Theology

[gkIrish]

I am not at l saying that life cannot be hard. I think that 1) it's awfully strange that a god would make such a huge portion of his people succumb to smallpox and, regardless, not ever know of Jesus. How many hundreds of millions of people lived their entire lives in India, China, the Americas, etc without ever hearing about anything other than a polytheistic religion? And we're in the Bible's history of earth do these people part ways with the original Adam and Family? 2) How do I even have the option to reject Jesus if I've never heard of him? Just a crappy promotional job on the part of Jesus and God. It's just so highly illogical.


Then there's the question of why people are born disabled, retarded, or with mental illness. All I ever hear in return is "God doesn't give us obstacles we can't overcome!" To which I wonder, why do people kill themselves then?

Playing Devil's advocate here (pun intended?) but when has the church ever said all the people who weren't exposed to Christianity are in hell now? If that's what you're saying...

 

[gkIrish]

Haha you are referring to Pascal's Wager.


Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's an old and venerable theory. Your principal didn't make it up.


I'm glad you brought that up though. I spent a lot of time in my youth puzzling over theology, but at this point I tend to take sort of a practical view of it. Does our religion make sense? No. Is the world better off for 2000 years of Christianity? Mostly. True, terrible, terrible things have been done in the name of the Christian religion, but the general philosophy of loving your neighbor leads to a world I want to live in. The rest is mostly details and I don't really worry about it any more. I do worry about the teachings of many Christians that cut against the great commandment, leading to presumptuous judgment and self-righteousness and small-mindedness. But I think the system is worth saving, and the only way to save it is from within. So I will jump through a few dogmatic hoops from time to time.

My mind is kind of blown. I had never heard of Pascal's wager before...It's actually very logical and hard to argue against. Should be the starting point of any theological discussion.

 

[dshans]

... Each council in turn ends up being a reputation of heretical sects.

I'd just as soon not touch this thread with a 10 foot crucifix, but (as most know) I have a grammar "thing." It may be unhealthy and exorcism-worthy, but I am, when all is said and done, a child of god. Or maybe a spawn of the devil. Either way ...

I may be wrong, but by context I think you meant refutation, not reputation.

 

[Rack Em]

Where's Rack em???????

Or Jason Pham for that matter. IIRC both are very knowledgeable on the subject.

I lurk...

 

[IrishLion]

Playing Devil's advocate here (pun intended?) but when has the church ever said all the people who weren't exposed to Christianity are in hell now? If that's what you're saying...

This reminds me of a post I saw on Facebook of all places.

It was something like, a Christian decided to take a trip and spread the Word to isolated communities around the world, and how they should seek salvation. One man asked, "what if we didn't know about God and the devil and you never came here?"

The Christian replies, "then if you aren't aware of sin I guess you can't sin in the first place."

So the man replies, "Then why do you teach us?"

 

[IrishLion]

My mind is kind of blown. I had never heard of Pascal's wager before...It's actually very logical and hard to argue against. Should be the starting point of any theological discussion.

That's my issue with it though! It seems like a cop-out to religious belief. It doesn't seem in the spirit of truly "Believing."

Belief should come from understanding, and wishing to be a better human, and ultimately trying to achieve salvation through leading a good life.

I don't think Belief should come from "I guess I'll go to Church in case the Christians are right."

(Which also reminds me of the South Park episode or movie where everyone goes to hell and they ask Satan who had it right, and he says "it was actually the Mormons. The Mormons had it right.")

 

[Irishman77]

For me to believe in a religion, I either have to understand it or trust the entity that is promoting it. I do not understand Christianity, and I certainly do not trust the Church. The history of the Catholic Church is contemptible. All you need to know about is Martin Luther and the whole story comes crashing down. The guy was a Catholic Priest who wanted the members of his Parish to have a closer relationship with God, and that ultimately lead to his excommunication. His biggest transgression was... translating the Bible from Latin to German? WHAT THE FUCK?

Consider for a moment that back in Martin Luther's day only like 5% of people could read, and only a fraction of those people could read Latin. That is fascinating to me. Here's a situation where 19/20 people have to listen to your sermon and take your word for it--but wait, your sermon and whatnot is in a dead language (Latin) and they can't understand any of it! (Side story: Here are these serfs (read: slaves) working the land for the 1%, and they start to complain that other Dukes/Counts/etc are willing to pay them more for their service and the Catholic Church comes in and says "Ohhh no no, God brought you into this word as a serf at X castle and here are XYZ passages that back this up. It is now illegal for you to switch bosses." That is disturbing!)

So anyway people like Martin Luther start saying that people should be able to read the Bible and have their own relationship with God (basically the fundamentals of Protestantism) and as soon as the Church got word they would kill them! One after another. Those crazy heretics and their wanting to know more about God!

The printing press changed all of that and allowed Martin Luther to get his message out faster than the Catholic Church can put it out, and once he had German political backing (they were pissed at the Pope for living like a, well, Roman Emperor...which he basically was) he was safe and the rest is history. If the Catholic Church is God's Church, stuff like that doesn't happen. Nor does the Spanish Inquisition, etc etc etc. There are thousands of examples that I could point to but the Martin Luther was shows most clearly, for me anyway, that the Church was basically enslaving all of Europe.

Just stumbled on this thread. I plan to answer the questions and contribute when work is done...

However this link may enlighten those with the above concerns.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GNZ-sOzXWEk&desktop_uri=/watch?v=GNZ-sOzXWEk

 

[IrishGlory]

Question #1- Is there a God? (A question of origin)- Yes

Question #2- Is the Bible reliable? (That is historically) Absolutely, the Bible is the infalliable word of God. Historical proof has been found by archeologists to support many of the truths of the Bible. Also, the fact that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of the Old Testiment is a mathimatical certainty. I've heard it's been said that the probability of Him fulfilling all of them is something like 1 in 1x(with 100 zero's after it). Also, Isaiah 53 talks about his crucifixion long before the practice was even created. I'm no theologian, but the proof is overwhelming.

Question #3- Who is Jesus? (Real person? Fairy tale?) Jesus was the Son of God, who took on human flesh to redeem every lost soul and to reconcile the relationship between sinful man and a perfect, sinless, and righteous God. He was part of the Trinity which is almost impossible to comprehend, which is the way He designed it to be (thus the need for belief...or faith). The best way to decribe the Trinity is the same properties as water. It can exist in 3 states (solid, liquid, or gas) yet it is the one in the same. It's really not up to us to be able to explain it.

In short, I believe every word of the Bible, even if I don't understand everything in it. Do I believe that Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a large fish? Yes, even though I don't understand it. Do I believe that God parted the Red Sea to save His chosen people of Isreal? Yes, even though I don't understand it all. Do I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, lived a sinless life, was beaten and crucified for the sins of all men, only to be resurrected on the third day to overcome death? Yes, even if I don't understand how He did it. The fact is, that is what faith is all about. Do I still have questions? Yes. But I don't lable or think that a verse, chapter, book, etc. is untrue or irrelivant simply because I don't understand it all or have questions. I do not dismiss Scripute that conflicts with what my heart says (conviction) just so that I don't have to face the truth of their meaning. Misinterpretation of the Bible can be and is one of the biggest errors of anyone who reads/shares it. The Scriptures need to be taken into context and dissected to discover the one true meaning. This is done in many different ways. For instance, you always hear people say "money is the root of all evil", which is not true. This is taking the verse out of context and is not complete in and of itself. When you study this verse in 1 Timothy, you can dissect the meaning of these words in the context of the entire chapter to gain a better understand the meaning.

 

[gkIrish]

That's my issue with it though! It seems like a cop-out to religious belief. It doesn't seem in the spirit of truly "Believing."

Belief should come from understanding, and wishing to be a better human, and ultimately trying to achieve salvation through leading a good life.

I don't think Belief should come from "I guess I'll go to Church in case the Christians are right."

(Which also reminds me of the South Park episode or movie where everyone goes to hell and they ask Satan who had it right, and he says "it was actually the Mormons. The Mormons had it right.")

Q: Why do you believe in God?

A: Well first, what do I have to lose?

I don't envision it as the end-all-be-all of the discussion. But I think it's a great way to start off a conversation with a non-believer to show that you are logical and not just a blind follower.

 

[greyhammer90]

My mind is kind of blown. I had never heard of Pascal's wager before...It's actually very logical and hard to argue against. Should be the starting point of any theological discussion.

Not really hard to argue against from a Christian perspective. If Pascal's wager is true I should always bet on the religion throughout all of history with the scariest or most vengeful god. Because that's the one I want to piss off the least. I'd rather piss off the Christian god than Cthulhu (or any imaginary being that likes to torture souls), so I should worship him. Because that way I'm risking less with my soul.

 

[greyhammer90]

Q: Why do you believe in God?

A: Well first, what do I have to lose?

I don't envision it as the end-all-be-all of the discussion. But I think it's a great way to start off a conversation with a non-believer to show that you are logical and not just a blind follower.

Text your Mom or Wife right now that "greyhammer says hi" or they'll die by my hand in the next 30 minutes. I'm a wizard.

Why didn't you do it? What's the least risky thing you could do? It's just a text message versus potentially losing a loved one. That kind of logic is why "spooky" chain emails get around.

 

[gkIrish]

Not really hard to argue against from a Christian perspective. If Pascal's wager is true I should always bet on the religion throughout all of history with the scariest or most vengeful god. Because that's the one I want to piss off the least. I'd rather piss off the Christian god than Cthulhu (or any imaginary being that likes to torture souls), so I should worship him. Because that way I'm risking less with my soul.

Good point. My counter-point is that I should believe in the God with the most followers, which would be Christianity. Assuming there is an equal distribution of intelligence among the population, the religion with the most followers has the greatest chance of being "right."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Atheist or religious, you are either placing your faith in a god creating matter or matter existing permanently.

That's a great point, Buster. Both theists and materialists come to their beliefs dogmatically.

We simply don't know, and there is nothing wrong with that. May I present Buster's Razor: It's possible for a god to exist and for a religion to properly explain the truth of the universe, but that religion does not currently exist.

I suspect by "properly explain the truth of the universe", you mean an empirical explanation for something that is, by definition, supernatural. You've set an impossible standard for any religion to meet.

The Bible is not reliable historically or morally; it's nothing short of repulsive. In Mark Twain's words, "It's not the parts of the bible I don't understand that scare me, it's the parts I do."

See OMM's post on the 1st page about the Bible containing many different types of literature; it's not a history book. And just because a particular document was canonized by the early Church as conveying consistent theological truths does not mean that every practice or act described therein is considered deemed morally acceptable.

If a god wrote the bible, then he condones slavery, women being second-class citizens, incest, arraigned marriages, racism, xenophobia, murdering your children, etc etc etc. The god of the Old Testament is a piece of shit. To convince the Pharaoh to release the Jews...he kills the first-born of every family in the empire? WUT. Sounds like a keeper.

The Christian view is that: (1) humanity exists in a fallen state; and (2) salvation history is full of examples of God meeting us in our brokenness. Perhaps the Jews of 2000 BCE were not ready for Jesus' revolutionary philosophy? In any case, the disparity in "tone" can easily be explained by differences in authorship, audience, and genre. Also, most Christians aren't required to believe that the Old Testament miracles actually happened. Like the New Atheists, you seem to be arguing against a caricature of Christianity (based largely on fundamentalist Evangelicals) rather than the actual tenets of the faith.

Jesus may have been a real person, and a fantastic pacifist, but he wasn't god. I find his entire life to be rather illogical, and laughably inefficient. To prove to people that he is the son of god, he's going to cure a few fellows of a disease and perform some miracles... and then ask you to tell all of your friends. WHAT? He shows up in Saul's dream and converts him to Christianity and now-Paul tells people they need to convert Gentiles too? Seems like there is an easier way to show everyone "the way."

So because God's chosen methods of revelation strike you as inefficient, you deem it improbable? I don't really follow your logic there. Natural selection is easily one of the least efficient processes found in nature. Should Darwin have tossed out his theory because it involved staggering inefficiency?

Here's an idea: show up in everyone's dream, simultaneously, with the same message. Then it's undeniable.

And thereby destroy free will, which completely unravels the entire purpose of God's creation. On the Christian view, God is love. He's also a society unto himself (the Trinity), and he wishes to expand that society. So he created humanity and gave us the means to enter into that society. But just as we all recognize that a confession offered under duress is tainted, so too would our "choosing" of God be trivialized if he showed up in person and demanded worship in exchange for eternal happiness (or on the threat of damnation).

I can remember asking a priest in sixth grade, after 9/11 happened and they explained to us that Muslims actually have a very high opinion of Jesus (to try and mitigate the xenophobia), "Soooo...they think Jesus was lying about being the Messiah and was just a prophet? Why would a prophet lie and why would you have such a high opinion of a liar?" And he gave me a pretty crappy answer of "History = his story. They lied on that one.." But in Eighth Grade I transferred to the nonreligious Maumee Valley Country Day and had Muslim classmates and I asked them the same question and they said "The apostles and such took Jesus' message of pacifism and drastically altered it. He didn't mean that he was THE son of God, but that we are all God's children and should be peaceful." That blew my brain for a while, and sure enough the Christians in the first few centuries didn't have their message together AT ALL. It took until ~325 AD, and a Roman emperor demanding it, for some of them to settle on the idea that Jesus was indeed the one and only son of God and that all other beliefs are blasphemy and should be killed... (how Jesus-like).

Even with all the Balkanization that has occurred since the Reformation (there are currently ~30k denominations of Christianity), the vast majority of Christians are trinitarian. There's a massive amount of scholarship on this subject that I don't have the time or ability to adequately summarize here. Needless to say, the predominance of trinitarianism is not simply an historical accident, and you have an extremely uncharitable and inaccurate view of the process the early Church went through in formulating the current doctrine.

For me to believe in a religion, I either have to understand it or trust the entity that is promoting it. I do not understand Christianity, and I certainly do not trust the Church. The history of the Catholic Church is contemptible. All you need to know about is Martin Luther and the whole story comes crashing down. The guy was a Catholic Priest who wanted the members of his Parish to have a closer relationship with God, and that ultimately lead to his excommunication. His biggest transgression was... translating the Bible from Latin to German? WHAT THE FUCK?

Consider for a moment that back in Martin Luther's day only like 5% of people could read, and only a fraction of those people could read Latin. That is fascinating to me. Here's a situation where 19/20 people have to listen to your sermon and take your word for it--but wait, your sermon and whatnot is in a dead language (Latin) and they can't understand any of it! (Side story: Here are these serfs (read: slaves) working the land for the 1%, and they start to complain that other Dukes/Counts/etc are willing to pay them more for their service and the Catholic Church comes in and says "Ohhh no no, God brought you into this word as a serf at X castle and here are XYZ passages that back this up. It is now illegal for you to switch bosses." That is disturbing!)

So anyway people like Martin Luther start saying that people should be able to read the Bible and have their own relationship with God (basically the fundamentals of Protestantism) and as soon as the Church got word they would kill them! One after another. Those crazy heretics and their wanting to know more about God!

The printing press changed all of that and allowed Martin Luther to get his message out faster than the Catholic Church can put it out, and once he had German political backing (they were pissed at the Pope for living like a, well, Roman Emperor...which he basically was) he was safe and the rest is history.

Again, this is a caricature of the real history of the Reformation. It's probably safe to assume that you take a rather dim view of those who believe the Bible to be literally true in every respect, no? Martin Luther is the ideological fore-bearer of every such person today.

If the Catholic Church is God's Church, stuff like that doesn't happen. Nor does the Spanish Inquisition, etc etc etc. There are thousands of examples that I could point to but the Martin Luther was shows most clearly, for me anyway, that the Church was basically enslaving all of Europe.

Here's a quote from CS Lewis that addresses this sentiment pretty nicely:

“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.

That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

Another point for discussion: the Devil.

My Jewish friends tell me that their Devil isn't even remotely close to the Christian one, nor is their view of heaven. Ummm, red flags there--how can our story be true if the religion were built on never had any of that??? There simply is no Satan or Lucifer battling against God.

Yes. In the Old Testament, "Satan" is frequently translated as "The Accuser". He's basically an archangel who serves God as a prosecuting attorney; he tempts the Jews to see if they're worthy. There's much more along those lines; for instance, the Hebrew understanding of the afterlife and the "underworld" are vastly different from Christian dogma.

I'm not sure why you think this is a deal breaker. Similar to the process of scientific peer review, learned men in the field have adjusted Christian doctrine as our understanding has improved. And in any case, the nature of Satan isn't of primary importance in Christian doctrine (note that he isn't mentioned in the Nicene Creed).

If Original Sin created sin, how did the devil know about the fruit? He's a "fallen angel?" What the hell is that and where is that in the Bible? IF God is all powerful, couldn't he destroy the Devil at any time? Isn't the Devil akin to a rabid dog who wants to devour any person he can get his teeth on, and God akin to the lazy deadbeat dog owner who lets the wild beast get out of his yard? If I let a wild dog loose and it hurts someone, I am responsible. God is responsible for everything the Devil does, he created him and allows him to function. It's a pretty stupid story all things considered. The devil isn't tempting you, od is via th devil because ggod is a relentless egomaniac.

Sin is the result of free will. Whether the Fall was inevitable is a point of contention among theologians (I personally think it was), but it's simply part of our nature. Love must be given freely; it cannot be commanded. In order for us to love God, there must be an alternative choice. That choice is self (and sin).

God could destroy Satan at any time, but he apparently chooses not to for the same reason that he doesn't simply obliterate the souls of humans who spurn him; like us, angels are gods with their own free will. And to address your dog analogy, if you have a son someday, Buster, and that child chooses to commit atrocities when he grows up, should you be held responsible for that?

If God has a plan, what the hell is the point of praying for things? That seems pretty silly to me. It'll happen regardless of whether your pray or not.

If it works: "God has answered our prayers!"

If it doesn't "Oooh, mysterious! What does it mean? Let's pray on it..."

Knowledgeable people should respond to me with something along the lines of that it's not asking God for things per se but time spent to better understand him...or whatever. But the loooooong history of prayer for things like a good harvest, a drought to end, to win a war, etc etc has lead to some twisted things, like sacrifice. Religion must inherit those flaws.

Again, this gets back to free will. Humans can take an active role in salvation history through prayer; by joining their will to God's, He is able to take a more active role in their lives and to begin transforming them into the gods they were created to be. God doesn't simply do things to people without their permission (see: the Annunciation, where Gabriel is sent to procure Mary's consent prior to Jesus' conception), because doing so would frustrate the purpose of that individual's creation.

But prayer needs to be understood in the context of that purpose as well; the name of the game isn't to secure material comfort or security in this fallen world. It's to prepare our selves for the next world, the one for which we are intended. So praying for a good harvest, for health, for your favorite team to win a football game, etc. is sort of missing the point.

[Continued in another post due to Internal Server Error]

 

[greyhammer90]

Good point. My counter-point is that I should believe in the God with the most followers, which would be Christianity. Assuming there is an equal distribution of intelligence among the population, the religion with the most followers has the greatest chance of being "right."

If you want to begin a discussion with a logical person to prove that your faith is logical, and you ask him to assume something that is not true, you won't get very far.

 

[ACamp1900]

When I first saw this thread I thought, "Who thought this was a good idea!? Not going to end well." Glad to see otherwise thus far.

In this thread I basically agree with what OMM wrote, which in and of itself is proof there is a God and he performs miracles.

The one that strikes me is the second question. Perspective is needed here. First, we are not talking about one author, one timeframe, and one book. It varies in authorship, timeframe and design, so it is hard to take some of it as historical as that was not the overall intent. Second, in terms of ancient texts, if you can dig up just ONE contemporary, or close, outside source to back up even part of an ancient text, modern historians tend to take that as pretty iron clad. Finding ANY source to back up ANY ancient text is very difficult and at times impossible. The Bible, especially a number of books in the New Testament, when it comes to history, have multiple outside sources that speak to the same events, people, locations etc. Certain books in The Bible are easily among the most historically certifiable from all of ancient history.

 

[gkIrish]

Text your Mom or Wife right now that "greyhammer says hi" or they'll die by my hand in the next 30 minutes. I'm a wizard.

Why didn't you do it? What's the least risky thing you could do? It's just a text message versus potentially losing a loved one. That kind of logic is why "spooky" chain emails get around.

1. Pascal's wager is very new to me but I was impressed upon my initial read-through of the Wikipedia article. So all of the shit I'm saying hasn't been thought out that much. Just what's popping in my head right now.

2. In your example above, I need to weigh the effort it takes to make the text versus the likelihood of you being an actual wizard. Considering I've never seen evidence of real wizards in real life, the text is not worth the effort. That being said, I don't get texts like that, ever, so I might think it's worthwhile to text my mom on the off-chance that you are a wizard.

3. Another difference between your example and believing in God is that there is complete uncertainty about what happens after you die. No one knows. But I do know that there aren't any wizards, or at least I can be pretty sure.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Why didn't Jesus tell his crew "hey guys, here is a map of the world. This will help spread the word that I apparently cannot. Keep in mind the THREE CONTINENTS THAT YOU DON'T CURRENTLY KNOW ABOUT, THOSE ARE KEY!." But nope he didn't do that. In fact, he didn't even go see the Native Americans and preach to them that he was their Messiah too (Well, unless you're Mormon...). Actually, wait, I can understand not preaching to them if for whatever reasons he wants the apostles and their descendents to do it. But at the very least couldn't he make them resistant to smallpox so when the Christians get there they don't die by the tens of millions simply for coming in contact with European Christians? Seems like a pretty stupid way to go about spreading the word of god...

Again with this efficiency argument. Christianity went from an obscure Middle Eastern sect to the dominant religion in the Western world within a very brief historical window (which is pretty remarkable any way you slice it). But it was spread by actual fallible people, and not by an army of angels (because, ya know, free will), which accounts for the "inefficiencies".

 

[GowerND11]

1. I like to believe there is a God upstairs. Whether it is God as we see "Him" or a god or a being. I subscribe to the Big Bang Theory and what comes before that is what really fascinates me in regards to God.

2. There are historical truths within the Bible, but I can't say I believe everything has fact. Like others said I have a hard time seeing Noah fitting two of every animal on Earth on an ark and setting sail. How would he have gotten the animals from the Americas? or Australia? Let alone the massive amounts of animals just in the Middle East. Where the Bible talks about the Hebrew kingdom and such it provides great context for the "world" at the time. Other peoples, locations, rulers, armies, etc.

3. Jesus was a man. We know this. He did exist. Was he Son of God? I do not know. I tend to think he was as a Catholic, though I do not believe 100% through the Catholic Church. One thing I do enjoy is that we all can form our own beliefs and have this discussion.

As others have mentioned how can there be just one right way? I tend to believe we are all right in our own ways. I feel that the belief system in which you adhere to is the right way for you. If someone is Jewish and I am Catholic why should I, or (s)he be right and the other doomed to Hell. If you find a religion, or lack of one, that fits then you are right.

 

[gkIrish]

If you want to begin a discussion with a logical person to prove that your faith is logical, and you ask him to assume something that is not true, you won't get very far.

I don't understand. Are you saying that members of one religion are more intelligent than another? My point is this (not going to use accurate figures):

30% of the members of any one religion are "intelligent/educated, etc." and therefore more likely to be right about their God.

If there are 1,000 Christians, 800 Muslims, 700 Hindus, and 100 Jews, a greater amount of people (300 Christians) whose opinion I would trust more than someone else's believe in the Christian God. Therefore, I should be a Christian from a strictly odds/logic perspective.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Not to be a downer on your post Bogs, but a couple of issues here. If one chooses to study the Old Testament then they are missing the purpose of why Jesus came to Earth. A new covenant was formed and the old law of Moses ended. Secondly, because one ignores this fact, they miss the true essence of Jesus' message. He clearly scholds the religious scholars of the day and explains beyond reproach how we are to treat the poor.

Finally, for $29.99 you too can purchase a pretty good copy of the Bible and read it for yourself. It will be the best money you ever spent. Love ya brotha!!!

Exactly! On both points.

Yet our religious institutions are still as corrupt as always. Almost every Christian Church has had a sex related and child molestation scandal. Almost every denomination holds the one true approach dogma. And nearly everyone is about discovering the way to salvation, owning the truth, being keeper of the way. Few if any are concerned with the hard work of humbling themselves, assaulting their own ego desires, and helping others without regard to themselves or their own desires.

To relate my past post, where the talking heads interpreted Jesus' words about the new covenant, was the place where they officially gave up on the earthly reward, and started to promise a future unseen reward in heaven. Although, I understand that direct rewards are making a comeback with the Prosperity principles of much current American Christian thought. I haven't followed to closely because I don't see those people helping many out without their being something for them in it, though!

I find it interesting if you actually read my post, or have ever read them, that you think I don't own a "Bible" or several of them, or reference works, or other documents like the Sayings Gospel Q. I just find that ironic as hell.

 

[Emcee77]

When I first saw this thread I thought, "Who thought this was a good idea!? Not going to end well." Glad to see otherwise thus far.

In this thread I basically agree with what OMM wrote, which in and of itself is proof there is a God and he performs miracles.

The one that strikes me is the second question. Perspective is needed here. First, we are not talking about one author, one timeframe, and one book. It varies in authorship, timeframe and design, so it is hard to take some of it as historical as that was not the overall intent. Second, in terms of ancient texts, if you can dig up just ONE contemporary, or close, outside source to back up even part of an ancient text, modern historians tend to take that as pretty iron clad. Finding ANY source to back up ANY ancient text is very difficult and at times impossible. The Bible, especially a number of books in the New Testament, when it comes to history, have multiple outside sources that speak to the same events, people, locations etc. Certain books in The Bible are easily among the most historically certifiable from all of ancient history.

Yeah. In terms of answering the OP's three Q's I like OMM's post. I can't improve on that.

1. Pascal's wager is very new to me but I was impressed upon my initial read-through of the Wikipedia article. So all of the shit I'm saying hasn't been thought out that much. Just what's popping in my head right now.

2. In your example above, I need to weigh the effort it takes to make the text versus the likelihood of you being an actual wizard. Considering I've never seen evidence of real wizards in real life, the text is not worth the effort. That being said, I don't get texts like that, ever, so I might think it's worthwhile to text my mom on the off-chance that you are a wizard.

3. Another difference between your example and believing in God is that there is complete uncertainty about what happens after you die. No one knows. But I do know that there aren't any wizards, or at least I can be pretty sure.

I like where this is going. I was afraid this thread was going to be boring and tired back-and-forth arguments, and there has been some of that, but when wizards enter the discussion, you are going somewhere interesting.

And I had the same thought about Greyhammer's hypo. You are weighing the likelihood that he is a wizard against the the effort of the explanation you will have to give your mom or sister for telling them a message board acquaintance they don't know says hi, which will include explaining to them that you aren't crazy for doing as he says because it was just simple cost-benefit analysis. That text actually costs you quite a bit, and the likelihood that you will suffer any adverse consequences if you don't send it is nil. I think greyhammer's chain email example was better ... but not as funny, and I'm sure that was the point.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Playing Devil's advocate here (pun intended?) but when has the church ever said all the people who weren't exposed to Christianity are in hell now? If that's what you're saying...

"Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)

About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]" (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)

In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)

In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)

In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)"

Not an exact quote, but paraphrases showing the original sources with historical context to show the depth and breadth of this concept in Roman Catholicism.

 

[dshans]

Playing Devil's advocate here (pun intended?) but when has the church ever said all the people who weren't exposed to Christianity are in hell now? If that's what you're saying...

As a kid in a Catholic school, I was told by the nuns that all non-Catholics were destined to spend eternity in hell. Well, that included my Lutheran mother. Scared the shit out of me. I spent hours trying to convince her to convert. Had I been Amish – a Christian sect – I would have been obligated and compelled to "shun" her.

I came to believe, long ago, that the whole "Limbo, Purgatory, Heaven, Hell" scenario is a bullshit attempt at social engineering. What is the value of scaring kids shitless?

While not necessarily official dogma today (positions and teachings have shifted many times over the millennia) it was a "doctrine" that was taught. I think that the official "party line" when I was a kid was that heathens and others not exposed to Christianity were denied the wonders of Heaven but spared the agony of Hell by being deposited in Purgatory. Something of a holding cell betwixt and between. Admission to Purgatory as permanent status did require an unwitting compliance with the Church's Rules of the Road.

Ete Missa Est. Pax Vobiscum.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Exactly! On both points.

Yet our religious institutions are still as corrupt as always. Almost every Christian Church has had a sex related and child molestation scandal. Almost every denomination holds the one true approach dogma. And nearly everyone is about discovering the way to salvation, owning the truth, being keeper of the way. Few if any are concerned with the hard work of humbling themselves, assaulting their own ego desires, and helping others without regard to themselves or their own desires.

To relate my past post, where the talking heads interpreted Jesus' words about the new covenant, was the place where they officially gave up on the earthly reward, and started to promise a future unseen reward in heaven. Although, I understand that direct rewards are making a comeback with the Prosperity principles of much current American Christian thought. I haven't followed to closely because I don't see those people helping many out without their being something for them in it, though!

I find it interesting if you actually read my post, or have ever read them, that you think I don't own a "Bible" or several of them, or reference works, or other documents like the Sayings Gospel Q. I just find that ironic as hell.

My $29.99 comment was meant as tongue in cheek and maybe my attempt at poor humor. My apologies.

And some of the best advice I ever received when dealing with issues within the church was this... people are people, church is church, and God is God. We all fall short but thanks to his grace and mercy, God finds it in His heart to love our sorry souls anyway.

As far as prosperity, I don't think God intended for His children to live a pauper's life. But God also knows that through predestination some of His children will be better off than others. It is up to those who have the means to help support those who may not. That is the love He teaches. Remember... to whom much is given, much is required. I fully believe that and try to live that everyday.

 

[gkIrish]

"Going back in time as early as the days of the Athanasian Creed, it was taught then that "Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity." (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 39)

About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, "If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers... Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]" (Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 246)

In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)

In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)

In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins..." (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)"

Not an exact quote, but paraphrases showing the original sources with historical context to show the depth and breadth of this concept in Roman Catholicism.

I get all that. But I think you can infer that all of those quotes assume that the people who don't hold the required faith CHOSE to do so. I think all of those Popes would agree that the ignorant (those who have never been exposed to the faith) are not heretics.

 

[gkIrish]

As a kid in a Catholic school, I was told by the nuns that all non-Catholics were destined to spend eternity in hell. Well, that included my Lutheran mother. Scared the shit out of me. I spent hours trying to convince her to convert. Had I been Amish – a Christian sect – I would have been obligated and compelled to "shun" her.

I came to believe, long ago, that the whole "Limbo, Purgatory, Heaven, Hell" scenario is a bullshit attempt at social engineering. What is the value of scaring kids shitless?

While not necessarily official dogma today (positions and teachings have shifted many times over the millennia) it was a "doctrine" that was taught. I think that the official "party line" when I was a kid was that heathens and others not exposed to Christianity were denied the wonders of Heaven but spared the agony of Hell by being deposited in Purgatory. Something of a holding cell betwixt and between. Admission to Purgatory as permanent status did require an unwitting compliance with the Church's Rules of the Road.

Ete Missa Est. Pax Vobiscum.

Same question to you as I posed to Bogs. It seems to me that those nuns are talking about heretics and those who choose not to believe. When has the church explicitly equated the ignorant with the non-believers?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm glad you brought that up though. I spent a lot of time in my youth puzzling over theology, but at this point I tend to take sort of a practical view of it. Does our religion make sense? No. Is the world better off for 2000 years of Christianity? Mostly. True, terrible, terrible things have been done in the name of the Christian religion, but the general philosophy of loving your neighbor leads to a world I want to live in. The rest is mostly details and I don't really worry about it any more. I do worry about the teachings of many Christians that cut against the great commandment, leading to presumptuous judgment and self-righteousness and small-mindedness. But I think the system is worth saving, and the only way to save it is from within. So I will jump through a few dogmatic hoops from time to time.

Nietzche, one of the only philosopher's to offer a coherent alternative to theism, referred to Christianity as the Peasant Revolt, because it thoroughly undermined the moral justifications of the powerful over the powerless. And it really did. You think the Church is "anti-woman"? Only by the extreme egalitarian standards of modern liberalism. No institution has done more to improve the lot of the fairer sex, since most pagan cultures were brutal towards women.

The Magna Carta? The Peace of Westphalia? The Declaration of Independence? Hell, unless you're a hardcore Progressive with a very short memory (and a poor understanding of history), the entire edifice of modern liberal democracy is inconceivable without Christianity.

So, at worst, it's a golden ladder that helped us reach our current heights, but can now be safely discarded. At best, it's the very foundation of Western civilization, and we're courting a 2nd dark age by throwing it out.

 

[Cackalacky]

1. Pascal's wager is very new to me but I was impressed upon my initial read-through of the Wikipedia article. So all of the shit I'm saying hasn't been thought out that much. Just what's popping in my head right now.

2. In your example above, I need to weigh the effort it takes to make the text versus the likelihood of you being an actual wizard. Considering I've never seen evidence of real wizards in real life, the text is not worth the effort. That being said, I don't get texts like that, ever, so I might think it's worthwhile to text my mom on the off-chance that you are a wizard.

3. Another difference between your example and believing in God is that there is complete uncertainty about what happens after you die. No one knows. But I do know that there aren't any wizards, or at least I can be pretty sure.

I'll just make it easy for you. Do not assume there is a god.

 

[gkIrish]

I'll just make it easy for you. Do not assume there is a god.

Lol. Well I think that's the point of Pascal's wager. It's that you don't have anything to lose by assuming there is.

 

[greyhammer90]

Yeah. In terms of answering the OP's three Q's I like OMM's post. I can't improve on that.



I like where this is going. I was afraid this thread was going to be boring and tired back-and-forth arguments, and there has been some of that, but when wizards enter the discussion, you are going somewhere interesting.

And I had the same thought about Greyhammer's hypo. You are weighing the likelihood that he is a wizard against the explanation you will have to give your mom or sister for telling them a message board acquaintance they don't know says hi and then having to explain to them that you aren't for doing as he says because it was just simply cost-benefit analysis. That text actually costs you quite a bit, and the likelihood that you will suffer any adverse consequences if you don't send it is nil. I think greyhammer's chain email example was better ... but not as funny, and I'm sure that was the point.

Assume then, that you are in a state of complete religious ignorance, (and remember the question here is not if religion is right but if it is logical under this theory) would you be any more logical for giving up 1/7 of every week to prayer, being told that you can't have sex with anyone you want, being blackmailed into giving your income, and countless other tiresome and menial tasks in the name of a God that you've never seen any real existence of? Just because a man in a white frock (who is the one benefiting from all this by the way) said "if you don't do this there is a chance that this God will punish you."

Doesn't seem very logical to me.