which Southern Baptists say is inerrant is, in my opinion, riddled with errors and inconsistencies from start to finish. But I think both the Old and New Testaments are full of profound moral meaning that become richer on each reading and return to me when I'm going off course.

They couldn't. As early as the third century, Origen, one of the church fathers, pointed out the problems of taking the Genesis creation story literally, and even Saint Augustine cautioned against doing so for fear people would think Christians were dumbasses. The literal stuff is mostly U.S., especially Southern style American gothic.



TBC

 

I would argue that no moral code is needed and no universal "morality" is possible. However your statement regarding "most people", relies on far too random a sampling. Everyone is born with the same desire for their own good.
Right and wrong are relative then to that model of good.

If you understand it, if it corresponds to the objective nature of the world, dilemma solved.

Men can write and men can have suppositions. In my understanding, reality,(god), has no need for wishes.

I've read descriptions of the life cycles of aquatic insects. In turn, I've gone into the field and witnessed the phenomena that were described. This is how I regard the bible. The bible describes phenomena in the lives of men and of the world.

There is nothing uncommon to man.

Embodied sensation.

Once it leaves the authors hand, the substance of any book is produced by the reader.

For my own part it matters not that he was an actual historical figure. The whole teaching was choreographed by many players. The whole of humanity could assume any face in the bible and the meaning would be unchanged.
As you do unto the least, you do also to me.

Hope you don't mind me addressing these questions. I'll look at the rest in a moment.

 

Not at all. I spend a lot of time reading and thinking, especially the arguments and debates by leading Bible scholars. I draw on this, my personal experience, my reason and intuition, the best evidence at hand, and the Inner Light to decide what to believe, subject to revision based upon new evidence.

Of course not, unless "you" can be interpreted to include me among many generations of others.

I'm puzzled by the citation. Do you mean John 1: 9, John 1: 1-9, or what. In any case, No. I take it to be hyperbole.

No, I think loneliness gave me empathy for others, and an appreciation of Jesus' message. I never have been much of a groupie.

I think some, especially the first five books of the OT, are loosely based on history and serve as the legitimating myth of the Israelites. Others are based on moral truths and human nature.

Here again, I don't think the Bible can mean "anything at all". Figuring out what it means takes good judgment, and lots of reading and reflection.

Whether or not the historical Jesus existed isn't crucial to my faith. I think there's as much evidence for his existence as there is for a couple of my other role models, the Buddha and Socrates. I vote for Jesus because his message comes across as real.

Sure. Jesus is my role model.

Not the nature miracles. The exorcisms and healings can be explained in hysteric or psychosomatic terms.

No.

I don't think Jesus ever claimed this, and I'm sure that he would have been surprised as anybody by the claim. Neither Paul nor Mark, the author of the First Gospel, seems to be aware of it. It's reasonable to conclude that it's a belief that developed later.

 

You didn't notice the caps for Cynic. I was referring to a particular philosophy and movement in the Mediterranean world still around at the time of Jesus that is most accurately compared to hippies.

According to Borg, "spirit person" describes a cross-cultural category of people "who have vivid and frequent subjective experiences of another level or dimension of reality." They would be all tangible.

Why would it?

I beg to differ. The Kingdom is spread out everywhere upon the earth, but many people don't see it.

That's where you and many theologians disagree. It's a matter of semantics.

Shit happens!

 

The problem with god/s is not that there is no answer. It's that there are too many answers.

 

I am your God, and I want you to take off your pants and sit on the garden hose in the front yard so all the neihborhood kids can see.

Also wear a chefs hat on your head and hold a loaf of italian bread as you earn my atonement

Sorry couldn't resist...


That's very funny Rude. Probably best to also include "Take no thought for the morrow". Its a pity the deity of the fundies did not dispense such advice. That probably would be an improvement. May be you should take over.

 

Well I agree with the progressive side but not the metaphysics. Can they be separated. Liberals and progressives have certainly functioned with out the metaphysics for hundreds of years. May the two cannot be separated that easily. As Nietzsche said at one point once the belief in the Christian God is out of the picture the rest collapses or should collapse at least intellectually.

ideologies are just masks, to be believed by some, and utilized by others.

 

By saying that liberals and progressives have "functioned' without the metaphysics, what do you mean? People have gotten by for millenia with all sorts of beliefs--if by that, you mean they can go about their daily lives, are productive citizens, pay their taxes, and enjoy fun times. Can they get by without any metaphyisics? That's debatable. My experience is that those who claim to do so, often have an unacknowledged belief system based on naturalism, science and humanism; or else are hedonists. I don't think people can function well without a sense of higher meaninng beyond the day-to-day ratrace--at least I couldn't. Could a person be progressive without having some basis for believing social justice is important? I doubt it. Does that basis have to be Christianity or some other religion? I don't think so.

Metaphysics, by definition, is an interpretation of facts that goes beyond refutable propostions. For example, is the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe better explained by intelligent design or blind events in parallel universes? At present, we can't say for sure, and I doubt we'll ever be able to say for sure in my lifetime. We can use reasonable rules of thumb, like Occam's razor, but it comes down to an educated bet, involving an interplay among reason, personal experience, intuition, cognitive patterns, and yes, needs and wants. The best we can do is keep an open, critical mind, but I'd say if it works for you, and is consistent with reason and evidence, it's the truth you're entitled to act upon.

I think that's true, but ideology gets into a whole other can of worms. I think of ideology as an elaborate system of beliefs, values and doctrines, usually group shared. I'm generally leary of ideologies, and think they need to be kept on a short leash and critically evaluated. "I'm a Chrsitian, so I must believer x,y & z". I don't think so. Lots of ideologies are toxic, especially in the area of religion. To tell the good ones from the harmful ones, look at their effects on believers and the people around them.

 

Everything is an idea.