One True Religion

<<And certainty or uncertainty is usually an inverse reflection of how the individual feels about their circumstances.>>

So . . .if I feel good about my circumstance I have less certainty, or more certainty?

Thanks,
SteveJ

I would say from my experience with people that people who feel good about their circumstances generally have a better understanding of their circumstances and less of a personal need for 'certainty'.  People who feel that "their world' will be alright aren't worried as much as those who are afraid that "their world" will suddenly collapse if they don't "make certain" that everything is all right.  They make and enforce rules to make their world more predictable and certain and they gather around them people who feel as they do...

"I don't believe anyone who claims that they do" - this is available for very high levels of spiritual development - in prophets, saints, and Spiritual Masters. Most of the believers could say like "In Bible is writtent that...", but real spiritual experience exceeds this - and not only in Hindu religion views the direct knowledge of Devine is possible, but in the Old and in the New testaments also:

Isaiah 17:7
"people will look to their Maker
   and turn their eyes to the Holy One of Israel"
- this is related from my point of view to the spiritual eyes, which for now are not open in the majority of the humans

and

Mark 9

 "1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

From my point of view this verses refers to direct personal experience,  instead of just "believe and you will be saved" - for this experience is necessery spiritual education/training.

>>this is available for very high levels of spiritual development - in prophets, saints, and Spiritual Masters

I know very little of the Hindu religion so I can't speak much of Spiritual Masters.  I do know that I don't believe in prophets or saints.  From what little I know of what I think you refer to as Spiritual Masters, I am skeptical.

Some Spiritual Masters lived even in 20 century and in the begining of 21.
I had possibility to met one of them in my live. I was expectional experience. But for someone this can be unscientifical / subjective. But results from the experience and Wisdom of the Spirirual Masters can be used from the disciples even after they left this Earth.

Callandor . . . yes Jesus said I am the way to the Father, no disagreement that the Bible writes that Jesus made that claim.

I don't believe, nor did I say, that certainty was the opposite of faith. I am saying -- for example -- I am 99.9% sure that my Christian faith is the "One True Religion" and that Jesus is the only way to the Father and when or if that percentage reaches 100% it is no longer faith, it is certainty.

To say that faith "is a matter of following" is a confusing statement. I think choosing to follow is an affirmtion that faith exists, not a definition of faith. I choose to follow because I have faith that he is the Truth and the Way.

<< I started to question christianity as a teenager when I learned how many thousands, (hundreds of thousands?), of religions have been and are practiced in the history of the world and today. >>

Perhaps, but 2 or 3 religions make up 99.9999% of the followers. Im not saying that sheer volume is a method by which one or another religion can be proved. But it shouldn't be considered irrelevant either. I know a gobs of people who claim to be Christian but they can't really explain the Gospel and often say things like "I believe in God, not so sure about Jesus, but I am a Christian".

I don't know if there are equivalent buffoons in Islam or Buddism . . . I suspect there are in all religions.

SteveJ

>"Unfortunately religions have many adeherents who see the 2 dimensional shape and believe that is it."

Even in Christianity the faith is not the highest possible state/level!

See:
Hebrews 6

" 1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,  the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so."

>>Perhaps, but 2 or 3 religions make up 99.9999% of the followers. Im not saying that sheer volume is a method by which one or another religion can be proved. But it shouldn't be considered irrelevant either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png

I just did a quick Google of religion by population to get this map.  It lists fourteen categories of religions practiced today where one of them is other.  Granted some might combine the three Christianities and two Islams. Also, I don't know what "Chinese Religion" means.  Regardless, I would include all theses religions and all the religions ever practiced by all the groups or tribes that ever existed.  The point I am trying to make is that I think the statement "2 or 3 religions make up 99.9999% of the followers" is a bit high.  I think a much more significant percentage of the population does now and has in the past followed a religion other than the two or three you are referring to.
I'm not trying to use this as an argument for the validity of anyone's belief, or lack thereof, in a god or religion.  I merely use it to illustrate why I think anyone who is certain that their form of belief is the correct one, and that all the others have it wrong, is looking at the world in a very narrow minded manner. IMO

<<I'm not trying to use this as an argument for the validity of anyone's belief, or lack thereof, in a god or religion.  I merely use it to illustrate why I think anyone who is certain that their form of belief is the correct one, and that all the others have it wrong, is looking at the world in a very narrow minded manner. IMO>>

Isalm, Buddism, Christianity . . .those three in some form was what I was referring to. And I have no idea what Chinese religion is either. I wish I'd said "Adherants to 3 religions make up the majority of present and past . . . " My penchant for exaggerations overcame me. So I am disagreeing with "I  think a much more significant percentage of the population does now and has in the past followed a religion other than the two or three you are referring to." But that's really neither here nor there. One of us is right and one of us is wrong and I am too lazy to do the research to find out which.

Pointing out the differences in all religions misses a gigantic point. They all essentially claim there is a higher power and love of self is antithetical to the core belief. Time, language, culture, and Jason 210s argument probably have more to do with the putative difference in beliefs than anything else.

So that's another way saying -- more or less -- sbdt8631 that I agree with you . . . because people who claim their way is the only way and all others have it wrong smacks of dogma and the presense of certainty that they cannot possibly have. I *think* my way is the only way. Perhaps as a self proclaimed Christian I may have said something heretical.

SteveJ

The Chinese are a mix of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity, ancestor worship, and atheism, in different percentages.

It is possible to be certain about one's beliefs.  The definition of faith I like best comes from Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."  So straight from the New Testament, we see that it is a certainty, but a certainty of something not visible.  This is not dogma.

Instead of faith - the eyes of hearth/intuition, Wisdom!

See:
Ephesians 1: 17-18
" I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.  I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know... "

It is obvious, that if Paul pray for that, this is not givven by default to all, who just believe. There is levels of spiritual development.

>>However these things are put there is always this bifrication, this separation into one and the other, with the implication that the "other" must be associated with a part of "good and evil" and obviously the "evil".

This is the attitude that I find fault with.  It doesn't bother me when a believer says I will be looking at an undesirable experience in the afterlife if I do not adopt their belief system. I don't believe in heaven and hell, the world to come, rebirth or any other afterlife explanation. I am not concerned with some fictional destination after death.  I do however take exception with being lumped into a group of people who are labeled  evil or less moral than those who share a particular belief system.  

Spiritual development is something practical - a ways and methods to improve your live and awareness. But for that in the esoteric lineages of different religions could be found more possibilityes, instead of official churchs.
And I found useful and complementary things in Rosicrucians, Suffism, Kaballa, and others.
For many peoples nowadays official religion cannot give this, which is necesery for them - for different reasons.

Cannot or will not? It seems to me that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I somethings think we need a new Jesus who'll say that one should leave our culture at the church door, rather like giving Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

Let me give a example - church wedding in Eastern Orthodox church can cost around 15 euro in equivalent (at least in one Eastern European country), not so expensive, but completely unreglamented in Bible! Some of bishops travel with very expensive cars and others... This not increase the mutual trust...
But many peoples interest from deep internal ways for selfdevelopment, which official priest may even not known with. But this not stop many peoples to investigate independatly, regardless of the official dogmats.

Uh-oh, someone's kicked over BigRat's bottle of wine, and she's on a rant!

Seriously, do you think anyone can call themselves a scientist and pass themselves off as one, regardless of what they knew and how they acted?  You object to my critique of others who label themselves as Christians, but the plain fact is, Jesus himself said that not everyone who called him Lord, Lord was his disciple, so how do YOU define a Christian?  If you have better insight than the one whom Christianity is named after, I'd like to hear it.  Religion based on culture means you can forget about absolute truths - what was good is now bad, and what was bad is now good.

sbdt8631,

>I do however take exception with being lumped into a group of people who are labeled  evil or less moral than those who share a particular belief system.

I agree with you.  At its core, New Testament Christianity teaches that everyone is in the same boat morally before God.  There is no way that the thief dying on the cross next to Jesus did anything to be considered better than anyone else, but on his profession of belief in Jesus, he was told he would be with him in Paradise.  That is an amazing thing!

BigRat
>>I somethings think we need a new Jesus who'll say that one should leave our culture at the church door, rather like giving Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
Callandor
>> Religion based on culture means you can forget about absolute truths - what was good is now bad, and what was bad is now good.

I'm not reading it the same as I think you are, Callandor.  I think you are both saying that culture should not effect how to be a Christian.  

>>Religion based on culture means you can forget about absolute truths - what was good is now bad, and what was bad is now good.

I do not agree, however, with this comment.  I have never been able to define an absolute anything, much less an absolute truth.  Truth is a sticky enough concept without adding absolute to it.  Good and bad, as defined by religions, do evolve.  Slavery used to be considered good and it is now bad.  Women holding positions of authority in church was a concept once considered bad that is becoming more good as time goes on.  Cultural norms of good and bad evolve and so do those accepted by most Christians.

The concept of absolute truth depends, I think, on an unchanging standard to measure against.  If the standard exists, one can accept absolute truth.  It is much like the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute (as far as we know).

We can consider absolute and relative moral, laws, standarts.
The 10 God commandments have deep spritutual and esoteric meaning, not just social tribe regulations.
But world is changed and if now slavery is not legal, then we do not need from regulation for it.
The new Teachnig of Christ can be considered as based on Old Testament with new, updated regulation - to act with Love, instead eye for eye, for example. And now the deep spiritual knowledge became more and more accessible for many peoples. Other question is for what it will be used. For example some peoples practice energetical healing, other used positive thinking/affirmations for personal and bussines success, others use NLP (neuro-lingvistic programing) for mass video adverisement and influence to the customers/clients, or even for seduction.
(this is real examples from the live, not fabricated by me).
Spiritual ripeness considers responsability, and confession of sins to clergyman already could be considered as inadequate. For paid indulgence  I prefer even do not mention.
So we can have believe/Faith, knowledge/Wisdom, moral/Virtue , and I thing this pairs are not in contradiction, but have to be together.

It's an interesting question: What is a Christian. One might say that a Christian is one who follows the biblical canon and religious doctrines determined by the early Church fathers and scholars, established in the various catholic, protestant and orthodox churches. I believe this is Callandor's view. But then, who were the followers of Jesus? Not Christians by that definition...

One must remember that the early christian scholars like Athananius were interpreting largely secondary texts written after Jesus died, and likely had an agenda that included, amongst other things, a self-preservation aspect.

You can always ignore all these later teachings and doctrines and go back to the earliest Christian texts, such as the Gospel of Mark which is believed to contain information passed on from the disciple Peter. The gospel of John is also worth studying, as this is believed to have a direct connection with the disciple John, although it was written around AD 90-100. Then there are the non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas which is based on oral tradition. This is thought to be a primary text and some scholars put it was early as 60AD.  There's evidence to suggest that Mathew and Luke are secondary texts, thought to based largely on Mark and one other coherrent source thought to be lost text -- referred to theoretically as "Q".  

From these you can make your own interpretation of what Jesus was trying to show us. Does that mean you are not a Christian? It depends how you define Christian.

Callandor:


But what would be that standard? Everything we understand, think or preceive is relative to an interpretive / perceptory / sensory framework. Any standard that can be conceived of is therefore relative...

>But then, who were the followers of Jesus?

Take a look at Acts 11:25-26

"25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

This tells us that the those who were first called Christians were part of the church at Antioch, and it was during the time that there were witnesses of Jesus who were still alive.  Acts does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem, which leads many scholars to conclude it was written before AD 70.

Whatever you may think about the motives of Athanasius is a bit of speculation; the establishment of canonical books may have been much earlier than his day, since he was only the first to formally put it down on paper.  Even today, the time at which an idea is published in a book is not the same time that the idea was first formulated.  The early church had an idea of what books were accepted and authoritative and you can see it in the writings of the early church fathers.

I thing real Christians are thouse, who follows the Teachning of Christ - in their daily live, practicaly.
"The Credo" is not the criteria for me.

<<Any standard that can be conceived of is therefore relative...>>

When I have in the past observed that it is wrong to kill someone for personal gain, or rape, or molest a child or steal or lie someone always posts some bizarre view that some culture worships murder or encourages rape or points out some arcane philosophical precept that seeks to remove the stigma of child molestation. Jason210 how can you say there are no absolute truths?

Not that it has anything to do with the question I've posed . . .

I apparently chose the wrong word -- certain -- in posing my question. Somehow in the sense I didn't intend "dogs bark" and "God exists" have assumed the same relative strength of argument. I am a believer and yet I have doubt. Is the view on this post that therefore I am  not a believer because I have doubt? That would be difficult to argue I think in part because scripture references a man asking to have his unbelief removed.

Oh well.

Callandor

If the Acts were written early on and they refer to "Christians",  then these would be different to the Christians of today because their religion would have been based mostly on oral tradition, and perhaps a few writings - but definitely without the later texts and doctrines. So again, the meaning of "Christian" is debatable

Observer 123


Well, I would tend to agree. But what are those teachings? Perhaps Jesus had different teachings for different people.

Steve J

Interesting question but you I don't think it has anything to do with the absolute, unless one equates awareness itself being the absolute. In that sense such horrors might be committed by individuals who are less self-aware, whereas a more self-aware person would not do such things.

Back to your question. I think it is healthy to believe something and have a doubt about it. After all, a belief is a belief. But there is a difference between belief and faith. May be you should look into that.

>>Seriously, do you think anyone can call themselves a scientist and pass themselves off as one, regardless of what they knew and how they acted?

Well precisely that happens. The question is what you want to do about it? Pass laws to prohibit it? Throw people in gaol for not having the qualifications? Execute persistant offenders?

But my point was, why is it necessary to immediatley single out CCSOFlag's calling himself a Christian, when, in my opinion and probably many others as well, he is simply that? He might not be one of YOUR Christians (presumably you were at Antioch and know precisely what type of people they were) simply because he doesn't belong to an obscure sect which follows the bible literally (if I remember rightly you don't even consider the pope as Christian, or was that that other character SStory?). Anyway, that CCSODflag guy calls himself a Christian and has various doubts about this and that. Now that's what we at Woodstock used to call a "good thing" and I applaud it.

>>When I have in the past observed that it is wrong to kill someone for personal gain, or rape, or molest a child or steal or lie someone always posts some bizarre view that some culture worships murder or encourages rape or points out some arcane philosophical precept that seeks to remove the stigma of child molestation. Jason210 how can you say there are no absolute truths?

Well in Xanadu Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome did decree, between killing for personal gain, raping, pillaging and so on. The Romans made slaves out of their captured enemies, and mistreated them, because they believed it was more honorable to die in battle. And the children were of course made slaves or executed as they saw fit. No, moral standards are not universal and they change from culure to culture and with time. When I was a girl (and was taught that the devil can quote chapter and verse from the bible for ANY occasion) it was acceptable to smack me for being naughty, but it was totally unacceptable later when I had my daughter. And as far as killing women and children today is concerned, it is acceptable if it part of "unavoildable collateral damage" when being done in the name of "humanity and democracy and decency" and totally unacceptable when the modern Kubla Khan wants to protect his power base as events in Libya are showing us.

That's interesting that you brought up Libya, Big rat. Nice point made there.

BigRat . . .

"The Romans made slaves. . . " If this was a desirable thing -- made the slaves happy -- they wouldn't have done it. So clearly there was some "wrongness" associated with it. And the fact that people were willing to do things to achieve an end doesn't in and of itself make the act morally acceptable any more than water boarding is seen as universally acceptable just because we do it. And while I think this sentence " . . .moral standards are not universal and they can change from culture to culture and with time . . ." has a sort of philosophical and academic ring, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a culture and time when murder, rape and child molestation were viewed in the same light as how current culture views volunteer work or giving to charity. I am trying to politely say that I think that statement is . . . bunk. But we don't know one another and I don't want to be rude.

Also, whether or not to smack a kid who has been naughty may very well reference the fact that society has become overly litigious and may not speak to the morality of the act at all.

Thanks,
SteveJ

>>I think you'd be hard pressed to find a culture and time when murder, rape and child molestation were viewed in the same light as how current culture views volunteer work or giving to charity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality
"For example, among the samurai class of pre-modern Japan, it was recommended for a teenage novice to enter into an erotic relationship with an older warrior (see Shudo), but sexual relations between the two became inappropriate once the boy came of age"

IMO, There really are no cultural behaviors that can be universally classified as either good or bad.  Only good or bad in the context of the culture and time.

sbdt8631,

I'm not sure what your point is . . .that a group of people behaved in certain way doesn't imply universal morl acceptance . . . tho the way I phrased the comment you responded to invites your answer.

But to be clear, are you saying that there have been times when murder, rape and child molestation were universally accepted? I am saying that there has not been a time when those acts were universally acceptable. I have no doubt -- as you point out -- that there are wads and clots of poeple who exhibit odd behavior but they are the exception, the anomoly, not the rule.

Good luck,
SteveJ

SteveJ
Judges 21:10-24 NLT
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT

In both of these passages, the Israelites kill all the men, boys and non-virgin women of their enemy.  The virgins they kept for themselves.  Today we would consider that to be rape and murder.  Then it was acceptable as tactics of war.

sbdt8631,

Earlier I commented -- directed at Big Rat -- that I didn't believe tactics employed to achieve an end could be considered as an affirmation of moral acceptance. In fact, just the opposite. If killing boys and non-virgin women were considered akin to belching or wearing the same pair of underwear 2 days in a row (in other words, weren't considered as abhorrent acts), then they likely would have done something else.

There seems to be confusion about what I am trying to point out: if a society accepts water boarding, for example, I don't think that means that society considers torture to be ok. Im trying to draw a distinction between what you as an individual consider to be right and wrong and what a despot in control of a region might employ to accomplish an end.

Good luck,
SteveJ

. . . which has virtually nothing to do with the question that I posed on this thread.

>>which has virtually nothing to do with the question that I posed on this thread

You brought it up. :)

Actually I do think it has something to do with the original question as it relates to whether a person can have faith in their own belief while still holding the position that other beliefs might also be true.  It is a matter of whether a person has a black and white view of the world or whether one can see the shades of grey.  I think that the more that a person can recognize that there are no absolute truths when it comes to human beings, their beliefs and behaviors, the more likely they are to say my god is right for me and you god is right for you.

But that was then, this is now. What's changed?

Awareness. We are more conscious now.

If you learn about someones life and character, you judge them less harshly. That's why in movies the baddies are alwasy demonsied, and never presented as humans with lives and family. If you saw them presented sympathetically, you would not be able to hate them and wish them dead etc.

Just another little tidbit of evidence to support the idea that awareness, being aware, having knowledge, make hatred and anger subside...

If in Old Testament is writen about killing boys and non-virgin women, this do not means that this can be considered as standart. Now as I know in some coutries even if you make sexual propzal to unknown woman, this can be persecuted by the law.

About the Teachings of Christ, yes, they are many,  and official church doctrines not the only, and is questioned even wheder they represent the real Teaching of Christ.
For that is considered the importanse of esoteric lineage of Esoteric Christianity - for thouse, who is ready for it.

sbdt8631,

That remark wasn't intended as scolding . . .I was just thinking how easy it is for questions to morph, particularly on this subject

Steve

SteveJ
I understand that, which is why I included the :)
Unless I misunderstood your original question, I don't think it has morphed that much.  It seems to me you are asking whether all Christians believe theirs is the one and only true faith and whether all non-Christians perceive all Christians as such.  It is a question of absolutes.

Perhaps the "absolute" equates to the 3D-pyramid I mentioned in my analogy earlier. In that case, it would me that very few ever experience the absolute, but see a 2D shadow of it instead.

Jason210
Using your analogy, I don't think humans can see much more than your 2D image.  I would even argue that the 3D image does not exist.

Well, the "3D image" exists, but depend for who!
There is different levels of consciousness / awereness - and one of the tasks of spiritual development is to become more and more aware for this consciousness . For this is necessery daily practice, instead of philosophy:)

Steve, I don't mind people calling my ideas "bunk" - after all Henry Ford used the term. Rudeness starts when one gets personal.

I think what you are trying to say is that, and it is a bit inherant in the question and CCSOFlag's position, that there are some standards which the majority of people might want to adhere to, what they might call univseral or absolute. However we must not assume a universality which does not exist. You wrote :-

"are you saying that there have been times when murder, rape and child molestation were universally accepted?"

Well, in prehistoric times it may as well have been the case that those sort of things could be done to "the other clan", those who were competing for food or shelter or whatever. There were no univerals, since people did not know about other people. Clearly educated and cultured people would be appalled at press-ganging, but few who lived near the coast actually knew about the existance of it. In some societies baby-girls would be killed or left to die, because the family needed sons to survive. The parents were obviously not happy about the practice but they saw the necessity for doing that. Only these days this sort of thing is universally condoned, because, it is argued, the government (ie: society as a whole) can provide the necessary care - ie: social security. But look how long that took in comming in the Western World, with it's child labour, disregard for public health, environment and so on (all diocumented by Dickens and others during the Victorian era) to change it's moral position - and perhaps this is not complete?

I think that you may believe to be able to find certain "moral absolutes" and you'll certainly find them amongst the religious, but I don't think that the list can get very long, simply because people percieve things differently.

sbdt8631


That was my analogy for an absolute. I think there is only one absolute, but that none of us can know it conceptually but all of us perceive it differently.

Jason210 . . . a slight change to your analogy, instead of 2D vs 3D . . . think about when a triangle can be composed of 3 x 90degree angles. Most people cannot imagine that, and tend to see things two dimensionally, planar geometry. But on a sphere . . . you can demonstrate how this is possible. Both clearly exist, 2D and 3D but require different thinking to resolve. By studying the Bible -- not to find fault, but to understand -- perhaps you gain clarity.

<<I think that you may believe to be able to find certain "moral absolutes" and you'll certainly find them amongst the religious, but I don't think that the list can get very long, simply because people percieve things differently. >>

I agree . . .there are only 10 commandments in the Bible, a pretty short list. I think the one that confuses most people has to do with not worshiping idols . . . which, to me, is very clear: avoid drug addiction, alcoholism, obsession over money and material stuff . . .

Im not sure I agree with your pre-historic comment . . . it may very well be that those things could be done to the other clan, but as I said earlier, the fact that they are done to hurt or impose a will or terrorize proves my point, which is that murder, rape and child molestation are wrong and people know it and have always known it. I think it is pure speculation ( and inaccurate speculation ) to imagine that a pre-historic mom gives birth and then the pre-historic dad stomps the child to death and the pre-historic mom would be unaffected. Things only get murky when you start defining murder as soldier A killing opposing soldier B . . . acting under orders? Acting as the agressor? Acting in self-defense? But that murkiness doesn't subtract from my contention that one universal truth is that murder is wrong.

Good luck,
Steve

>>to imagine that a pre-historic mom gives birth and then the pre-historic dad stomps the child to death and the pre-historic mom would be unaffected

What if the baby was from her previous mate who is now dead?  She knows she needs a new provider and he will give her more babies.  Who can even begin to say what was acceptable behavior in pre-history.  That’s why it is called pre-history.

>>But that murkiness doesn't subtract from my contention that one universal truth is that murder is wrong.
It is the murkiness that abrogates using the term universal truth.  What exactly is Murder?  Is abortion murder?  One person says yes, another says it is a woman’s right to choose.  Capital punishment? One country says yes, another no.  Killing a slave?  In 1825 Alabama it was not murder.  Yes most cultures at any given time agreed that murder was not moral.  The problem is defining when it is acceptable killing and when it is murder.  

SteveJ


I think this is true and that is a very good attitude, but one thing that one must realise in such a quest is that words -- even the right words read with the right understanding -- can only take you to the brink. That is where a true spiritual text should take you - to the point where concepts no longer help you, to the edge of an abyss. Many people who start out with good intentions can never leave the books alone. Without realising it they get side-tracked and lost in web of concepts and historical teachings.

Real spiritual development comes not from reading, but from transformation of consciousness. It is this transformation that leads to seeing things differently - not conceptually knowledge.

This is one of the reasons why I like the Gospel of Thomas. Unlike the other Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas makes no attempt of putting Jesus into a narrative framework. It is just collection of sayings from Jesus, that sound like they have been writtten down for the first time having been collected by oral traditions. Many schloars believe Thomas to be a primary text.

The key to understanding Thomas is the knowledge that Jesus is not speaking from the same ordinary consciousness that you or I  have.. I particularly like this passage:


Ity's not enough to understand what he is saying conceptually. You have to experience what he is saying. And also this:


Where is Jesus coming from? To my mind the most important thing that needs to be grasped is that Jesus was a real person. He was born, lived and died. Like anyone else. Unfortunately, many Christians, like Callandor, cannot accept this. But I'm sorry to say you if you think Jesus is some kind of supernatural being, and that his state is unattainable by you, then reading the New testement will at best teach you how to behave and give you beliefs and hopes  -- you will learn nothing about yourself. Jesus will become an obstacle to your own spiritual development.

From my point of view, it is important who we follow as our Spiritual Master/Teacher. But I thing is more important to represent His Teaching as "good fruits". Does He need from name-plates "Christians"?

<<What if the baby was from her previous mate who is now dead?  She knows she needs a new provider and he will give her more babies.  Who can even begin to say what was acceptable behavior in pre-history.  That’s why it is called pre-history.>>

What if the baby was deformed? What if the baby . . . and on  and on.

That murder is wrong seems an inescapable truth to me and yet all the refuting evidence in this post comes in the form of refernce to past cultural abberations, altered circumstances, nations led by despots with questionalble motives, slavery in the 19th century US . . . it's as if someone is arguing that "murder is ok" because they've been forced by the debate teacher to take that position  . . . and they can't really find any supporting data.

What is murder? Really? Abortion? That's got nothing to do with whether murder is wrong does it? Isn't that a debate about when life begins? Capital punishment? That's a question about whether the state or society is empowered to commit murder, not whether murder is right or wrong. Alabama in 1825? I think there's a difference between "official sanction" and "right and wrong". I think to say that "murder is wrong" isn't a universal truth is to say that "life has value" isn't a universal truth. Sure, there are people -- and there always will be -- for whom life has no value. They don't set the standard, they are the exception.

sbdt8631 . . . do you think murder is wrong? If so, where do you think you got that idea?

Jason210 -- agreed. The book is the path not the destination. Lots of people are confused about that.

Good luck,
SteveJ

>>sbdt8631 . . . do you think murder is wrong? If so, where do you think you got that idea?
Yes murder is wrong.  I got the idea from my upbringing, my parents and my society.  You say I am arguing as though I am taking a debate point without any supporting evidence.  It seems to me you are arguing the hard moral stance against murder while understanding the “murkiness” behind the argument.  If you are going to say murder is wrong as an universal truth you need to define murder from a moral standpoint.  Legal definitions for murder are hard coded as statutes.  Moral definitions are not.

Sorry sbdt8631, I didn't consciously intend to lay that on you the way it came out. You have been an articulate respondant and I appreciate that.

To be clear, murder is taking a life. I am against taking a life. The murkiness I refer to enters when you apply different circumstances to the act: pregnant as the result of rape (abortion), capital punishment (as in Texas, killing someone during another felony), war . . . I've been unwavering in my belief that murder is wrong, but I have acknowledged that there are situations where it is justified.

What I've tried to articulate is that believing murder is wrong as a universal truth is not inconsistent with belief in the death penalty or abortion or war. I can understand how a philosophical purist can have a problem with that, but thankfully, philosophical purists are acadamicians and don't have much authority or effect on everyday life. Nor do I believe that every death penalty carried out, every abortion, every war was justified.

Long ago on P&R a question was posed 'if you could kill one person to save 10,000,000, would you do it?" and there were people who argued passionately on both sides. The folks who said they didn't believe in murder but would kill the one person to save the 10,000,000 were sand blasted by those opposed, calling them hypocrites. I don't believe they (we) were hypocritical.

Steve

sbdt8631 . . .to your last point . . .the legal definitions are attempts by society to define morality as it relates to murder. Stabbing someone to death to steal their money, or running over someone with your car because you fell asleep at the wheel are not seen as morally equivalent crimes and are not treated the same way legally. Sitting in a tower picking off students with a deer rifle and scope, and sitting in a tower picking off invading enemy troops are not seen as moral equivalents either. However, the morality behind the invasion, and even the morality of defending yourself with deadly force are controversial.

Steve

<<I got the idea from my upbringing, my parents and my society.>>

And where did they get that view?

"It's turtles all the way down."

Steve

SteveJ
I don’t think you were being hypocritical.  I think it goes straight back to your original question as to whether one can be a Christian and still believe that non-Christians may be on their own correct path.  Also whether or not non-Christians implicitly assume that all Christian see the world in the black and white of the bible or whether they understand that Christians can see shades of gray.  I think you and other Christians  do see the grays which is why I question you arguing about universal truths.  If you believe in God, you can define God as an universal truth.  I just don’t see how you can define a concept of man as universal.

>>And where did they get that view?
Their parents and society.  That is my point.  It evloves over time.

<<  I just don’t see how you can define a concept of man as universal.>>

God's commandment: Don't kill


Steve

If the definition of Christian is whatever anyone chooses it to be, then no one should criticize a Christian for not following the teachings of Christ - yet that is exactly what people do around the world, and in this zone in particular.  Are they right for doing so?  I think so, because calling oneself a Christian brings with it an identification with Christ.  And I will reiterate the point I made before which those who don't agree with my perspective haven't addressed: Jesus himself said not everyone who calls himself a follower of Christ is actually a follower of Christ.  This choosing to call yourself whatever you want apparently didn't sit well with him, either.

>reading the New testement will at best teach you how to behave and give you beliefs and hopes

From your perspective, that may be, but from where I and millions of Christians stand, it is the key to knowing someone - the God who said he would come to dwell in the believer, and empower them to become more and more like him.  If the Bible was just a textbook to be studied, I would have put it down long ago, but it is the way to a radical transformation and opens the way to living as I was designed to live.  It is a living text for today, not just a view into the past.

Looks's like it's from John, which was written totally differently to any other gospel. John is the only Gospel that appears to be written by somoene who has undergone some kind of transformation of consciousness to the extent that he knew where Jesus was coming from.

I never said the Bible was just a text, but just that words can only take you so far. Many people today who read John would reject it as nonsense. You have to have faith if it is to work, and not everyone has that. That's the problem with old texts like this.
 

That doesn't tell us who is and who isn't, and I think it has little to do with whether you follow the Christian church or follow the teachings in your own way.

John's gospel may be different in view from the Synoptic gospels, but he doesn't have a different view of who Jesus is and what his purpose was.  Words indeed can only take you so far, but they are there to reveal what could not be known without them.  The ultimate goal is a relationship with God, and that idea is present throughout the Old and New Testaments.

>That doesn't tell us who is and who isn't, and I think it has little to do with whether you follow the Christian church or follow the teachings in your own way.

It was necessary to answer those who say anyone can call themselves a Christian - I say "prove it", and start with Jesus' definition.  For a really good explanation of who is a Christian, read 1 John.  He lays it out in very clear terms.

>>God's commandment: Don't kill
God’s commandment may be universal.  Man’s interpretation is murky.

>>Jesus himself said not everyone who calls himself a follower of Christ is actually a follower of Christ.  This choosing to call yourself whatever you want apparently didn't sit well with him, either.
So how are you supposed to identify who exactly is a true follower of Christ? Is there a blueprint or a manual? You may say that the manual is the bible, but it is vague as to when one is a “true follower.”  Callandor, have you not studied the bible for years?  Has your understanding been stagnate all that time or have you developed new insights and new perspectives into different aspects of the bible as you study it further?  So, when did you become a true follower?  Was it when you first started, five years later, ten? I imagine that your interpretation of the bible has to have evolved as you studied it further and gained a deeper appreciation for what it said.  At what point was your interpretation the correct one and how should a “true follower of Christ” know they have gained the correct view?

>>That doesn't tell us who is and who isn't, and I think it has little to do with whether you follow the Christian church or follow the teachings in your own way.
I agree.  How does one identify who is true?

May be we should all go and carefully read John?

To my mind, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself a Christian or not, because I do not believe that Jesus is the only spiritually enlightened person to have existed, and I don't see why we should be interested in that particular perosnal manifestation of God Consciousness.

Better not to call yourself anything.

>>To my mind, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself a Christian or not, because I do not believe that Jesus is the only spiritually enlightened person to have existed, and I don't see why we should be interested in that particular perosnal manifestation of God Consciousness.

I think this is similar to the thought expressed in the original question that being a Christian may be a correct path for some, but isn't necessarily the only path.

Wow interesting discussion.  First I wanted to say hello to Jason.  It's a pleasure hearing his insight again.  You've been missed.

I wanted to say this:

Callandor wrote:
I think the New Testament definition of faith is the willingness to follow someone.

You should read Matthew 6:30, 8:26, 14:31 and 16:8.

Jesus sure surrounds himself with people who don't want to follow Him according to your definition.  Can you walk on water?  I will be the first to admit I sure as heck can't, and Peter DID!  But yet Jesus said Peter had little faith.  Faith has nothing to do with willingness to follow, it has to do with the belief in the power of Christ and God.  Faith in who they are.  Even Jesus' disciples lacked the faith Jesus wanted them to have.  So does that mean they are not Christians?  I think not.  It's the same with me.  Of course I doubt things, of course I do not have faith to walk on water, does that mean I'm not a Christian?

For those talking about the Bible being the final authority on the subject.  Do you realize the Bible we have now isn't even the original canon?  Do you realize even today "Christian" groups follow different canons?  You may take the Bible as the final authority, but I do not.  In Jesus time the New Testament didn't even exist.  The Bible IS flawed whether people like it or not.  If you believe otherwise then answer this single question.  Why does the Book of Joshua and the Book of Job reference the book of Jasher, but yet the book of Jasher is not considered part of the canon?  Why did they remove the Book of Jasher?  If the book of Jasher is not a legitimate book then Joshua and Job cannot be either.

As far as the whole moral thing about murder.  Morals are a personal conviction.  If you have someone who believes abortion is murder, you cannot force the opposite on them.  Who says they are right or wrong for believing it?  You?  me?  The government?  I don't think so.  That's just like saying the government can tell me what religion to believe.  I believe what I believe no matter what anyone else wants me to believe.  during WWII do you think the Nazis thought they were wrong?  bad?  immoral?  No, they really thought they were in the right.  Well others thought differently.  Who was right or wrong?  Both were right in their own eyes.  If you take the animalistic approach, the Nazi's were right.  Survival of the fittest, right?  Isn't that the way of life?  If you take the modern majority attitude on genocide, then the Nazi's were in the wrong.  Again is there REALLY a right or wrong?  I don't believe so.  I only believe there is a majority belief that forms the laws that allow or disallow certain behaviors.

And I'm sorry, but if you are against murder, but believe murdering one for 100,000 is ok, then you are a hypocrite.  murder is murder, no matter the reason.  So what about 1 for 1000?  1 for 50?  1 for 10?  1 for 2?  1 for 1?  Where does the line get drawn.

OK, I'm done for now.

sbdt8631,

>So how are you supposed to identify who exactly is a true follower of Christ?

Perhaps you didn't see my post about 1 John while you were composing your response.  It includes the following, which can be categorized as the assurance believers have:
- 1 John 1:6 If you walk in the light - imitate God's character
- 1 John 2:3-6 If Jesus is the boss of your life - obedience to God's commandments
- 1 John 3:4-10 If sin is not the habit of your life
- 1 John 3:11-20 If you love in deed and truth, not just word
- 1 John 5:4-5 If your faith in Christ overcomes the world
However, these are only things that may or may not be visible.  Ultimately, the only ones who can know for sure with 100% certainty that they are believers are the person and God - everyone else is making an educated guess.

One does not become a follower after many years of study - it is as simple as believing in Christ, which any child can do.  Views do change as understanding progresses, but the point at which one becomes a believer does not change over time.  Conversely, one may have the wrong idea of Jesus and think one is a Christian, but that can't be, or one might as well worship an idol and say they are following Jesus.

>You should read Matthew 6:30, 8:26, 14:31 and 16:8

I see Jesus saying to his disciples that they had little faith.  And I see after his resurrection that they spoke boldly and with power.  I would point you to James 2:14-17, which links faith and actions.

> Faith has nothing to do with willingness to follow, it has to do with the belief in the power of Christ and God

And I will counter that the demons know the power of Christ, but they don't commit themselves to obey him.  Walking on water has nothing to do with identifying with Christ or following him - did Jesus rebuke the disciples who didn't try to walk on water?  But those who refused to recognize Jesus as who he really was, were they followers of Jesus?  Nope.

> You may take the Bible as the final authority, but I do not.  In Jesus time the New Testament didn't even exist.

Jesus was the final authority, and he entrusted his disciples to proclaim the gospel after he was gone.  I don't see what the book of Jasher has to do with the Bible being the inspired word of God or not - there's a third letter to the Corinthians that is not included as well.  God's sovereignty is part and parcel of what was preserved for us to read today.  You may not like it; there are a lot of people who don't like God's views as expressed in the Bible, either.  In the end, people just want to go their own way and not listen to God.

>> They don't set the standard, they are the exception.

and

>> I've been unwavering in my belief that murder is wrong, but I have acknowledged that there are situations where it is justified.

I think, Steve, that you want your cake and eat it! Where is the universality which is based on individual opinion? A universal truth must appeal to all, not just a chosen select few.

>>right for doing so?  I think so, because calling oneself a Christian brings with it an identification with Christ.  And I will reiterate the point I made before which those who don't agree with my perspective haven't addressed: Jesus himself said not everyone who calls himself a follower of Christ is actually a follower of Christ.

But that is exactly our point - we have addressed the point Jesus made. It applies just as much to YOU as it does to us. In fact the point was that there would be a horde of dodgy people trying to obtain power, influence, money and position out of the gullible by calling themselves Followers of Christ. Your pouncing on CCSOFlag for calling himself a Christian as if he were ursurping a title or position which he obtained by deception is way out of place.

Bigrat

Isn't that known as the Vatican?

CCSOFlag
Thanks for the welcome.

As I said, to my mind it doesn't matter what you call yourself because this is not the measure of your spiritual knowledge.

In fact I believe it is dangerous to label yourself not only in that it means different things to different people, but also in that you may find yourself living up to the particular idea or concept of that which you call yourself. Following a concept is a mistake. If you fall for this then your consciousness develops in a similar way that of the of the follower of an ideology, such as Marxism, where you enter a kind of group mentality and develop pride. All of a sudden you are divided and far from the goal of spirituality which is unification.

This can be seen happening in this thread, where some here identify with a particular form of Christianity and live up to that, with intolerance as a  result.

As Bigrat points out "A universal truth must appeal to all, not just a chosen select few".

>>Ultimately, the only ones who can know for sure with 100% certainty that they are believers are the person and God

I agree except that I would say that only God can make that determination.  This is why I agree with CSOFlag (paraphrase) - that one’s path toward God does not invalidate another’s, even if they are entirely different.

>>Where is the universality which is based on individual opinion?

I agree.  Universal truths are always interpreted by individuals, which is why they are not universal.

I think a person can know with certainty if they beleiev something or not, because when we talked about 100% certainty we are no longer talking about thoughts or theories, but direct experience, and the simplest form of that is faith, which, to my mind, is a transformation of consciousness.

I know what you mean whan you say only God can make that dermination. Totally unhelpful comment.


Also agree. There is always an interpretive framework. Universal truths, however, are not the same as absolute truth.

>>I know what you mean whan you say only God can make that dermination. Totally unhelpful comment.

I don't know why you call it unhelpful.  It goes to the heart of the original question relating to whether it is acceptable to believe in God your way and grant that another might also follow a different, but correct, path.  According to monotheists, IMO, man is not supposed to be able to understand the mind of God.  Therefore, who is man to make the determination who is true follower/believer.

I think I know whether I believe something or not, never mind about God. What someone else thinks of me is irrelevant.

>Your pouncing on CCSOFlag for calling himself a Christian as if he were ursurping a title or position which he obtained by deception is way out of place.

I'm not pouncing on CCSOFlag, but I am arguing for the standard of who is a Christian, and it isn't my standard, it's Jesus' definition, as I pointed out.  Why would anyone want to call themselves a Christian and not check out how Jesus defines it?  You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the Bible.  And yes, it applies to me as well.

In case you're wondering what I'm referring to, it was my first post in this question, that Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father, and that makes the possibility of other ways something of a contradiction, or something Jesus chose not to reveal to us (in which case we would not know).

<<And I'm sorry, but if you are against murder, but believe murdering one for 100,000 is ok, then you are a hypocrite.  murder is murder, no matter the reason.  So what about 1 for 1000?  1 for 50?  1 for 10?  1 for 2?  1 for 1?  Where does the line get drawn.>>

I don't know that I really disagree in priciple. . . but I think your view is horribly impractical, and I think you took liberty by rewording my thinking . . . to say that I think it's "ok" really minimizes my feeling about that. There's a great passage from a book called "The Cruel Sea" by Nicholas Montserrat where the captain of a Corvette in the North Atlantic during WWII is steaming toward a large group of men in the water who'd survived the sinking of their ship. They think the Corvette is coming to rescue them, but in fact there is a German sub beneath them and the captain of the Corvette is charged with protecting the convoy. He -- the captain -- is filled with anguish as he sees the faces of the men yet he gives the order to begin dropping depth charges. I don't think he thought it was ok, to kill those men to protect the convoy. And I thank my God that CCSOflag wasn't captain of that ship. No, I don't think it's "ok", tho I am to lazy to read back thru all the posts to see how I worded my thoughts. I think it would still be wrong. But, given the hypothetical situation I posed, I think it would be "wronger" not to take the life of one to save 100,000. . . By the way, are you then calling Jesus' death suicide? It would seem from your point of view, that "sacrifice" would be the wrong word.

<<I agree except that I would say that only God can make that determination.  This is why I agree with CSOFlag (paraphrase) - that one’s path toward God does not invalidate another’s, even if they are entirely different.>>

Well, as long as you understand that's inconsistent with Christian view of Jesus' teaching. I think that's central to most complaints / arguments with Christianity. Paraphrase: "There is only one way to the Father, through me". Perhaps it's a Calvinist interpretation, but that seems pretty exclusive to me.

The question I posed has really to do with tolerance. If I am 100% always certain of my faith, then it ceases to be faith . . . and I cannot by definition be "tolerant" of another's point of view because by my own conviction they will be wrong. I am "tolerant" to the extent that I recognize since I cannot be 100% certain always of my faith, the possibility exists that I am wrong. I *thought* that was what CCSOflag was saying . . . perhaps not.

SteveJ

"There is only one way to the Father, through me".

Typical of the kind of statement by Jesus that that leads to misunderstanding and intolerance years after his death.

Look at in its context (John 14:6)

 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

I AM and ME are not referring to the personal Jesus here. There are referring to the God Consciousness. Jesus is trying to do the impossible - convey in words something that cannot be conveyed in words.

>>Well, as long as you understand that's inconsistent with Christian view of Jesus' teaching. I think that's central to most complaints / arguments with Christianity. Paraphrase: "There is only one way to the Father, through me".
>> I am "tolerant" to the extent that I recognize since I cannot be 100% certain always of my faith, the possibility exists that I am wrong.

IMO, I understand that it is inconsistent with some Christians' view of Jesus’ teachings, but not necessarily all. Also, as Jason210 points out there is more than one way to interpret that statement.

> Typical of the kind of statement by Jesus that that leads to misunderstanding and intolerance years after his death. <

Probably also throws out the uncertainty of whether the faith has some true meaning or not and become the arguments of scholars of different faiths / sects.

---
In reality no faith is certain of whether its true (100% or 1%) but to some level of certainty exist that God exist and the faith one holds onto is true to some degree or else what is the point of religion.

-Muj ;-)

>Also, as Jason210 points out there is more than one way to interpret that statement.

What makes Jason210 an expert on interpretation of the New Testament?  Does he have credentials in Greek?  I certaintly don't know where he pulled that interpretation from - he tends to use declarative statements about Jesus' words, without explaining how he arrived at those conclusions.

Hi Muj

Faith seems to be different to belief. I'd agree with you that belief is question of percentage along a scale of certainty, but faith seems to be a differnt matter.

Callandor,


People here know my succinct style, and they know yours. The more ideas that are presented here, the better.

I am not sure how you think that studying Greek language is going to help anyone in the matter of spirituality, but if that were the case, then it would apply to everyone participating in this discussion.

Hands up who has credentials in Greek?

>>What makes Jason210 an expert on interpretation of the New Testament?

I didn't claim it was the generally accepted interpretation or that Jason210 is a biblical scholar.  I was merely pointing out that there may be more than one way to interpret a passage.  

There my be a number of interpretations, but I disagree with the personal one, that Jesus is refering to his person. I do not believe that is a valid interpretation.

Look again at the statement:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

A personal interpretation of this can have only two possible outcomes:

a) If true, then it automatically invalidates all other religions
b) If not true, then it automatically invalidates Jesus and Christianity

However, if we interpret then meaning of "I am" and "Me" differently, then there is a third alternative.

In Judaism, God refers to himself as the I AM. "I AM that I AM" was God's reply to Moses when he asked his name. In Hinduism, spiritual teacher Ramana Maharshi stated that of all the definitions of God, "none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement “I am that I am”". Hindu scripture contains similar statements. The "I am" is also explained by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj as an abstraction in the mind of the Stateless State, of the Absolute, or the Supreme Reality, called Parabrahman. This could be described in familiar terms as pure awareness, prior to thoughts, free from perceptions, associations, memories.

So why go for (a) or (b) when we have :

(c) "I am" and "Me" refers to God or God consciousness.

I totally reject the interpretation of the "I am" and "Me" in the statement “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" as refering to the personal Jesus.

There are other reasons why I reject “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" as refering to the personal Jesus.

In Luke 10, someone asks Jesus what he needs to do to get eternal life. Does Jesus say you must go through me? No. He said to the man "What is written in the Law?" and he answered "Love theGod with all your heart, soul, strength and mind" and also, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus said (Luke 10:28) "You have answered correctly"

Important to note that Jesus did not say to the man that he must accept Jesus as a mediator between him and GOD to win Eternal Life.

There are other examples of this also. The interpretation I offer is the logical choice.

Jesus . . .that he was a man and not supernatural . . . then he was a nutcase because he spoke in odd parables and referred to himself as something other than just a man. Whatever he said, while very important, is less relevant in terms of Christian belief than that he was born, died and arose . . . that he died for our sins and that he was God on earth.

The reference to facility with the Greek language -- and it was a fair comment -- is simply that a good deal of the original text was interpreted from Greek, so to make observations and inferences from the English translation to formulate argument is . . . of doubtful value.


SteveJ

Callandor wrote:

But those who refused to recognize Jesus as who he really was, were they followers of Jesus?  Nope.

I think maybe both of us are missing the whole picture.  Peter denied knowing Christ three times, but he was still a Christian.  I think maybe it is more a combination of what we are both saying.  I didn't mean just faith being just knowing or using the power of God.

I don't see what the book of Jasher has to do with the Bible being the inspired word of God or not - there's a third letter to the Corinthians that is not included as well.

There a re a lot of books that are debated.  If the Bible was truly the inspired word of God, wouldn't you think God would allow His word to be infallible?  My point with the Book of Jasher was saying that the canon is not reliably the true books of God.  If a scientific work referenced a work that was rejected by the scientific community to support it, wouldn't that scientific piece also be rejected?  It should be the same case for the books of the Bible.  The book of Jasher is referenced by two books of the "accepted" Bible, but yet that book itself is not officially accepted as part of the Bible.  the canon was not put together by God Himself.  It was put together by humans with an agenda.  Their agenda was to spread their version of Christianity.  At the time there were many sects of Christianity.  I just cannot have the blind faith as some do that the Bible is unerringly the word of God.  No where does Jesus say what books are the word of God and which aren't.  Humans are imperfect and thus nothing from them can be perfect.  If you or anyone else is really interested in the history of all this I recommend The Lost Christianities by Bart D Ehrman.

You may not like it; there are a lot of people who don't like God's views as expressed in the Bible, either.

It doesn't have to do with not liking something.  It has to do with no support or evidence to trust certain books as truth.  As I have mentioned in the past, I have read the Bible and a lot of the apocrypha.  I don't bog myself down with details, instead I take the concepts out of the books and reject concepts that do not seem to match up with what Jesus stood for.

Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father, and that makes the possibility of other ways something of a contradiction
The thing is I don't deny that in any way.  What I say is I do not know for 100% that Christianity as a whole is the correct religion.  If it is, then yes I believe that Jesus is the only way, but if Jesus was just some schmuck that made up stuff then it's all a moot point.  I just accept the possibility that what I beleive as far as religion could be wrong since there is no proof of it.  If there was proof there would only be Christianity right now.  Because of what I've experienced, I have no reason to believe something other than Christianity.  Thus yes I believe the only way to God is through Christ.


BigRat wrote:
I think, Steve, that you want your cake and eat it! Where is the universality which is based on individual opinion? A universal truth must appeal to all, not just a chosen select few.
Agreed.

Jason wrote:
In fact I believe it is dangerous to label yourself not only in that it means different things to different people
I agree.  Any more I don't even call myself a Christian because it has become too cliche and means nothing these days.  To me "Christians" are a bunch of hypocrites any more.  

This can be seen happening in this thread, where some here identify with a particular form of Christianity and live up to that, with intolerance as a  result.

I think it stems from ignorance of the knowledge we have.  Even taking the canon as an example.  People just blindly believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, but they don't even know where or when the Bible even came into existence.  The canon was forced on everyone and they just accepted it without question.  If you did question it you were labeled a heretic and probably killed.  The truth shall always prevail no matter how much persecution there it.

I think a person can know with certainty if they believe something or not
I think I know whether I believe something or not, never mind about God. What someone else thinks of me is irrelevant.
Agreed


Steve,
about your WWII story:
That person obviously believes in conditional murder since he is at war to begin with.  Most people believe murder is ok just under certain circumstances.  Just like I would shoot someone who is in my home.  It's murder, but I do not agree in killing one to save 100,000, unless that one voluntarily did it.

I am "tolerant" to the extent that I recognize since I cannot be 100% certain always of my faith, the possibility exists that I am wrong. I *thought* that was what CCSOflag was saying
You got it. :)


Muj wrote:
In reality no faith is certain of whether its true (100% or 1%) but to some level of certainty exist that God exist and the faith one holds onto is true to some degree or else what is the point of religion.
I agree.  Good point.

<<BigRat wrote:
I think, Steve, that you want your cake and eat it! Where is the universality which is based on individual opinion? A universal truth must appeal to all, not just a chosen select few.
Agreed.>>

I think you've taken the point beyond an "ad absurdem" statement . . . I didn't say "puce is the best color" . . . I said taking a life is wrong. Are you saying that only a chosen select few think taking a life is wrong?

SteveJ

Steve,
Sorry I shouldn't have included the part of your cake.  I was commenting on the other part of that line.
You say taking a life is wrong, but the problem is you don't truly believe that.  You believe there are cases where taking a life is ok.  So you do beleive taking a life is ok.  I've never met anyone who believes taking a life is wrong.  They always have an exception.  This means they don't believe it's wrong.  Thus it's not a uniiversal truth.  It's all individual opinion.  Some believe it's ok for capital punishment, others don't, some believe abortion is ok, others don't, some agree with war, others don't.  It's endless, thus there is not a universal truth that it's wrong to take a life.  As long as one person has a exception to the rule, it will be individual opinion.

Well put, CCSOFlag. In fact I believe that taking life is wrong in ALL circumstances as threads here with long involved hypothetical situations invented by DanRollins will testify.

Interesting BigRat.  Forgive me if you've already answered many hypothetical situations, but what about these.  Are any of these ok?
-So you are against war 100%?
-Against capital punishment 100%?
-What about law enforcement?  Is it ok for them to kill perpetrators according to local laws?
-Someone intrudes in your home and is about to shoot your kids and possibly you.  You would not shoot this intruder?  You'd let your kids and yourself be killed?
-What about assisted suicide?
-Lastly, sympathy killing (when someone is going to die, but you kill them earlier than they would have died for various reason (pain, suffering, etc)?

I am not in any way going to condemn you or argue, I will just be amazed if you say no to all these, because as I said I've never met anyone who truly believes it's 100% wrong to take someone's life.  thanks for humoring me if you do though.  :)

SteveJ


That's unfortunate view.  ie That either he was a supernatural or a nutcase. Have you even considered that there may be a third alternative? Have you ever considered that you might be also something other than a man? That may be you are not what you take yourself to be? Have you considered that may be most of us are deluded and only a few of us see reality as it is, Jesus being one of those individuals? Jesus points this out. I have already mentioned it:


Whilever you believe that Jesus was supernatural and defied the law of physics, and did impossible things like rise from the dead, you are living in a fanstasy. It is the church that made these doctrines, like the virgin birth and resurrection, the central theme of Christianity. The few times they are mentioned in the New Testement they can be interpreted as metaphor, along with all the other hundreds of metaphors.

Here's my problem with your statement CCSOflag . . . I have have a choice between chocolate and vanilla and I choose chocolate, you are saying derivatively that I don't like vanilla, not that I simply like one better than the other. It's fine for debate for you to say that I think taking a life is "ok". It's an academic point. But as a practical matter you are saying that a truth can't be a universal truth unless it is applied universally and I think that's bunk. You say in my WWII story the person belives in conditional murder, I say he had to make a very tough decision. I think you are playing a semantic game that I don't think has real value. . . except in debate. . .perhaps.

SteveJ

<<Whilever you believe that Jesus was supernatural and defied the law of physics, and did impossible things like rise from the dead, you are living in a fanstasy.>>

Perhaps. Perhaps you are living in a fantasy. It would seem the difference between you and I is that I am willing to accept that I may be wrong. Yet you say I am living in a fantasy . . .that is, I am wrong.

Law of Physics. How luckly we are to live in the age when we finally figured everything out.

SteveJ

>>Here's my problem with your statement CCSOflag . . . I have have a choice between chocolate and vanilla and I choose chocolate, you are saying derivatively that I don't like vanilla,

I would say that means you don't universally like vanilla.

Steve wrote:
I have have a choice between chocolate and vanilla and I choose chocolate, you are saying derivatively that I don't like vanilla, not that I simply like one better than the other.
Those two are not comparable and I'll tell you why.  Liking the flavor of an ice cream is personal opinion period.  It's a personal feeling when you eat that flavor.  Even liking to murder people is a personal feeling.  It has nothing to do with what we are discussing.  We are discussing whether murder is WRONG or not.  People imply that murder is a universal moral/truth or whatever else you want to call it.  They try to say it's wrong to murder.  But if there are exceptions to the rule, then there is no way it can be a universal moral or truth.  If you say it's wrong to murder, then you are not leaving any exceptions. Universal means all the time for everyone.  Not an exception depending on where you live or who you are.  As soon as you involve a personal conviction or difference, it's a personal moral.  Keep in mind a law/rule is different than a moral.  a law does not imply that you have to agree with it, it just means you can't practice your moral.  So if you enjoy raping women, the law says you can't, even though you might think it is ok and you enjoy it.  No I'm not using the word you as in accusing you of it.  Just using the word generally. :)

But as a practical matter you are saying that a truth can't be a universal truth unless it is applied universally and I think that's bunk.
Maybe I'm misunderstand what you are saying, but a universal truth must be universal.  It's the word describing the truth.  If it is not universally accepted, then it can't be a universal truth.

You say in my WWII story the person belives in conditional murder, I say he had to make a very tough decision.
 Maybe you misunderstood me.  My point was if he is at war (which means killing people directly or supporting those who do), then he agrees with murder in the context of war.  This means he agrees with conditional murder.  What the conditions he agrees upon may not be the same and you and me, but he believes in conditional murder.  He did have to make a tough decision.  But in the context of war, there are a lot of those.  

I think you are playing a semantic game that I don't think has real value. . . except in debate.
I disagree.  It is not a semantic game.  It's a matter of people claiming they believe or don't believe something is wrong, but yet they don't completely believe it.  It's conditional.  IMO it's hypocritical.  If I say to lie is wrong, but I also say it's ok to tell a white lie, I am a hypocrite.  Then I should never say to lie is wrong.  Personally, I believe even telling your kid that Santa Claus is real is wrong.  Most people disagree with me, but I believe it's wrong.  It's a lie.  So most people really believe lies being wrong is conditional as well.

SteveJ

The difference in my fantasy and yours is that in physcial terms I believe only in what's going on around me which is why I referred to the laws of physics. I believe in what is documented by science and not in the fantastical, supernatural and miraculous events described in a book. Of course there's a possibility that these supernatural events described in the bible did happen literally, but there is no reason  -- none at all -- for me to believe that. There is good reason to interpret as metaphorical language, however. It is well known that much of the Bible uses metaphor and allegory.  Why pick out a couple of elements and take them literal supernatural events? It is dishonest, intellectually, to do so.

In a way, when I look at the sorry state of the world, I wish I could believe that magic did and could happen. But one have to face up to reality as it is. Perhaps that frightens a lot of people. Perhaps people need a protective bubble, a fantasy world to live in. A comfort thing.

You say:
We don't. We haven't. And do not believe it is possible to figure everything out. However, what we have figured out is that in our world,  people don't come back after they died, and people can't do magic, and pigs don't fly & so on. If weird things like this happened they would have been documented.  They don't happen - except perhaps in the mind which finds expression in metaphor.

There is no past nor future, there is only now. There was no Golden Age. Everything is right here and right now. That now is the same now that Jesus or Abraham experienced - the erternal now. Even the answer to your question, is right here, right now, but your looking for it in concepts, ideas, morality. In the Gospel of Thomas, there is an entry where someone asks Jesus where is heaven, and his reply is - "right in front of your face".

Now is the absolute.



Jason

> If a scientific work referenced a work that was rejected by the scientific community to support it, wouldn't that scientific piece also be rejected?

If there was relevant information in that other book that revealed something important, I would expect it to be included.  But what if all the things it had to say were included in other accepted books?  A book that was not included does not mean it was rejected.  John wrote that if all the things that Jesus did were recorded, there wouldn't be enough books to hold them all.  Does the non-inclusion of every single detail of Jesus' life mean the current gospels are not the word of God?

> It was put together by humans with an agenda.  Their agenda was to spread their version of Christianity.

Ok, if I were to write a book that was to convince people to follow my religion, why would I include parts that make my heroes look bad?  Peter, the pillar of Christianity, denied Jesus three times?  He was caught red-handed not associating with Gentiles when Jewish believers arrived?  He told Jesus to his face that Jesus' plan of salvation would not happen?  Paul rejected John Mark after John quit on a missionary journey?  Paul had a "thorn in the flesh" which wouldn't go away?  As an editor, I would have just left out those parts, the better to convince people how "superior" my leaders were.  But there they are, for everyone to see - this would be a failure in salesmanship 101.  You never point out bad parts if you're trying to sell a product.

> If you or anyone else is really interested in the history of all this I recommend The Lost Christianities by Bart D Ehrman.

For a different view of Bart D Ehrman's work, see http://www.tektonics.org/books/lostehrman.html

>instead I take the concepts out of the books and reject concepts that do not seem to match up with what Jesus stood for

So how do you know what Jesus stood for, if not from the Bible?

> Because of what I've experienced, I have no reason to believe something other than Christianity.  Thus yes I believe the only way to God is through Christ.

Isn't this a picture of God revealing something to you, and then you believing?  I think every Christian has a similar story, when God does something in a person's life that causes them to put faith in Christ.

>In Hinduism, spiritual teacher Ramana Maharshi stated that of all the definitions of God, "none is indeed so well put as the biblical statement “I am that I am”". Hindu scripture contains similar statements.

Yes, in this day and age, people read into the Bible that it must be connected to Hindu tenets.  However, when people write a letter or book, they do so with the intent that their readers will be able to understand what they wrote.  The Bible was written in a Jewish society with no Hindus as the target audience - choosing to include that interpretation means you are willing to ignore reality and come to whatever conclusion you feel justified in coming to.  This is why I have difficulty understanding your interpretations - they don't fit the facts or where the text was written and to whom.  You can speculate all you want, but I think in a logical way and your speculation doesn't fit the facts.


>Important to note that Jesus did not say to the man that he must accept Jesus as a mediator between him and GOD to win Eternal Life.

Let's look at the whole section in Luke 10 and see what it says:

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27 He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30 In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36 "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37 The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
Luke 10:25-37 (NIV)

If you read the gospels, you would know that the scribes, Pharisees and leaders were always trying to discredit Jesus, and this section even gives you the clue "stood up to test Jesus", so the question was not a genuine one, but a trap.  The answer was correct, to love God and to love your neighbor, but the problem was people don't love God and they don't love their neighbor.  In this case, the expert in the law knew this, "But he wanted to justify himself" - he wanted a technicality that would keep him from being accused of breaking the law, so he jumped on the definition of neighbor, hoping to get away free.  However, Jesus illustrated what a neighbor is and held him to his own definition.

Abraham is the classic case of someone justified before God and who would inherit eternal life - in Gen 15:6, it says "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness."  The key here is that he had faith in God, and that was what justified him.  The same is true in the New Testament - those who believe in God are justified.  Jesus revealed himself as God, so belief in Jesus justifies you - that is the continuity between the Old and New Testaments.  After this, it is possible to love God and to love your neighbor.

Callandor


I think it is true to say that in thes day and age, people are looking for something more than a promise of salvation. The reason so many people turned to eastern religions in the 60s and 70s was because Christianity did not satisfy or fulfill their spiritual needs.

All scripture was written by individuals from the viewpoint of a specific culture. If God or the supreme or whatever name you put it, is Universal, then the source for all these scriptures must be the same. It is just the expression that varies. That is the basis for my interpretation.  If you look at religions in this way, there are parallels and these parallels support this kind of interpretation.

Regarding logic, you should nknow that logic is not the basis of a religion. You are Christian because you have faith. It has nothing to do with logic. In terms of logic the problem can be expressed as one of the following possibilities:

1) One religion is right, other religions are wrong.
2) All religions are wrong
3) All religions are right.

You opt for option (1). What is the logical basis for this choice, please?

I cannot choose option(1) because it means rejecting other religions which, when evaluated, clearly have have a similar structure and profound content. There is no logical basis to choose one religion and reject others.

If the events described in scripture are all intended to be literal transcriptions, one must choose option(2). There is no hard evidence to support that the miraculous and supernatural events described in scripture have any literal basis, and the taken on a literal level, the the religions are often contradictory

Taken metaphorically, one can safely choose option(3).


So we still come to the conclusion that Jesus is not talking about his person, but about God. ME and I AM refer to God in this sense. So it comes down to how you interpret what God is.

>>It's an academic point. But as a practical matter you are saying that a truth can't be a universal truth unless it is applied universally and I think that's bunk.

I'd expect Henry Ford to have agreed with you, Steve. The word was "accepted" and not "applied" but that's a small point. What you seem to be yearning for, other than chocolate ice cream (yum!), is some sort of universal truth which although everybody might not agree with it still would be a universal truth. That's sort of like religion, one which a religious person would claim to be the true religion, that he has the one true religion, which although everybody might not adhere to or agree with, it still is the one and only universal true religion. Well, there might be, but the fact that everybody would not agree with it is neither an academic point nor bunk.

Callandor: I honestly don't see what the whole quotation of Luke has to do with the specific point Jason brought up regarding the way to God. You neither refer to nor refute Jason's claim but simply tell yet another, IMO irrelevant, story. Care to explain?

>You opt for option (1). What is the logical basis for this choice, please?

I consider that Christianity is the only religion that deals with the problem of sin, which is the barrier between man and God.  Christianity is rooted in history and facts.  If you are looking for evidence of miracles, that sounds like you are looking for proof where physical laws were overridden.  I would like to know how such evidence would appear and remain today.  God isn't a showman who performs miracles to entertain, he operates with purpose and goals.  Christianity doesn't say you can improve yourself and become God; rather, God comes in and conforms you to his image.

>So we still come to the conclusion that Jesus is not talking about his person, but about God.

Sorry, I don't follow you.  You managed to separate Jesus and God, while I said Jesus revealed himself as God.  Where did you go?

BigRat,

The passage in Luke started with a question about what someone must do to inherit eternal life - let us label this point C.  All people are at point A, not in a position to inherit life (otherwise, why ask the question?).  The requirement to love God and love your neighbor in order to reach point C was known to be an unreachable goal - no one loves God and no one loves their neighbor.  The expert in the law, who knew this, tried to get around the requirements by asking who was his neighbor (he could have also tried lying and said he fulfilled those requirements, but he probably suspected Jesus would see through him).  Jesus steered him right back to the requirement which the expert knew he couldn't fulfill.

What is not stated explicitly in this passage, but is in others like John 14, is that Jesus is point B, and when you have reached point B, you can satisfy the requirements of point C.  Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law, and by imputation so do all who put faith in him.

I have understood all of that. But you quoted something written by Jason which did not address that problem - the problem of what one must do to inherit eternal life. The pouint from Jason was whether Jesus had to be the mediator in this process. And this point was neither addressed by you nor with the quotation.

There is a simplar problem of failing to address the issues and going off on a tangent in the latest reply to Jason's question regarding why one chose Christianity. If you consider sin as a barrier between man and God, then your choice is perhaps obvious. But what has this got to do with jason looking for miracles? The word was first mentioned by you and NEVER by Jason.

However one point is whether Jesus is or is not God. The concept of the trinity - the unification of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit, has, as far as I can remember, little direct support in the bible (such as in mathew 28:19) but was well established in the catholic Church in the fourth centuary.

I have never been happy about this concept, although I don't think I really care, for then it makes statements from Jesus like "the only way to God is through me" misleading - another formulation would have been better, and I don't think that Jesus ever attempted to be misleading nor "clever".

Callandor

>I would like to know how such evidence would appear and remain today.

The problem can be simplified - what evidence is there that Jesus was supernatural? Answer: a few references in a spiritual book. That's it. I can find similar references to supernatural things in other scriptures. The Bhagavad Gita, for example, with all its classic visually striking Hindu gods etc.

If these books are to be believed, then there was a time when the earth was a very strange place, with all sorts of miracles and strange events happening and strange beast wondering around it. For some reason, they aren't around now, and no evidence has been found that this strange age really did exist. Furthermore, this strange world does not fit into any scientific models or patterns that we accept today. There is no model that could allow for it. No evidence, no model, no scientific justification what-so-ever.

What we did have back then is mankinds limited understanding and knowledge of spiritual matters back then. A lack of abstract concepts with which to describe visions,  psychological experiences and altered states of consciousness. No framework within which to categorise those experiences. So those people lived in a mythlogical world really, where everything was expressed in concrete terms.

There is plenty of evidence to show that metaphor was used deliberately also, as a literary device even back then.

One only has to consider the book of revelation to see the use of metaphor. Whether the author believed what he was writing, or was deliberately using metaphor and imagery is debatable. But very few people actually believe that revelation is meant literally.

So when cherry picking what is and what isn't metaphor, I have a simple guide. Is it compatible with our scientific knowledge or not? If not then its unlikely to have happend. Very unlikely. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it didn't happen, and that the text can be explained as a vision,  psychological experience or altered states of consciousness.

After all, these are spiritual texts we are talking about, that deal with spiritual, not physical matters.

Dogma, faith and Wisdom can be different things.
In Bible is mentioned faith and Wisdom - they refers to different levels of spiritual state. Someone who believe, can be not in state be with open "hearth eyes", or to percept the Nature and Spiritual Worlds in full conciousness. After specific ezoteric trainning one can be prepared for that, regardless it could be very difficult and long process.
The perfection is discribed in the New testament, but I even read translations (english one) where "perfection", "perfect" is replaced with..."mature", which is not the same. As I understood, and this is more protestantic point of view, "man is born sinful, have to believe , and will be saved", but concept of perfection doen not fit in this.."picture", but is presented in the Biblq. I thing we have to follow Christ teaching, but not  Athanasius, the Church "Fathers", and EVEN Luter!
See Mathew 5:48, John 17:21-23, James  1:4-5, and finaly Hebrews   chapters  5 and 6!!

The church chtistianity is not the only christianity, let see what Paul state, I thing he have to be enought authoritative! :

 1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,  the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.

<<Those two are not comparable and I'll tell you why.>>

My point wasn't to compare liking chocolate to being against taking a life or to say that they are parallel arguments.

<<It's a matter of people claiming they believe or don't believe something is wrong, but yet they don't completely believe it.>>

My choc/vanilla reference was mocking the claim you are making here. If I say taking a life is wrong but I kill someone who is attacking my child, you are saying that I don't believe taking a life is wrong. That's semantic nonsense. In your world, by definition nobody can do anything they don't belive in, becuase if they "do it", they don't really believe "in it". No, what happens if I take the life of someone who is attacking my child is that my desire to save my child trumped my belief that taking a life is wrong. What is so hard to understand about that? Sorry to be so cranky about this point, CCSOflag. But it's seems intellectually dishonest to say that a universal truth must be universally adhered to in order to be a universal truth.

For the last time (promise), I will take another "stab" at this: My belief is that *if* you could question 20,000,000 people at random about the rightness or wrongness of taking a life without clouding the issue with circumstance (war, pregnant retarded rape victim, etc), all but the demonstrably deranged would say it is wrong.

<<You say:
Law of Physics. How luckly we are to live in the age when we finally figured everything out.
We don't. We haven't. >>

Sorry, perhaps a language / nuance barrier. I was being *very* sarcastic. Your basic position seems to be rooted in "we know it all now". I think that's a fantasy. And you say "now" is the absolute. . . there's no such thing as "now". How can that be an absolute?

<<If weird things like this happened they would have been documented.>>

I think you need to "clean up" that statement to be consistent with your view . . . as in ". . . documented in something other than the Bible." Sorry, couldn't resist.

SteveJ

>>For the last time (promise), I will take another "stab" at this: My belief is that *if* you could question 20,000,000 people at random about the rightness or wrongness of taking a life without clouding the issue with circumstance (war, pregnant retarded rape victim, etc), all but the demonstrably deranged would say it is wrong.

No, the promise is not necessary. Yes of course they would. But if you asked them the question of whether they would kill a person attacking their child if there was no other way out (ie: with circumstances) then they would say the opposite. The point is that the question is hypothetical. The results of your 20 million poll are useless, for amongst 20 million people (let us say a third of the population of France) one can calculate how many manslaughters and justifiable killings will take place in the next twenty minutes. The French indeed has a mitigating circumstance for what was essentially a murder - they called it a crime de coeur and was reserved for irate husbands shooting paramours in bed with their wives. So you'd find that the "wrongness" of killing is not universal, not even in france national.

SteveJ

Fair point, but although the bible documents some events, it is primarily a spiritual book and not a history book. The supernatural events described are not documented in any emprical work, which suggests that they do not have an empirical basis. Both the "world of spirit" and the empirical world are well documented. Each have an entirely different approach, or interpretative framework.

What I see a lot of is a mixing of the two, for example in the form of atheists ridiculing spiritual matters, and also in the form of religious people interpreting spiritual knowledge literally.

I do not understand how you can say that there is no such thing is now. That is like denying one's own existence, which is totally non-sensical. How can anyone doubt "now"?  The past is merely an idea that is implied by impressions, evidence and memories which are perceived now, and the future is also an idea that we see now.

Now fits the definition of absolute very well in that it is unchanging and ever present, and also in the sense that although everyone knows what now is,  it defies conceptually definition. Now is primary, it does not need any further cobnceptually elaboration or defintion. It is the experience of presence-awareness.

Callandor wrote:
If there was relevant information in that other book that revealed something important, I would expect it to be included.

I don't think it had anything to do with this.  From what I've read, there wasn't a known copy of the Book of Jasher at the time of the making of the current canon.  Which is part of my point of why wouldn't God allow it to be found?  The Gospels of the NT repeat a lot of stuff and some believe these aren't even originals.  They were created by some original document that hasn't been found.  Not saying I believe it, just saying there are too many ifs.  There is no proof whatsoever that these people even wrote these books.  People believe in the canon simply because it has been around since they can remember.  You don't think the canon was controversial at the time of it's making?  IT took hold because it was supported by the majority.  The majority doesn't make it right.

Ok, if I were to write a book that was to convince people to follow my religion, why would I include parts that make my heroes look bad?
You never point out bad parts if you're trying to sell a product.

Keep in mind these books were not unheard of before this.  Many churches already used these books, these people just decided to look at the books and put them together into a canon.  People wouldn't have noticed the removed content.  This would have been detrimental to their purpose of the canon.  Also there is nothing wrong with people falling.  You use the word hero, but I don't consider any of them heros.  They served their purpose to show how humans NEED Christ.  That was the whole point of the books.  We are imperfect and can only achieve perfection through Christ who was perfect.  So this in fact DOES sell their product.  Very effectively IMO.

For a different view of Bart D Ehrman's work
OK, I Read that, but I think he is just trying to pick a hole in something that isn't there.  IMO Ehrman wrote a book trying to stay unbiased, and I think he did a good job.  The main complaint from your link is he didn't answer the question of what Christian sect was correct.  IMO, he shouldn't have.  That wasn't even the point of the book.  Who DOES know the correct version of Christianity?  The only we mainly know if from the one that managed to take power partly by making a canon readily available.  I still stand by my recommendation.  No book is perfect.  I enjoyed it because it had a lot of good information in it that you won't learn most places.

So how do you know what Jesus stood for, if not from the Bible?
I look for the common themes in the multiple versions of books about Him and also look at whether it matches with what Jesus would have been meant to be here for according to the OT as well.  Do we ever know anything for sure?  of course not.  We can only look at what sounds like it fits His character.  For example He came to be the sacrifice for us to save the world.  IF there is a book saying he ran from being crucified and never was, I'd say that's contradictory and wouldn't be legitimate.


Isn't this a picture of God revealing something to you, and then you believing?  I think every Christian has a similar story, when God does something in a person's life that causes them to put faith in Christ.

I agree.  I don't necessarily doubt Christianity, I doubt the books that drives it, which were written by humans, and I'm sure many of which haven't even been found yet.

I must admit that with the last paragraph of CCSOFlag's post I whole heartily agree. I'd add only to the books that "drive" it, the people as well.

I was very suprised when read some info about Luter and his views(anti-jews for example), but milions peoples  are protestants...

Jason210 . . .I was making a silly joke . . . that is, "now" just slipped into the past, as it always does

<<I doubt the books that drives it, which were written by humans, and I'm sure many of which haven't even been found yet.>>

The argument, whether or not you accept it, is that of course the books were written by humans and divinely inspired. If you want to believe that the earth was created in 6 days and that it is only 6000 years old, then you can "prove" it with the bible. If you want to believe that it was created over a period of time that was not 6 days and you want to believe that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years, you will not find that refuted in the bible. Noah's ark, parting of the Red Sea, and on and on . . . whether or not these are metaphor or allegory is meaningless. They are simply easy topics for detractors to pick out and mock.

How we define something like the God of the Universe will always be wrong. That's basically my point . . . Some say there isn't a God of the Universe and some say there is. To say "there isn't" is no more or less logical than to say "there is". To say "there isn't" because I cannot prove it is no different from asking me to prove quarks exist because I cannot prove that either. I can point to books and elaborate physics, but you could not on a P&R thread ever explain enough to me about physics for me to be able to say without doubt "yes, you've proved it." I belive that quarks exist because I have accepted the "proof" provided. I take it on faith.

There are lots of folks who say they believe in quarks because they "know and understand" the phyics leading to that conclusion. And they are like so many Muslims and Christians and on and on who claim there is One God And Only One God And All Other Religions Are Wrong.

SteveJ

Ah. Well, I don't know you so it's hard - especially in this forum - to know when someone is serious and when they are not, or if they even have a a sense of humour. I'm glad you have a sense of humour.

Still, you're wrong. Now doesn't slip into the past. Now is simply now :-)

Or at least that it has a divine origin. Scripture is usually written by someone who had the ability to read and write, who composed the text based on Oral tradition. This probably how we got Mark and John. These writers were not necessarily divinely inspired, and probably not totally objective even if they tried to be. They cannot be trusted 100%.

Mathew and Luke are even more distanced from the source, as most scholarly opinions consider these to be secondary texts, based on partially on the gospel of Mark.

I think that each writer had his/her own understanding which is felt in the text.


I don't take it on faith. I accept is a scientifc knowledge, and the reason I believe or accept it is because to not do so would be unreasonable. It would mean that there's an enormous conspiracy to fake it. If I choose to do so, I can get verfiy that the theory is valid by making study of it. This path is open to all.

Similarly I accept the idea of God, simply because every established culture has an established belief system. This indicates to me that there's something beyond what we can know conceptually,  beyond our own egos, something that is real and eternal. To reject that would also be unreasonable.

Jason210 . . .
<<Still, you're wrong. Now doesn't slip into the past. Now is simply now :-) >>

Then you are wrong, because "now" just changed!

<<I don't take it on faith. I accept is a scientifc knowledge, and the reason I believe or accept it is because to not do so would be unreasonable. >>

I'm sure plenty of people said that regarding Aristotle and Ptolemy's work. Then along came Copernicas. Today's fact is tomorrow's joke.

SteveJ

<< If I choose to do so, I can get verfiy that the theory is valid by making study of it. >>

Then you are in a class of very elite people. Most of use are fooling ourselves to think we can understand differential geometry . . . or most of the math and physics ( which is largely theory ) behind quantum chromodynamics.

SteveJ

>>Then you are wrong, because "now" just changed!

Yes, but it's still now. It's never not now. :)

Steve wrote:
if I take the life of someone who is attacking my child is that my desire to save my child trumped my belief that taking a life is wrong.
OK, I see what you are saying.  So I guess the question now is do you believe it was wrong?  should you be punished for this murder?  or do you believe it is justified by the situation?  If you believe you were in the wrong and should be held accountable for it then I agree with what you are saying, it's just most people believe the opposite, that they are justified by the situation.  Kind of like self-defense.

But it's seems intellectually dishonest to say that a universal truth must be universally adhered to in order to be a universal truth.
Not that it is universally adhered to, but that it is universally believed.  In this case It definitely is not universally believed.  War is a major factor in this.  People feel justified in murder in the name of war.  They do not feel they did anything wrong.  This is a problem if it's a universal truth.  This is what I've been trying to point out, and I think with what you said about a desire trumping it helped bridge the gap between what we were trying to say.  After being in the military and seeing how people WANT to go kill others in the name of war, it's definitely not a universal truth that murder is wrong.

For the last time (promise), I will take another "stab" at this:  My belief is...
BigRat covered this pretty well.

BigRat wrote:
I'd add only to the books that "drive" it, the people as well.
Yes, definitely.

Steve wrote:
The argument, whether or not you accept it, is that of course the books were written by humans and divinely inspired.
Oh I know.  Trust me, I used to believe it.  But after more research I've changed my beliefs on it.  The bottom line is the books chosen to be used as "divine inspiration" were by humans that believed a certain religious belief and chose the books accordingly.  They threw out books that did not fit in their definition of Christianity.  The council of Carthage happened in 387 AD, and you don't think there was any watering down of the Christian belief system by then?  It's happened ever since Jesus even came to us that people believed different things.  Even Paul and Peter did not see eye to eye on some things according to certain scriptures.  As I said the book by Ehrman is quite an interesting read for more background on this.  I just have a problem believing that some guys 350 years after Jesus died had any sort of insight into what books were legitimate or not.  Sure I know the argument that they were led by the Spirit, but I just don't buy it.  To me some things just don't add up in the whole thing.  I choose to leave my options open.  I still stick to the recurring themes of the scriptures (including the apochrypha), but I do the thinking myself, and let the Spirit guide me.  I trust the Spirit in me over the Spirit in some guys 1700 years ago.

If you want to believe that the earth was created in 6 days and that it is only 6000 years old, then you can "prove" it with the bible.
Text is not proof.  I am 5000 years old.  <-- that is not proof of my age.

If you want to believe that it was created over a period of time that was not 6 days and you want to believe that the earth is considerably older than 6000 years, you will not find that refuted in the bible.
I agree.

To say "there isn't" is no more or less logical than to say "there is". To say "there isn't" because I cannot prove it is no different from asking me to prove quarks exist because I cannot prove that either.
I also agree with this. :)

SteveJ


Mind changed, not the now  :P

SteveJ

Science is evolving and I move along with that process. I think this is a normal, healthy attitude. I'm not stuck in some particular theory or paradigm. From Ptolemy to Corpenicus we see an evolution of ideas and theories that explain what we perceive around us. That is an empircal process that follows a fairly linear path of refinement of theories, and occasionally, there is a paradigm shift. But the objective world - and by objective world I mean that which we observe through the senses and interpret through the framework of perception on a physiological level -- this objective world remains the same as it was in Ptolemy's day. We see what Ptolemy saw. We see what Copernicus and Newton saw. The same sun shines on us as it did them. The same stars appear to rotate around the earth to us, as they did to ptolemy. But what we have that Ptolemy didn't have is a much more refined interpretative framwork of science and culture.

The supernatural events in the bible are not part of what we perceive around us. Nothing like that has ever been documented scientifically. Ptolemy didn't record such things. No other serious scientist has. Anyone claiming to see such things has been unable to share his experiences empirically. Further more, there is no indication in any current scientific model, theory or thinking that allows such events to ever have happened. They are not emprical events. Period.

BigRat,

>I have understood all of that. But you quoted something written by Jason which did not address that problem - the problem of what one must do to inherit eternal life. The pouint from Jason was whether Jesus had to be the mediator in this process. And this point was neither addressed by you nor with the quotation.

The connection, which I labeled as point B, is that Jesus facilitates what is required to inherit eternal life.

>But what has this got to do with jason looking for miracles? The word was first mentioned by you and NEVER by Jason.

I equate proof of the supernatural as equivalent to proof of miracles - sorry if that was not clear, and I know it's not an exact equivalence, but I think it's good enough.

>However one point is whether Jesus is or is not God. The concept of the trinity - the unification of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit, has, as far as I can remember, little direct support in the bible (such as in mathew 28:19) but was well established in the catholic Church in the fourth centuary.

Rather than clutter up this thread with a tangent, I will point you to a previous post of mine: https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/26748004/About-the-Trinity.html?anchorAnswerId=34616077#a34616077 - I would not say there is little direct support in the Bible.

>So when cherry picking what is and what isn't metaphor, I have a simple guide. Is it compatible with our scientific knowledge or not? If not then its unlikely to have happend. Very unlikely. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it didn't happen, and that the text can be explained as a vision,  psychological experience or altered states of consciousness.

This is pre-supposing that there is no such thing as the supernatural and then drawing conclusions.  You know very well that science does not have anything to say about the possibility of the supernatural.  Starting off with a wrong premise doesn't get you to the right conclusions.

>After all, these are spiritual texts we are talking about, that deal with spiritual, not physical matters.

And God is not concerned with our physical needs?  Why did Jesus feed thousands?  Why did Jesus heal the sick?  Why did Jesus touch a leper when healing him, when he could have done so at a distance?  God is concerned with our physical as well as spiritual being.

> IT took hold because it was supported by the majority.  The majority doesn't make it right.

No, but peer review is something that was valued back then and continues to be today.  You think cold fusion has a chance of being right?  Well, the believers back then had ideas about what was correct and what wasn't, too.  I think our view of how it all happened is colored by our mindsets today, where we trust no one and consider suspect anything out of the ordinary.

> For example He came to be the sacrifice for us to save the world.  IF there is a book saying he ran from being crucified and never was, I'd say that's contradictory and wouldn't be legitimate.

And where did you learn that he came to be a sacrifice for us to save the world?  In the Bible, right?  So how do you judge whether a given book is from God if you are using that book to learn about Jesus?  I agree with your reasoning for testing other books which claim to be "gospels".

Callandor


Science doesn't have anything to say about the possibility of the supernatural because there is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings, miracles and events. Period. A belief in these things as phsyical objects, occuring in the physical world cannot be based on any scientific argument or principle, and if one tries to argue that they do, as creationists do, then one ends up looking ridiculous. One actually does a diservice to the religion itself.

One of the reasons that people started getting interested in eastern religions is because they were unable to accept fundamentalist views like yours.

@Calandor:
About https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/26748004/About-the-Trinity.html?anchorAnswerId=34616077#a34616077 
I specialy wanted to poit that idea of "tree faces of God as Son, Father and Spirit" is just a human supposition/fabrication, invented to cover some theological...hm problems may be based on lack of deep ezoteric spiritual understanding of some spiritual processes, for which understanding faith could not be enough, but deep Wisdom.

There is references in Bible that there is not only one  ONE son of the God, bus in plural - God's Sons!
There is mentioned in Bible that Christ state The Father and His will as superior than himself, which is definitively sign that we cannot consider him as part of one and the same Being in three faces.

It could be difficult to realise, but christians been teached by churches to believe and follow things which is not written in the Bible. The "Trinity" is not the only one thing, I can refer to others also, like the honouring of icons in East Ortodox, paid indulgence in Catholicism, the non-errornes of the Pope, and the protestant believe, that christian will be saved just if they believe in Jesus, regardless of his live and way of living/thinking/relations.
I am not hapy with this, Paul himself directs christiand to leave the basic teachings

I thing if there is reference to the both laws to Love God and to love neighbours as condition for eternal Live, this means that this is possible, the question is who done it, not wheder is enought.
There is not the same to know that have to love God and the neighbour, but is important how we will achieve that! Hor that can help special praparation, which may is not known in official churches in general or the knowledge for that is been covered. One who love God and his neighbours do not need from Pope, priest or pastor. In that case will be most likely that some pastors will not drive expensive Mecedeses!

From my point of view interest to the Easten religions is not only because of fundamentalist views of some (or most) christians, but also that in eastern teachings(at least in most of them) the philosofy is connected with practice - concetration, meditation, mantras, mudras, healing and others - thinks with whixh can be felt real and practical benefit even in this live, instead of promice for future benefit at the "Judment day" ("Justicia final"!)

From my point of view the Was of Esoteric Christianity i better alternative for the real spiritual seeker in West, and there also have very powerful methods for selfdevelopment without need of priest and "church" as mediator. Methods for meditation, which is as alternative to the yantra, mantra and mudra in Eastern practice and others methods also.

Also as I know  even modern Kabalist schools opens the Kabala heritage to others, not just for jews.

Nowadays more and more people can have information to the spiritual knowledge and many prefer that than dogma and fundamentalism. And if one love God ans his neighbours , he can be even healer, astrologist or other, regardless what some pentacost pastors will thing for him.
(the pentacosts are my "favorite ones!" in quotes :P )

Jason210,

You give two statements which are not equivalent, even though you may think they are:

1>Science doesn't have anything to say about the possibility of the supernatural because there is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings, miracles and events. Period.

2>A belief in these things as phsyical objects, occuring in the physical world cannot be based on any scientific argument or principle

In your first statement, you gave no qualification as to the boundaries of science.  In your second statement, you limited it to the physical world.  Now unless you believe (and there is no way to prove that it is true) that the physical world is all that exists, the first statement is incorrect because the supernatural is not necessarily part of the physical universe.  I myself consider the supernatural as part of the spiritual universe, so there is no conflict at all with science.

>One of the reasons that people started getting interested in eastern religions is because they were unable to accept fundamentalist views like yours.

And part of that view is that we fall short of God's standards - there is nothing new about people not wanting to admit that they did something wrong.  We wouldn't need courts of law and lawyers if we admitted to all our faults and acknowledged when we broke the law.  Eastern religions have nothing to say about dealing with sin.

Callandor I'm talking about the physical world and I've
made this clear all along. Now you have changed your argument and are saying that there is more to the world than emperical science tells us.  That is NOT what we were discussing.

I do not need to outline the boundaries of science as these are well known, and furthermore, I have in fact used the world emperical several times.

>Eastern religions have nothing to say about dealing with sin.

The concept of Karma i a key temp in Hinduism and Budism. Without clearing the karma we cannot understand Christ. Understanding and faith is different things. We still can have karma after Christ, and if one not live in harmony with the spiritual laws, he can have  also future negative consequences, regardless of Jesus death in Golgota. His death do not means that everyone can do later wathever he wants witout outcome.

Here I made small translation for you from bulgarian Spiritual Master Peter Dounov, whom Teaching  is related to the Esoteric Christianity:

"Every candle from its light will show his power. Christ is light. And this light for the soul, hearth and mind is so necessery, as the light in the physical world. The physical light and warmth equally influence on all beings, but not all of them equally manifest his live. So and Christ, He also equally influence on all human souls, but not all of them equally understand Him mentally – this is on relation to the form. To understand someone Christ, and much more the Father, is necessary one to was completed his Karma, and to been entered in consent with the Love, because the karmic law is not anything else than diversion from the law of Love. The hearth has to be pure, to see clearly, the mind have to be free from all erroneously images, to be possible to distinguishing what is good and what is bad”

I'm glad you brought up the concept of karma. Saved me the job :-)

Observer_123


I can buy that. I've never heard of this Peter Dounov, but what he says is more or less right. I can quoate advaita master Nisargadatta:

"Karma is only a store of unspent energies, of unfulfilled desires, and fears not understood. The store is being constantly replenished by new desires and fears. It need not be so for ever. Understand the root cause of your fears -estrangement from yourself; and of desires -the longing for the self, and your karma will dissolve like a dream."

Almost the same, but rather than based on love, advaita uses the path of knowledge. The result seems to be the same.

<< Now you have changed your argument and are saying that there is more to the world than emperical science tells us.  That is NOT what we were discussing.>>

Wow. Jason210 . . . it's your contention that there's nothing more to the world than what empirical science tells us? What does empirical science tell us about love? "Biological . . . blah blah blah" What does it tell us about hope? or altruism? despair? "Biological blah blah blah." And the mind is simply electrical activity blah blah blah . . . really? Do you believe that because you cannot accept the notion that man can't know everything? Or because you believe that man can know everything?

A thousand years ago, wouldn't cell phones have been considered magic? It would seem to me that to accept your point of view the universe would have to be infinitely knowable . . .or eventually we are going to know everything, and that seems totally absurd. And if it's infinitely knowable . . . well, come to your own conclusion. I already have.

SteveJ

SteveJ


No. The above statement was referring to a discussion. I am simply saying what Callandor and I were NOT discussing.

Jason210,

Let me see if I understand your reasoning behind your interpretation of what the Bible says - if I said "the sky is blue", and you didn't think blue existed, you would feel free to say that I meant to say "the sky is red"?  No attempt to understand what I said based on my view or background?

It didn't think it was that hard to understand, but here it is again, in concrete terms:

Speaking of the physical, objective world:

There is no theory or evidence* that the red sea can part.
There is no theory or evidence that wine can be turned into water in the wine.
There is no theory or evidence that a man come back alive after being dead for three days.
There is no theory or evidence that a man can be born of a virgin.

[*Except of course the anecdotal evidence provided by the bible..]

By physical,  objective world I mean that which we observe through the senses and interpret through the framework of perception on a physiological level, and finally through the interpretetive framework of science. The supernatural events in the bible are not part of what we perceive around us. Nothing like that has ever been documented scientifically. No early scientist recorded such a thing. We don't see it now either. Those claiming to see such things has been unable to share their experiences empirically. Furthermore, there is no indication in any current scientific model, theory or thinking that allows such events to ever have happened. They are not emprical events. If these things happened they'd be documented.

What's hard to unsderstand about that?

Back to your illustration. You said: "if I said "the sky is blue", and you didn't think blue existed, you would feel free to say that I meant to say "the sky is red"? Problem with that statement is that I know blue exists, and not only that, but it's existence is corrobarated on a daily basis by other people's experiencees as well as by the scientific world which has have a good definition of what the colour blue is. However, if you said the Sky is red, we could assume that you were colour blind and test for that.

Thank you for the full details.  The problem is when "supernatural" is substituted for "blue" - you have now eliminated any supernatural explanation, because you have made an assumption that such things don't happen.  That would hold true if everything that happens in the universe is explained by empirical evidence or the absence of it.  That is why I was going there in my last line of reasoning - I was not changing the argument, just following up on where it would lead you.  The authors in the Bible probably did believe in the supernatural, so I think your view is making them say something they didn't intend.

I do not hold the view that everything that happens in the universe is explained by empirical science. I said ealier domewhere that I appreciated the difference between science and "matters of the spirit" earlier. As long as we are not mixing the two it's ok in my view.

The only reason I am arguing about this is because the argument supports a metaphotical rather than a literal interpretation of much of the bible. I think it is difficult to say whether they biblical authors believed literally in what they were writing or not, but there is plenty of evidence of allegory being used consciously and deliberately.

I remembered that one Kabalist Rabby comented  in meaning on some scary/negative histories/persons,  mentioned in the Old Testament as sign of internal human processes, which existed/exists, but not to give only a positive sample/model for live. And the Bible is not just history ot the World, definitely not!

It is considered that in Old Testament Moses gave three levels of interpretation in the way as egiption adepts worked (let remember he been teached by egiptian priests/mages).
And now if we take just literaly "the Worls is created for six days" , it could be funny for many peoples..
It is other question what is considered in the Old Testament for 1/6 of "six days" and to how many human 24 hours it is equal. The literaly reading of Bible without deep spiritual knowledge can be real problem.
Or the "death" of Lazarus (John 11) ... - In the ancient egiptian initiation the iniciated been detached from his body for around 3 and half days, and in that time he been with his spirit in the spiritual worlds to learn and to have personal experience. Christ gave new way of iniciation, which can be in consciousness, without 3 and 1/2 "death". I state, that in Bible is mentioned for real spiritual experience, instead of only faith, and this, from my point of view, is more important from "basic teachings". - see Luke 9:27 , 2 Corinthians 12:1-4

Observer_123


Exactly, especially when someone tries to preach and teach literal interpretation. I just want people to see that all religions are about the same thing and the spiritual progress need take a fundamentalist approach.

May be the problem appears when somone try to enforce the dogmatic/church intepretation of the Bible over the spiritual menaning. May be in order to emphasize the importance of Christ.
Yes, he is exeptionaly important for spiritual development on Earth, but this do not means that other spiritual Teachers are not important!

Callandor,

No, but peer review is something that was valued back then and continues to be today.  You think cold fusion has a chance of being right?
Science is different than a moral/belief.  No science in the world can say whether murder is right or wrong.  It can on the other hand show that cold fusion is possible or not.

And where did you learn that he came to be a sacrifice for us to save the world?  In the Bible, right?
All the books that talk about Jesus, not just the ones accepted as the canon.  It's also supported by the OT books as well.  It's also about the idea of why we need Christ.  If He didn't sacrifice Himself for us, then there is no need for Christ, thus His existence is a moot point.

So how do you judge whether a given book is from God if you are using that book to learn about Jesus?
I don't believe any book is "from God".  I believe God may have had people write stuff down, but things can get lost in the writing and the translation.

Untruthful statements are possibly harder to tolerate than truthful ones.
Perhaps it is a matter of truth verses fiction
____________

Initial Question: Do you think when people say they are Christian or Muslim or Whatever that there is implicit certainty in their response?

     Answer: No, I only imply their beliefs are currently more in line with the dogma of that religion.  This will not be true for all, but I have not yet met one person who believes entirely the dogma of their chosen religion, so the only implication I make is that they have chosen one of the named religions.

Question:  Or are you inferring a claim of certainty because of they way they state their belief?

     Answer: how emphatic their statement is might give a hint, but there is no way to tell, since lack of confidence can easily manifest in a more confident looking response due to uncertainty and frailty of belief and fear that their ego might be damaged if they are not perceived as 'right'.

Question: Do you think there would be more tolerance of religion generally if people were careful to state their beliefs like CCSOflag did?

     Answer: Yes, CCSOflag left out much of their ego and simple stated an

Implied Truth:
    "I don't know everything and can't possibly know everything because Im not omniscient and all powerful".  

There is less truth in:
     "I know for sure"

Carl Jung explained the psychology of religion as based on experiences.  And like the story of the 3 blind men each holding a part of an elephant, anyone claiming to know all of the elephant/metaphysical universe/god from their one 'limited' experience/perspective, may be being a bit too bold and thus rubbing others the wrong way thus making them less tolerable.

In my experience all religious experiences that lead to the forming of a religion offer unique perspectives on something bigger than any one of them could possibly describe or be experienced.  Claiming to have the entire truth or implying others have none or are 'wrong' (judgement in general) is therefore untruthful.

The 5 senses could not be enough for direct spiritual experience. But instead of thouse 5 senses is possible to develop others, spiritual senses, there have existed peoples, which achieved that, and even nowadays also exists. And if for few is possible, it could be possible for many. And as I considered already, the Bible do not exclude the direct spiritual experience, just for it is necessery other senses/organs, which can be developed with spiritual practice, meditation, others.

I don't think they are spiritual "senses", but just a shift of focus from the outer to the inner.


Very few religious texts actually do, but I think the bible can work on both the level of belief, and also as a direct spiritual text offering direct experience, especially if one studies the non-canonical "Gospel of Thomas".

Regarding "spiritual experiences" . . . I think I've had one or two, but I'm not certain. Sort of like when I look at a doorway from any angle other than straight on I tend to see a rectangle, not a trapezoid. And I feel the same sort of discomfort when someone says "I have definitely had a spiritual experience, no other explanation"  as I do when someone says "one way, and only one way." Not that I doubt their belief . . . just their ability to be certain . . . which is why I get torqued out of shape sometimes on this forum when folks claim that I am deluded or crazy or flat out wrong to have the beliefs that I have . . . when they say it was such certainty.

SteveJ

the repeating positive spiritual experience is not by chanse.

SteveJ


I think we are able to know when something happens to us that is beyond ordinary consciousness.

Most of the time we are identified on the level of the mind and focused on the content of consciousness, things that interest us, things that we desire, but not consciousness itself. We rarely take the time to consider what is this consciousness.  Even rarer is someone who can break that identification with the mind, and take a step back and see it from the outside.

This for me is the definition of spiritual knowledge (or experience). When one experiences a greater consciousness which one instantly recognises as more real. Rather like being absorbed in a film on TV where you temporarily forget your environment. Then someone turns a light on in the room and suddenly you snap out of it your suspension of disbelief. In such as situation you do not doubt which is the more real.

If you have never had such an experience then you either believe that it is possible and that others have had it -- or you don't.  Since such experience is subjective, and cannot be studied empirically, then we have to turn to anecdotal eveidence, and of that there is plenty in all religions.

In Christianty, for example, I would say that the author of the gospel of John had this experience, and later, Meister Eckhart and St Augustine. There just famous ones but I would suspect that there are many others, and in this day and age many, many more.

The we have the other religions such as Buddhism, and certain schools of Hinduism, that are based on this kind of spiritual enlightenment.

The interesting thing is that they all say the same thing, which either implies a ludicrous mass conspiracy, or a universal truth.

Or more common place in all of our dreams and intuitions (gut feelings): as Carl Jung concluded after 35 years of experience helping people look at their dreams and researching human psychology.

dreams
"I am forced to admit that the unconcious is capable at times of manifesting an intelligence and purposiveness superior to the actual conscious insight.  There can be no doubt that this is a basic religious phenomemon, observed here in a person whose conscious mental attitude certainly seemed most unlikely to produce religous phenomena.  I have not infrequently made similar observations in other cases and I must confess that I am unable to formulate the facts in any other way." (p. 503)

wise voice in dreams
"I am totally unconscious of ... where the voice comes from.  Not only am I incapable of producing the phenomenon at will, I am unable to anticipate what the voice will say." (p. 504)

intuition
"My psychological experience has shown time and again that certain contents issue from a psyche that is more complete than consciousness.  They often contain a superior analysis or insight or knowledge which consciousness has not been able to produce.  We have a suitable word for such occurrences -- intuition.  In uttering this word most people have an agreeable feeling, as if something had been settled.  But they never consider that you do not 'make' an intuition.  On the contrary, it always comes to you; you 'have' a hunch, it has come of itself, and you only catch it if you are clever or quick enough." (p. 505)

Footnote: DeLaszlo, V.S. editor "The Basic Writings of C. G. Jung", Random House 1959, pages 503-505.

Thoughts come to you, inspiration comes to you, creative spurts come to you.  These are not of our making but we are the ones that choose to express them.

If there is question of concrete and exact information ot processes hapaned after some specific activity/practices, this should not be considered just as a game of our subconsciousness...
For future prediction and healing can be verified - is been true or not. (instead just 'subjective' feeling of joy, happynes ot enlighment )

I remember also for Nicolas Tesla, for whom is consideret to had some special mind/psyihic abilities, which he used even for inventions.

Just some thoughts:

<<There is no theory or evidence* that the red sea can part.
There is no theory or evidence that wine can be turned into water in the wine.
There is no theory or evidence that a man come back alive after being dead for three days. >>

It still facinates me that these "miracles" are so hard to fathom for the same folks who talk about "physical phenomena" as if it were non-theoretical fact. Yes, I am aware of math/physics . . . and Im also aware of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, black body radiation, photoelectic effect, the Avagadro constant . . .and on and on and on -- and I may be wrong -- that were derived and adjusted to some degree to fit observation, that extraordinarily complicated and elegant mathematics was developed to explain it. To me it's like the first people who saw martial artistry demonstrated and called it magic because they didn't understand the body mechanics behind the throws and blows. They observed somthing, were wrong about how it happened or was affected, but it was real nonetheless. So just because they were wrong about it being "magic" didn't obviate the observed phenomenon.

<<There is no theory or evidence that a man can be born of a virgin.>>

It's called artificial insemination.

SteveJ

SteveJ
I know you were just joking, but artificial insemination performed in a controlled environment is a far cry from having your child fathered by God in some unknown, mystical and magical way.  I am afraid I have to agree with Jason210 on this.  It seems unlikely that the world was a supernatural place thousands of years ago, where people could see the future and perform seemingly magical acts.  However, in present times, when these acts can be recorded, analyzed and tested, no one seems to be able to confirm that such supernatural acts.  Just seems awfully coincidental to me.  

It is a sad thing for me when I see people believing in miracles as literal events, because they stop us from developing any further.

Once such false beliefs are abandoned and you realise you are quite alone, then and only then can you begin to face spiritual reality.

Although I don't deny the existence of God, I try not to think about it. I try to avoid imagining what God is like, or conceptualising God. But I think many people have this idea of God in the imagination that they really believe in.  Such a belief again is like the belief a child has for Santa Claus. In this sense, God is more of a spiritual obstacle rather than a help. While you are worshiping an idea like this, you are NOT facing the reality of existence, but are caught up in your imagination. It too is a form of escapism, which often leads to various forms of repression. Again, it is ok and even desirable to think of God this way at a early stage, but as we grow older, if we are serious about any kind of spiritual growth, we should abandon such obsessions. God is not a cosy little magic person who is going to make eveything alright. This is an object in the imagination. The imagination is not immortal, and one it will die, and if you are identified with it, you will die with it.

That is why I believe it is of the utmost importance to see things as they are now,

sbdt8631
Well, only partly joking . . . Im sure artificial insemination would have seemed miraculous at some point in the past and perhaps could not have even been envisioned. My point is that there seems to be a tacit consensus among non-believers that what we know right now, today, is pretty much established on rock-solid ground. Yet history proves that to be nonsense at the least and arrogant at most.

Here's the thing . . . I don't want to put words in your mouth or in Jason210's but you seem to "agree" with Jason210 that the "supernatural world of the past" doesn't exist today, and you question whether or not it ever existed . . . by which you are saying that everything *EVERYTHING* that happens today has a "scientific" explanation. That just seems far less credible than God to me. And colossally arrogant.

SteveJ

<<It is a sad thing for me when I see people believing in miracles as literal events, because they stop us from developing any further.>>

There's absolutely nothing in the bible that is inconsistent with . . . for example . . . the big bang theory. So Im not sure who you are editorializing to here.

<<God is not a cosy little magic person who is going to make eveything alright.>>

No mature Christian thinks that either. That you would infer that as a possibility suggests that you may not understand the Christian view of God.

SteveJ

Jason210
I may have misunderstood your comment about taking literally etc. . . I agree. There are people at my church who believe the earth was created in 6 days. They are unswerving in that view and consider any other view to be apostate. While I happen to think that's certainly possible (that is, if I believe God is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then I have to believe that's a possibility) I don't actually read anything into Genesis which compels me to accept that it happened in 6 x 24 hour spins of the earth on its axis . . .or perhaps it was sidereal days. Same holds true for parting of the Red Sea . . . whether God waved His hand and the sea parted or whether God caused some earth-born physical event, the effect of which was to provide a path . . . doesn't seem overly important vis a vis the acceptance that He is God. And to argue about that kind of thing seems pointless.

That I believe there is a God of the Universe implies some stuff. The question of whether or not He can make a rock so big that He can't lift it is proof that there's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people asking questions.

SteveJ

>>whether God waved His hand and the sea parted or whether God caused some earth-born physical event, the effect of which was to provide a path

I can understand the "God caused some earth-born physical event" aspect of that statement because there is no magic involved.  It is only when miricles involve some sort of supernatural, magic event that I start thinking they can be nothing more than made up stories.

sbdt8631
Well . . . I guess I was speaking to the palatability of how to view the event because they  both actually involve "miracles" unless "coincidence" or "highly fortuitous turn of events" works. To Jason210s point, an earthquake coupled with a water spout to "part the sea" would be a non-supernatural event, but I am saying that God caused those events at a particular time. I would think that anyone who doesn't believe in miracles or God would have a hard time accepting either explanation.

SteveJ

SteveJ
I can accept that point of view considering Miracles.  To say that they were unusual physical events that happened just when they were needed, to me,  is a logical way of looking at things.  Believers will attribute them as being created by God to achieve God's purpose.  People such as me will say that they were coincidences that were so fortuitous as to achieve the supernatural, miracle status.

SteveJ

Only if you interpret the text metaphorically / symbolically :-)  Which is what I think we need to do -- and I am sure this is what you meant.


sbdt8631


Made up stories? I think there is often a symbolic or metaphorical meaning behind many of those stories, which makes them more than just made up stories. Miracles that I believe have a symblic meaning include the water-into-wine miracle and the Jesus walking on the water miracle. And many others.

When we talk about metaphor usually we are talking about the deliberate use of a literary device as used by Shakespeare. For example, this line from Richard II (one of my favourite plays). It is referring to the murder of the Duke of Gloucester, lamented by his wife:

One flourishing branch of his most royal root,  
Is crack'd, and all the precious liquor spilt,  
Is hack'd down, and his summer leaves all faded,  
By envy's hand and murder's bloody axe.

Beautiful words, but Shakespeare was fully aware of what he was doing, and I believe that this is sometimes the case with authors in the Bible. But I also believe that what seems to be metaphorical language used in the bible is often actually mystical symbolism. While metaphor is the deliberate use of imagery by the author to express an action or concept that could easily be expressed in other language, mystical symbolism is the use of imagery to express something transcendent, something that is non-conceptual, something that cannot be expressed in other terms. The author is doing his or her best, with the vocabulary and concepts available of the time, to express a profound spiritual experience.

Roppenner mentioned CG Jung a few posts ago, and Jung was very much into how man uses symbols to express mystical experiences of consciousness that go beyond ordinary, everyday consciousness. Mystical symbolism was very much studied by Jung and many of my ideas come from there.

I believe that the miracle of Jesus walking on the water is an example of mystical symbolism. It is not simply a made-up story. I suppose it could be a metaphor, but I am inclined to believe that it is a symbolical expression of the experiences of disciples' trying to follow Jesus's path. According to John,  Jesus, was both a man and God, which to me means that Jesus was a man with a fully awakened consciousness. In this awakened state, Jesus would have known that his mind and body, and everything he experienced, was not his real nature - that his true nature was the awareness itself. Thus Jesus had to walk between two worlds so to speak, represented by the water (material) and the air (spiritual). Perhaps Peter was able to glimpse this reality but was unable to stabilise in it, being sucked back to identification with the body symbolised by the sinking back into the water.

Nowadays we are have all these sophisticated concepts to explain it in another way, but back then they used what came natural to them to explain their experiences.

I'll give you two quotes from Arthur C. Clarke:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong."

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So we have people here declaring that certain things are not possible, even though people in the past made such statements.  We do not know how God may have accomplished things, but that is not sufficient cause to say they did not happen.  Someone who could manipulate quantum events could make things appear from nothing, for example.  I'm not saying God did it this way or some other way, but the premise that since we don't know how it could have been done, that it didn't physically happen, is just plain arrogance.  We are not all-knowing and what we think impossible today may happen tomorrow.  We need a little humbleness when we go around declaring what can or cannot be.

Callandor, your position is a non-scientific one. Regardless of what I or others are saying here, science rejects the magical events of the bible as an empirical, literal description of the world. There's nothing arrogant about pointing this out, although I do realise that I can be arrogant at times. If one were to look around for books or websites explaining the scientific viewpoint on the Bible, you wouldn't find one. Instead one would find mostly books written by Christians and creationists claiming that either mainstream science is some kind of conspiracy and that their view is based on a more legitimate but unknown scientific theory.

In the philosophy of science all possibilities are allowed for simple because scientific theories are an approach to the truth, never final. Even facts are not 100% - but rather aspects of perceived reality that are so likely so as to be called facts. However, some of these probable facts and theories are constantly being supported by new empirical evidence, for example, as demonstrated by the technological world. If you compare these accepted scientific facts and theories with the magical claims of the bible, there is actually no empirical evidence for those claims. One can consider them as literal truths if desired, based on some unknown theory, but the probability of such a theory would be extremly low because it's not backed by constant observations. Therefore it's not worth the time of scientists to give it any attention. This is why creationism should not be taught in science curriculums.

Science leads us to either reject as highly improbable the magical claims of the Bible (as made up stories), or look for a non-empirical interpretation of those claims. By empricial I means events that are presented to the five senses and interpreted through the framework of science.

Jason210,

Your argument rests on the assumption that what we know now about the world is enough for us to decide what is made up and what isn't.  I am a big proponent of science and I wouldn't have the ranking in the hardware zone if I didn't, but I know (and the quote from Arthur C. Clarke points to it) that what we think is possible or not possible today can change in the future with new discoveries.  That is why your premise of using today's knowledge to judge what is allegory or an actual physical event is flawed.  If we were in the eighteenth century, we would consider many of the innovations of this century as impossible, yet they actually are possible.  In the same way, you can't declare with certainty that the events in the Bible were not real events, based on your current knowledge of the world today.  You may even change your mind during the course of your life as you see new advances.

Jason210 and Callandor
I have said essentially what Callandor has said several times in this post. And it was never addressed. It would seem that Jason210's point is that "science" is his god . . . I don't intend for that to sound mean spirited. I simply mean that Jason210 and others seem to place a far higher worth on science than I do to the extent that their beliefs appear to have science at the top of the heap.

Someone on this forum -- I think it was WernerVonBraun -- once said that some 18th or 19th century german philosopher proved that God couldn't exist . . . I don't recall the exact proof but it was absurdly arrogant and WVB didn't see it that way. I think this is because of something Jason210 alluded to that when he measures the validity of a claim using the tools he sees as acceptable, there's no arrogance involved.

I'll restate my belief on this again and then give some points to close this question.

It would seem as though many folks seem to be saying that everything *EVERYTHING* that happens today and that has ever happened in the past has a "scientific" explanation *OR* it didn't happen at all. That just seems far less believable to me than that there's a God of the Universe. And colossally arrogant.

SteveJ

Callandor
The argument you are referring to does not rest on any assumption. I wouldn't even call it my argument. It's the mainstream view of science. Like creationists it seems you're trying to justify your beliefs scientifically. Just in case the argument is being misunderstood, this is all I am saying:

There is no theory or evidence, other than the narrative of the Bible, to support the claim that the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible happened in a literal sense.

Do you know what I mean by a literal sense? As an example, it would mean Jesus actually physically walked on the sea. It would mean an being called the devil  - horns and all -- actually physically appeared before Jesus while he was fasting in the desert. A solid, physical reality. That's what I mean by literal. These would be physical objects, sensed by the five senses. In other words empirical objects that existed on a physical level, observable by anyone who would be around.

The problem with that analogy is that the world wasn't technologically advanced 2000 years ago. We know that because we are able to examine history. So unless you believe that we were visited by a highyl advanced race of aliens (also highly improbable), I suggest you drop that line of argument.  Also, I didn't declare with certainty that the events of the bible weren't real events. I said they were not literal events. Also, if you re-read the last two paragraphs of my last post, I have changed what I am saying to allow the possibility of these highly improbable events, the way science does.

SteveJ
No, that's not my point. My point is clearly made in this post, in bold. Science is not my God, either. Empirical science is a merely way of accumulating a certain type of knowledge, and it can be trusted to work within a certain limited framework.  We see continuous evidence of this in that we are surrounded by technology.  That framwork does not include spiritual knowledge, because scientific method cannot be used to examine objectively the experiences of consciousness.

It would a stupid thing to say, since *EVERYTHING* also includes spiritual matters as well as empircal ones. And science doesn't deal with spiritual matters. That would clearly "off".

>Like creationists it seems you're trying to justify your beliefs scientifically.

No, I happen to believe science and the Bible are compatible.  Your view seems to be that the supernatural cannot have an effect on the physical world.  I disagree, and I think science is silent on the subject because science deals with cause and effect, and if the cause is in the supernatural realm, science cannot follow the usual rules to explain an event.  I think your view is that if it is in the physical world, science must be able to explain it, but the whole concept of a miracle is an interruption in the usual laws of the universe.

Callandor
If taken in a non-literal sense, so do I.

Oh no. That wouldn't do. An explanation is nice, but remains theoretical. Much more importantly, science must observe it or at least observe evidence of it. But there isn't any evidence. No-one observes these things.

I find it very interesting that many religious people criticise me for having this view, and call it arrogant. It's not at all a strange view. It's not at all strange to believe in things there is much evidence for, and doubt things that there is no evidence for nor even a theory. This is how we generally go about life. It's natural. So really, critcism ought not to be directed towards this view, as it is well understood. Instead, criticism ought to be directed to towards the view you hold. We should be asking why do you believe in something that in scientific terms has no hard evidence, no explanation and is highly unlikely ? It seems that you think that you can justify your beliefs (and SteveJ) due to a philosophical tenet of science that states that scientific theories are only an approach to the truth, never final. So somehow there's room for your belief there. And there is, but actually science, while allowing for the possibility, would not accept it because science always goes for the simplest explantation that fits the observations - a principle known as occams razor.  In the case for the bible being an historical, literal description of the universe, we don't even have any oservations to put theories to.

It is my view that those Christians who believe in the Bible literally do so because for them the physical world is the only thing that is real. It is the only backdrop available where the miraculous and spitual events could play out. In this case the angels and devils need to be solid 3D entities in order to be real. But the problem is that on that literal level, even if it works for some, Christianity (and Islam for that matter) cannot be compatible with any religion and in this sense cause division in the world. As long as these divided religions mind their own business I suppose there is no harm in it, but they don't do they? For many that for many Christians and muslims it doesn't work. They get it wrong and kill each other. Or they have a lot of doubts. Wasn't this why SteveJ posted in the first place because he has doubts?

When Christianity does work, I think it's because people undergo some kind of transformation of consciousness...you might want to call it God coming into you. This can happen anywhere, anythime, any religion.

Jason210
I don't believe I called you arrogant. I called the view that everything can be explained empirically or scientifically arrogant.

<<Empirical science is a merely way of accumulating a certain type of knowledge, and it can be trusted to work within a certain limited framework.>>

I think this may be where I mischaractarised your thinking. So often on P&R the fact that my belief in Christ cannot be force fitted into this framework obviates it. I thought that's what you were saying as well.

<<It would a stupid thing to say, since *EVERYTHING* also includes spiritual matters as well as empircal ones. And science doesn't deal with spiritual matters. That would clearly "off". >>

No, that would have made my statement circular. I think we are on tangent thoughts . . . I am saying that I thought you believed all things could be explained scientifically, and if they could not be explained scientifically, then they didn't happen . . .  they were figments of imagination which could then be explained scientifically. If I "think" something that cannot happen in the "physical" word, that doesn't make my thougth "spiritual", by the way. I am not trying to say all things must fall into a scientifically explainable category or they automatically become part of a spiritual category. I thought that's what you were saying . . . and I stated that I thought that view was arrogant.

<<But the problem is that on that literal level, even if it works for some, Christianity (and Islam for that matter) cannot be compatible with any religion and in this sense cause division in the world. As long as these divided religions mind their own business I suppose there is no harm in it, but they don't do they? For many that for many Christians and muslims it doesn't work. They get it wrong and kill each other.>>

Jason210, this so oversimplifies the matter that I cannot even begin in fairness to address this in this thread. I'll open another question one of these days. The reason I said science is your "god" partly derives from statements you've made like this. You seem to see things in black and white, this or that, and relegate the shades of gray to the fringe or anomolies . . . as in the scientific method.

SteveJ

I'm glad we understand each other better now.

Yeah, well ok, they don't kill each other so often but there is tension and conflict between different religions. And also I don't think its healthy attitude to go around thinking one's religion is right while all others are wrong. Do you hold that view? I think Callandor does.

Ok . . . you've asked a direct question and here's the best I can do:

I think there are far more similarities than differences and I think the purpose served by pointing out the differences is at best devisive and at worst dangerous. I think I can believe my "way" is the only way without being devisive or destructive. If I didn't believe my way is the only way, then as someone earlier in the post stated . . . there wouldn't be much point in my thinking about it at all. I also think that in a very real way many of the differences are inconsequential. For example, the age of the earth . . . whether I believe it's 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000 is not central to Christian belief. Insecure people who need to be right about something in order to feel good about it may need to latch on to things purely out of something other than spiritual righteousness.

The tension or conflict you refer to I would argue doesn't emanate from true believers, it is born of hatred which isn't central to any true religion.

I don't think Callandor is insecure or wrong. Perhaps a little more Calvinist in his/her thinking than I am?

SteveJ

I don't have to be right; my view is what I think the Bible teaches, and I am open to someone showing me that I don't have it right.  They would have to have at least as good an understanding of the Bible, or I might have a difficult time being swayed; otherwise, we are just discussing personal opinions.  I am somewhat closer to Reformed thinking in that way.  There are major doctrines which I will not compromise on, and there are minor ones which I do not believe affect salvation.

What about Islamic extremists? The problem for me with them is that I have nothing against Islam, Islamic extremists even, other than they want to force their religion on me. I would not be able to accept it, not because I think Christianity is right, but because I hold the view there's good in all religions if interpreted in a certain way, and it's the person's spiritual dimension that matters above all else.

Callandor
As we have discussed many times, the New Testement is based on a selection out of over about a 100 books which were written by a variety of authors non of whom were writing at the time Jesus existed. The selection of the 30 books or so to be included in the New Testement was made by Christian scholars centuries after Christ died. Those scholars also decided upon which doctrines would be central to Christianity and promoted those doctrines. These doctrines were not determined by Jesus, but rather represent the collective opinion of the early Christian church. We don't know all the reasons why such an opinion was formed, but studies I have made do tend to show that the early Christian church was very much conerned with the survival of Christianity, and needed to "market" the religion in a way that would be simple and appeal to all. A version that was easy to teach, and to convert non-Christians with. This is perhaps why Thomas was taken out. Thomas was too mystical and obtuse.

I think we need to take this into account and consequently question some of the central doctrines of Christianity.

There is facts, that some key dogmatic statements been compiled few centuries after Christ, by "universal conscils" and others. But that, that many peoples believe in some church dogmatst, accepted/established by te churchs, do not make the valid. Some of them can be considered just like a human interpretation of some Bible texts, which can be not the only explanation/understanding for them.

About the miracles: there is point of view, in which miracles do not exists, but have some hiden nature laws/processes, known to just not many highlevel Initiated/Masters.

And knowledge to influence to the materia, time and space could be big power, which is hidden for most of the peoples now. But this do not means that all "miracles" are miracles or a events happaned in 3d material world, some of them can be simbolic ot to be related to processes in the spiritual worlds.

<<We don't know all the reasons why such an opinion was formed, but studies I have made do tend to show that the early Christian church was very much conerned with the survival of Christianity, and needed to "market" the religion in a way that would be simple and appeal to all. >>

If indeed that's the case, then they did a horrible job because the teachings of Jesus they "chose" are difficult and the writings of Paul which make up a great deal of the new testament are anything but simple with mass appeal.

<<These doctrines were not determined by Jesus, but rather represent the collective opinion of the early Christian church. >>

That's an assertion that you cannot prove. That the bible was divinely inspired does not preclude later additions or subtractions. Perhaps they "opinion of the early Christian church" was arrived at through long days of fasting and prayer . . . perhaps the opinions were derived from a need to fleece the flock. That Thomas was not included may or may not have anything to do with whether or not it was obtuse or too mystical.

<<. . . needed to "market" the religion . . . >>

That's editorializing. Or perhaps English is not your first language and you don't understand that in the US marketing is not a neutral term and implies a sort of insidiousness to the action. And that phrase seems to obviate the direct claim of Christianity which is to preach the gospel and create disciples.

SteveJ

Thanks to all who participated

Thanks for the points.

SteveJ


It can't be proved but there's good historical evidence to support the idea that early Christian church determined which texts and which ideas it thought contained the path to God. Certain ideas were permissable and certain ideas weren't. For example, texts that portrayed Jesus as a wise speaker, rather than a miracle maker (Gospel of Thomas) were suppressed. The first and second letters of Paul to the Corinthians was allowed, but the third one didn't make it. The gospels of Mathew and Luke were chosen (both generally agreed to be secondary texts written over a century after Christ's death), while the Gospels of Mary, Phillip and Peter were condemned. The orthodox did not allow texts that contradicted with their ideas to flourish. With that, the New Testemant was born. This is not my opinion, it's history. Sounds to me like you've never critically looked your own religion or you'd know this.

There's also evidence to suggest that early churches motives were not always the best. For example, in the suppression of womens role in the church. You can look at scholars like Keith Elliot for information on that.

In my opinion, there is also an absence of evidence in the gospels that justifies the view that the virgin birth, and the resurrection, and so on, should become central themes in the religion.

****

You mentioned before that you think I tend to see things in black and white. I think this is because science views the macro world of nature as pretty much black and white and I was presenting that view. The quantum world is clearly gray, but the devil appearing in the desert, and water turning into wine, would clearly rank  non-quantum events.

I think that you and Callandor are the ones who see things in black and white, at least concerning the bible :-)    I mean, your beliefs that the the miracles must have physically happened is very concrete view.  Your views that the the New Testament, and the orthodox view of Christianity with all it's doctrines, must be the only truth, and the only path to God, is a very concrete, uncomprising view. Somehow that seems more deserving of the title "black and white".

My view of religion does not belong to any extreme or fundamentalist schools, and nothing is written in stone for me. I look for unity all the time in all religions. Hardly the stuff of black and white.

Thanks for the discussion.

btw Jason,
It's good to know someone agrees with me about the forming of the NT canon and how suspect it is.  Was a pleasure as always.

Thanks all.

CCSOFlag
In the 2nd century, the view that Jesus Christ was a mortal man was one of two competing doctrines about Jesus' true nature, the other being that he pre-existed as a divine spirit. In 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, they decided he was divine spirit.

In fairness, the early church probably needed an orthodoxy to survive. If it had allowed contradictory texts then may be there would never have been a stable Christian religion. Just think how influential it has been on our lives. Without that we wouldn't be where we are today.

A lot of the Christian writings that were suppressed were often written much later or in some way appeared dubious, but some of them were ok. The church fathers weren't keen on gnostic texts, for example, and the forerunner of gnostic texts is Thomas, believed by some schools to precede Mathhew and Luke. THAT should have been included in the canon, not just beacuse of that, but because it's such a damn good text. That and John are my favourite texts from that religion. But the early Church fathers didn't like it, so out it went.

Relevation, incidently, was a fairly late introduction (arouind 400AD). Prior to that, the Shepherd of Hermas (another strange allegory) had taken its place.

I agree.  

I haven't read the Shepherd of Hermas yet I don't think.  Will have to check it out.  There are just so many books, and not enough time to read them.. LOL  At the end of the Acts of Andrew at the moment.  The Acts of Thomas is next.

Jason210 . . . to assert as true that which is yet to be proven is the oldest -- and certainly on the P&R forum the most overused -- trick of debate. You say that perhaps I've not done a critical review of my own religion. Or perhaps I don't place the same value on the body of works regarding the history of Christianity that you do. There are certainly more books on the history of Christianity than there are on the Viet Nam war . . . but they all claim -- if only tacitly --  to be the authoritative and definitive work.

SteveJ

Jason210 . . .just reread my post. I didn't intend to sound mean spirited. I am very familiar with a number of books on early church history, most of which I find moderately interesting but in large part bunk when they begin to trail off into subject areas that are not generally agreed upon. For example, I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian that doesn't believe the resurrection of Christ is a central theme.

As I stated earlier I believe the bible was divinely inspired. That includes insertions, deletions, translations . . . that just seems to fly in the face of your belief, and perhaps that's why you are taking a wild swing with regard to what I have or have not read, and whether or not I am a "black and white" kind of guy. That's ok with me. I'm not trying to covert you, nor am I offended by anything you've said . . .nor swayed. As to seeing things in black and white, and insisting my way is the only way, I think you are drawing a conclusion from evidence of just the opposite. At least, that's what I've tried to maintain . . . I *believe* ( as in  . . . I am pretty sure) my way is the only way, but I could be wrong. I don't think so.

SteveJ

Thanks for the points. I think in such kind of discussion can be learned many interesting, and if don't take it personaly, could be base for future investigations in the name of True!

Steve, I didn't "assert" that you had not critically looked at your religion. I said you seemed not to have done so because you appeared to to be unaware of the history of the bible. This was suggested by your statement were you said that I can't prove that the central Christian doctrines were not determined by Jesus, and yet, this is what history shows us -- that the early saints and Church fathers determined those doctrines.

Now it seems you are saying that accept that, but saying that they were all divinely inspired.

Many people are divinely inspired - it doesn't make what they do definitive and absolute in matters regarding spirituality. A hymn is divinely inspired. Paintings in the rennaisance were divinely inspired. And many of the non-canonical texts were divinely inspired.

You're going to tell me next that the selection of the books of the New testement was divinely inspired, right? There's not much more I can say, except that fine, they probably were, but it was still men doing the selecting and men are not God. Or do you believe that back then, at that particular time and place in history, at that particular council or synod or whatever it was, that the divine inspiration was somehow special? That it somehow involved Jesus influencing the event in some supernatural way? That divine inspiration back then was different to the divine inspiration of today, and that it resulted in a canon sealed by the approval of God? In other worss, that the selection og books is authoritative? The religion is authoritative? Do you believe that the decision to remove women from an active role in the church - was that also divinely inspired? The decision to throw out Thomas which was too mystical? What about the crusades. Alll those particpating were divinely inspired, or at least thought they were.


In Islam, the text of the Qu'ran is said to be divinely inspired. And, unlike the bible, the history of that text is well known. Much of it was recorded in real-time as Muhammad spoke, scribbled on scraps of parchment or leaves. The Qu'ran is primary text, pretty much transcribing what Muhammad said. Muhammad went up a mountain, like Moses, for his divine inspiration, then came down and preached. So the origin of the text of the Qu'ran is much more directly linked to the founder of that religion, compared to Christian texts, and the divine inspiration for the text was to Muhammads and Muhammads alone. Doesn't that make it more authentic? Trustworthy?

So here we have another group, another religion, claiming to be authority. From my point of view, there is nothing very much different about the divine inspiration of Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, and certainly nothing that would make me choose one and reject the others.  In each case the divine inspiration seems to have had a specific purpose at the time. Put simply, to help a particular race or people at a particular time in the history of our development. In each case the philosophies and insights of the divine inspirations of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad also reached beyond the scope of religion and to humanity as a whole, but each time there was something new that kind of made the philosophy applicable to the people it was dealing with. Moses primary purpose was to save the Israelites, Jesus saved the Jews from the depravity of the romans with his message of peace and love, and Mohammad helped the Arabs with their cause.

Where does this divine inspiration begin and where does it end? Who's to say what is and what isn't divine inspiration? Whose to say which divine inspiration is and isn't authoritive? I say none of these examples are authoritative because none of them apply exclusively to our situation today. and it seems that those that do claim the authority of any particular example of divine inspiration can only do so by...yes you've guessed it...divine inspiration.

Oh dear.

Jason210 . . . I think we have a disconnect . . . and I hope to set that straight. For argument's sake, lets say God/Jesus is perfect and man is imperfect. For man to be devinely inspired "perfectly" is impossible because that would make man perfect. So the more I can remove non-spiritual motives from my thinking, the closer to perfect my divine inspiration will be. So stuff got added and removed from the bible . . . and to your point it was men that did it, not God. I don't think I ever said that the bible was a perfect reflection of God, however I do believe it is mans' best attempt.

Whether someone with a personal desire for power and wealth initiated the Crusades or someone who actually and honestly felt God was calling him to initiate the Crusades will forever be unknown. There is no history that can reveal the hearts of men. And that's true for every "issue" you cite. There are certainly views and opinions, but they fall short of truth because they infer from situation.

As to the koran and its historical veracity . . . there are competing thoughts about your claim and not necessarily drawn along the lines of "pro" and "con". By your own admission, that someone wrote something down isn't in and of itself proof of validity.

Utimately I believe Christianity directs us away from ourselves and toward a sort of perfection which is often described as "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love God with all your heart, mind and soul". And there are certain other beliefs within Christianity that I also adhere to. To "claim authority" as you put it is for me to believe with all my heart, mind and soul that there is a peace and joy to be gained by following Christ. I am sorry that you seem to see this as a claim for authority or some sort of vain superiority. Frankly, it's that kind of thinking that causes the schism between religions, believers and non-believers, whether or not intentional. And if you are saying that the anthem "my way is better" is a market owned and dominated by religion and religious zealots then you are living on a different planet from the one I live on. Spend 10 minutes in any large bookstore . . . "my way" to better health, better fitness, better reading skills, better programming, better biology, better zen, better thinking, better gardening, better . . . .

Im not trying to say I am better than you or others because I believe the things that I believe. I am truely sorry you see it that way.


SteveJ

About the perfection - there is few mentions in Bible about that, ...atleast in the translation on which my Bible is (from 19 century translation and style).
In some "modern" may be translations the word "perfect" is replased with "mature", which is not the same. I think Bible shows that human can be perfect and have to be ,  and for the perfect ones, who can distinguish the good and bad. The other question is the mentioned in the Bible Wisdom - the possibility to know for the things and Universe in spiritual way, even without reading it in any book before.
 The important question is how this can be achieved and with which methods. And appropriate methods for that can be changed for the specified time/country. The humanity been supported during the ages from spiritual worlds with new revelations / inspirations, even in 20 century existed Spiritual Teachers. It is writen - "will recognize them by them fruits". And learning of contemporary Spiritual Teachers do not means thet "you are not good christian" - that is just what some churches prefered you to thing (and which is not true)

thought this was interesting.  

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

SteveJ

Ok, so it's not a claim to authority, just man's best attempt at understanding God. Being man's best attempt, it must therfore be better than man's attempts in all the non-canonical books, and better than man's attempts in the books of all the other religions of the world. Best attempt is a much nicer word than authority, but it still places the Bible above all else.


Giood for you. I'm glad it works for you.

In the earlier post you said you believed the Bible was divinely inspired. The implication in that statement is that the bible is therefore perfect, the word of God as he wanted it to be. As such it would be authoritive in comparison to other scripture, unless you believe that was divinely inspired too.

"Vain superiorty" not something I have accused you have.

Observer_123

Where? Can you post any examples to support this?


But without interpretitive framwork you would struggle to be able to express that knowledge. I believe this is the problem that Jesus had.


Why would it be important to be a "good Christian" anyway? When I hear the words "good Christian" I get this image of an obedient bible reader and church goer, who is not necessarily deeply enlightened spiritually.

I think CCSOFlag has the healthiest attitude here to Christianity. It's his religion that he grew up with and in that sesne is part of him, yet he remains aware that is flawed and that Christinaity does not have a monopoly of the turth. At least I think that's how he sees it :-) Correct me if I'm wrong.

See King James Edition:
Mathew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

John 17:23
"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

James 1:4
"But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."

Hebrew 5:13-14
"  For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.      
  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." But I have bulgarian translation where is like "the hard food is for the perfect"

Hebrew 6:1-2
"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,      
  Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. "

I thing this is enought:) - Perfection is more important than "faith toward God", "doctrine of baptisms" and "eternal judgment"!

<<Ok, so it's not a claim to authority, just man's best attempt at understanding God. Being man's best attempt, it must therfore be better than man's attempts in all the non-canonical books, and better than man's attempts in the books of all the other religions of the world. Best attempt is a much nicer word than authority, but it still places the Bible above all else. >>

You're trying to set a semantic snare . . . "mans' best attempt to understand God" is not the same as "the attempt to understand God which is better than any other attempt to understand any other god". Perhaps you are talking to a group of people you *think* I represent. Or I am doing a poor job of conveying my position . . . or you are intransigent toward the notion that "we" don't all think the same.

<<In the earlier post you said you believed the Bible was divinely inspired. The implication in that statement is that the bible is therefore perfect, the word of God as he wanted it to be. As such it would be authoritive in comparison to other scripture, unless you believe that was divinely inspired too.>>

No. You are either contradicting yourself or putting words in my mouth. I was clear.

<<Why would it be important to be a "good Christian" anyway? When I hear the words "good Christian" I get this image of an obedient bible reader and church goer, who is not necessarily deeply enlightened spiritually. >>

That's an odd comment, more or less reveals a latent bias against Christianity, particularly since you just described a bad Christian. Har!

<<I think CCSOFlag has the healthiest attitude here to Christianity. It's his religion that he grew up with and in that sesne is part of him, yet he remains aware that is flawed and that Christinaity does not have a monopoly of the turth. At least I think that's how he sees it :-) Correct me if I'm wrong. >>

Gee Jason210. Now I am beginning to wonder if you only read what I posted to try and find fault. I predicated my comments on CCSOFlag's statement from another post and thought I portrayed myself precisely as you described CCSOFlag's beliefs. Maybe there was something I said unwittingly that predisposed you to rat hole me. That's too bad.

Jason210 there are several places in this thread where you appear to be setting up a straw man, but if English is in fact your second or nth language maybe I simply wasn't sufficiently clear and some stuff I said was lost in nuance. I'd like to think that's the case, otherwise I'd have to conclude that you developed an opinion of my belief and held to it without regard to  . . . what I stated.

Oh well.

SteveJ

SteveJ
That doesn't sound at all like "I think CCSOFlag has the healthiest attitude here to Christianity. It's his religion that he grew up with and in that sense is part of him, yet he remains aware that is flawed and that Christinaity does not have a monopoly of the truth [sic]"

Quite often you say things and then later you say you meant something else and that this is what you meant all along. Also you have a tendancy to be sarcastic which doesn't create a good atmosphere for discussion.

You've put words into my mouth too. For example, by claiming that science is my God.

The things you accuse me of, you're guilty of yourself. You've misunderstand much of what I've said, even though I believed I was explaining it clearly. I don't think it's a language problem either. Apart from the odd typo my english is excellent. I made it quite clear on a number of occasions that science does not accept the claim that the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible happened in a literal sense, yet both you seemed to interpret that as meaning something else.

While 99.9% doesn't amount to certainty, it is as certain as you can get with regard to beliefs. The remaining 0.1% is there to safeguard against absolutism. Yet this sounds more like the attitude of a scientist to me. Shouldn't a spiritual person be 100%? Is faith the same as belief? Isn't faith more like a transformation of consciousness, of God coming into your world? True spirituality isn't about beliefs, it's about direct experience and direct knowledge.

I'm not rat holing you but when you say that other Christian writings are bunk, while the canonical writings are divinely inspired and are man's best attempt to reflect God, you risk pigeon-holing yourself as an orthodox Christian. It is precisely those orthodox beliefs that I am trying to get people to question because I do believe that Jesus was one of the most important spiritual figures ever and want to encourage people to think differently about some of the things he said and allegedly did.

However, I do not get the impression that you are orthodox like Callandor. I get the impression that you are uncertain and unclear in your beliefs.

Observer_123.

Thank you for that - much appreciated!

I think we should distinguish what in Bible teach us (1.) Crhist and his direct disciples(apostols) , 2. what "Church Fathers" started to teach later, and what is now accepted as church dogma(3). If nows exists around 4500 christian churches, there is some difference between them as between catolic and eastern ortodox had difference about that who sends the Spirit - the Father or Christ.
I thing the  real base have to be point (1.).

But now in general in church christianity is accented on things like birth from virgin, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And I thing many christians state this as fundamental in christianity, because they been teached on that, I dont thing everybody will find this as main theme in the Bible, but if for hundreds years this been teached from the church, it become as "establishment", which can be overriden/overcomed -with detailed and sincere attitude for independant investigation of the True, not colored by dogmats and traditions.

And if in the Bible is stated the direction for perfection and direct spiritual experience, then what  the 4500 contemporaly churches accepts, could not be the higest authority. On my experience I see that there is other possibility - to be Christian without following the Church, and for that have reasons.

Observer_123

An excellent comment in my opionion. I see nothing worng with calling yourself Christian and following the teachings of Jesus in your own way.

Btw...when I say "othorodox" I am referring to mainstream Christinity, and not the eastern orthodox church :-)

Orthodox then.

<<#35099006
I am saying -- for example -- I am 99.9% sure that my Christian faith is the "One True Religion" and that Jesus is the only way to the Father and when or if that percentage reaches 100% it is no longer faith, it is certainty.

That doesn't sound at all like "I think CCSOFlag has the healthiest attitude here to Christianity. It's his religion that he grew up with and in that sense is part of him, yet he remains aware that is flawed and that Christinaity does not have a monopoly of the truth [sic]">>

I shouldn't have said 99.9%. I cannot put a value on it and I should not have.

<<You've put words into my mouth too. For example, by claiming that science is my God.>>

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, it simply seems that way to me derived from the quantity of references you make to science. I didn't mean it to sound arrogant. My god used to be sex, drugs and alcohol.

<<I made it quite clear on a number of occasions that science does not accept the claim that the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible happened in a literal sense, yet both you seemed to interpret that as meaning something else.>>

No, I simply reject the notion that science is the final arbiter in all arguments. I don't disagree with your statement, however: science does not accept the claim. My view is that "miracles" and "supernatural events" are beyond the scope of physics, chemistry and math and [the fact] that science does not accept the claim is irrelevant or a non-sequitur.

<<Yet this sounds more like the attitude of a scientist to me. Shouldn't a spiritual person be 100%?>>

I'm not sure I follow. If I combine hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur in a specific way I get sulfuric acid. I am 100% sure of that, not 99.9%. If I theorize the behavior of sub-atomic particles under certain conditions and I am 99.9% sure of the outcome, how can I be certain as a scientist that miracles don't occur in that .01%? Yet you seem unyeilding in your view that science can discount miracles.

<<I'm not rat holing. . . orthodox Christian . . . It is precisely those orthodox beliefs that I am trying to get people to question because I do believe that Jesus was one of the most important spiritual figures ever and want to encourage people to think differently about some of the things he said and allegedly did.>>

I'm non-plussed by that observation. Are you calling me part of the "mainstream"?. The view that the bible is divinely inspired and that those writings which were excluded from the bible were "divinely" excluded I believe is a mainstream Christian view . . . so taking that view hardly seems . . . a self pigeon-holing activity. The view that Christ was just some guy and not God on earth is an apostate perspective in Christianity.

NOTE: Sarcasm follows . . .

<< . . .  want to encourage people to think differently about some of the things he said and allegedly did.>>

So, how would you want people to think about the things he allegedly did? That he didn't?

Sorry, Jason210, I couldn't resist.

Yes, your English is outstanding . . . better than mine. I hope you weren't thinking that I was taking a swipe at you when I asked if it was a second language. I was dead serious. At some point -- I honestly have no clue why -- I thought you were from Denmark and that English was a second language.

<<I get the impression that you are uncertain and unclear in your beliefs. >>

I get the impression that you said that thinking it might sting. Yet it is accurate, though not a terribly profound observation. It's pretty much what I have said all through this thread. I have claimed uncertainty, in fact, that's the theme of this question. As to lack of clarity in my belief . . . of course, a lack of certainty implies a lack of clarity, right?. But I think your view of clarity in this regard implies seeing it your way, and as I remarked earlier, placing the same value as you place on various readings.

I'll have clarity when I die.

SteveJ

Steve
Well you shouldn't be 100% sure of it, because science isn't 100% sure of it. Just like science is 100% sure that miracles don't occur. The probability that you will get sulphuric acid is so high as to call it a fact, but to say that it as a 100% absolute fact could be deemed to be...arrogant. I doubt it is possible to measure the probability of it in any way but let's just say that as a fact its probability is 99.999999999999999999% --- never 100%.

It is precisely because scientific facts are not absolute in this way that there is a infinitesmal chance that the miracles of the bible happened in the physical world. We discussed that earlier. Of course, no-one believes that they won't find sulphuric acid there, and no scientist believes that the devil is some physical being with horns and tail that torments people in the desert. But, these are beliefs, even if we feel sure enough to call the facts. The philosophical nature of empirical knowledge is such.

Of this I am very clear. And also on this - the only thing you can be 100% certain of is your own awareness. To doubt that would be totally stupid.

You hope.

Unfortunately, there is no you there when you die, so although the clarity will indeed be there, you will no longer be there to witness it.





 

Ignore that last post because there is a small but fundamental error in it. BAsically I can't type very quickly and keep missing out words and doing typos:

Steve

Well you shouldn't be 100% sure of it, because science isn't 100% sure of it. Just like science is 100% sure that miracles don't occur. The probability that you will get sulphuric acid is so high as to call it a fact, but to say that it as a 100% absolute fact could be deemed to be...arrogant. I doubt it is possible to measure the probability of it in any way but let's just say that as a fact its probability is 99.999999999999999999% --- never 100%.

It is precisely because scientific facts are not absolute in this way that there is a infinitesmal chance that the miracles of the bible happened in the physical world. We discussed that earlier. Of course, no-one believes that they won't find sulphuric acid there, and no scientist believes that the devil is some physical being with horns and tail that torments people in the desert. But, these are beliefs, even if we feel sure enough to call the facts. The philosophical nature of empirical knowledge is such.

Of this I am very clear. And also on this - the only thing you can be 100% certain of is your own awareness. To doubt that would be totally stupid.

You hope.

Unfortunately, there is no-one there when you die, so although the clarity will indeed be there, you will no longer be there to witness it.

Well it doesn't want to come out. It seems some strange influnce is preventing me from writing what I want to say. One more time:

Steve


I'm not sure I follow. If I combine hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur in a specific way I get sulfuric acid. I am 100% sure of that, not 99.9%.

Well you shouldn't be 100% sure of it, because science isn't 100% sure of it. Just like science isn't 100% sure that miracles don't occur. The probability that you will get sulphuric acid is so high as to call it a fact, but to say that it as a 100% absolute fact could be deemed to be...arrogant. I doubt it is possible to measure the probability of it in any way but let's just say that as a fact its probability is 99.999999999999999999% --- never 100%.

It is precisely because scientific facts are not absolute in this way that there is a infinitesmal chance that the miracles of the bible happened in the physical world. We discussed that earlier. Of course, no-one believes that they won't find sulphuric acid there, and no scientist believes that the devil is some physical being with horns and tail that torments people in the desert. But, these are beliefs, even if we feel sure enough to call the facts. The philosophical nature of empirical knowledge is such.

<<Unfortunately, there is no-one there when you die, so although the clarity will indeed be there, you will no longer be there to witness it.>>

Yet another scientific claim, Jason210? Or is there some uncertainty in that statement? Or perhaps you have some philosophical weasely-wording to wrap that up? Har!

Thanks for your involvement and your responses Jason210

SteveJ

SteveJ

Yet another scientific claim, Jason210? Or is there some uncertainty in that statement? Or perhaps you have some philosophical weasely-wording to wrap that up? Har!

Weasily-wording. How about you go and fuck yourself? Will that do to wrap it up?

Sorry, couldn't resist that :-)

It's my sense of humour - a little less subtle than yours.

Nice. I suppose I asked for that.

SteveJ

To be clear, tho . . . my reference to "weasly-wording" was a general editorial comment about philosophy and the notion of "now" and wasn't intended as a personal attack, but I apologise because it appears from your confessed inability to contain yourself as though you took it personally.

SteveJ

Wow, this just keeps getting more and more interesting.

I'm going to try to play mediator here, because I think you both are not getting across to each other.  I could be wrong, but let me know if any of what I say helps.

Jason wrote:
I think CCSOFlag has the healthiest attitude here to Christianity. It's his religion that he grew up with and in that sesne is part of him, yet he remains aware that is flawed and that Christinaity does not have a monopoly of the turth. At least I think that's how he sees it :-) Correct me if I'm wrong.
For the most part yes.  The difference between me and most other Christians, and what Steve I think is trying to get across, is that most Christians believe the Bible is God breathed.  They believe it is unerring and is total truth.  Do I accept the fact that there is a chance that this is true?  Sure, it might be, but I don't believe it.  What I have seen, heard, and read leads me to believe otherwise, but it doesn't make me right.

I think many Christians believe Christianity will become void if the Bible isn't the unerring word of God.  Why they believe this?  I have no idea.  I think maybe it's been brain washed into them since being a child.  I know I used to believe it until I started thinking for myself instead of swallowing everything a preacher had to say.  I believe I remember even Jason saying the Bible has much importance even if the religion is false.  I tend to agree.  There are a lot of morals/idea in it that would make humanity/the world a better place if followed.  This doesn't make the religion true though.


Steve, I agree with Jason that there is a difference between how I think and what you stated with your 99.9% certainty.  There is a difference between believing your religious texts have errors in them and having uncertainty with your religion being true.  I do believe Christianity to be true, but only because I have not seen something else that convinces me otherwise.  I also accept that it may not be true.  There is no proof of it being the true religion, thus I cannot say it is for sure.  We don't always know for sure the things we believe.  The difference with me is I do not accept the Bible as the full unerring word of God and the final say in Christian doctrine.  I refuse to accept what some schmucks with an agenda slapped together and claimed as canon.  If what scriptures say is true, the Spirit can and will guide me in what the truth is.  I will decide what I accept as truth and what I don't.


Jason, I agree with Steve about the whole science thing.  It seems at times you are too black and white when it comes to science and what it explains.  IIRC it stems from you not accepting anything "supernatural".  From that standpoint, I think it can be hard to explain certain things.  I think the underlying issue though is when you do speak of what some classify as supernatural, it sounds like you are saying it couldn't have happened unless science can explain it.  Correct me if I'm wrong though, that's just the impression you give.  Just because science can't explain it, doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't happen or exist.  I started a thread a long time ago about an experience of mine that involved what we'd call ESP.  Science refutes ESP, thus it would be considered unexplainable.  I KNOW it happened, because I'm the one who experienced it.  I don't remember if you participated in the thread or not.  Things like this are why I do not accept science having to explain everything.  This event happened whether science can explain it nor not.

There are many many things that science cannot explain.  They can't even explain how the brain truly works, but it does.  In the past there have been many things attributed to the supernatural because of lack of science knowledge and I definitely agree with you on that.  When one believes in a deity that has unlimited powers (or limited for that matter), it opens the possibility of supernatural event.  I think the problem is, especially back then, that people lean on it as a crutch.  They just attribute it to God instead of seeking out a possible natural answer.  I understand you do not believe in it, thus from your view point it all must be explainable at some juncture in time, but not necessarily now, correct?  HAving said that, do you accept the possibility that the supernatural could exist?  That a supreme being could be responsible for certain things?  I know I personally accept the possibility that the supernatural doesn't exist, but since there are so many things that are unexplained just from what I've experienced, I believe in the supernatural.   Maybe some day science can explain them, but as of now, they can't.



Jason wrote:
Well you shouldn't be 100% sure of it, because science isn't 100% sure of it.
I don't follow you here.  By definition isn't H2SO4 sulfuric acid?  Isn't that what science has called it?  thus wouldn't they be 100% sure it's sulphuric acid?  Could you explain a bit more please?

<<. . .and what Steve I think is trying to get across, is that most Christians believe the Bible is God breathed.>>

Not exactly. I believe the bible is full of allegory, poetry and literal narrative. I honestly don't know what most Christians believe. To talk about "beliieving" the bible is a little awkward without specifics. Do I believe in the Noah's Ark story . . . not sure, but not because science says it didn't. Do I believe in the Adam and Eve story . . . I think it's poetry and allegorical. Do I believe that Christ will return on a white horse out of the clouds with a sword for a tongue? I believe He will return, but I'm not sure my beliefs will come crashing down around me if he returns in an F-18A. I think the notion that everything in the bible should be taken literally misses the point, and I don't mean that to side-step an argument: I believe that Christ was God on earth, that He arose from the dead.

<<There are a lot of morals/idea in it that would make humanity/the world a better place if followed.  This doesn't make the religion true though.>>

I don't disagree, but I'm pretty sure just being a good guy won't save me in the Christian sense. But I'm not really sure what point your are making . . . Many people, including me, reject the idea that Christianity is a religion, partly because that word is so often used pejoratively. It is also used in the sense that "if you follow these rules, you will go to heaven" as in the better you are the better chance you have for salvation. And that's false . . . to me.

<<The difference with me is I do not accept the Bible as the full unerring word of God and the final say in Christian doctrine.  I refuse to accept what some schmucks with an agenda slapped together and claimed as canon.  If what scriptures say is true, the Spirit can and will guide me in what the truth is.  I will decide what I accept as truth and what I don't.>>

I think I follow what you are saying but you seem to be mixing a) what God actually says with b) what the bible says and c) what some people interpret the bible to mean. With regard to a) Im not sure we will ever know in this life, but we will have a glimpse from time to time in the form of spiritual enlightenment or religious experience or whatever name you want to give it. With regard to b) this is where the Holy Spirit will guide us and regarding c) woe unto the schmucks who may or may not include the "schmucks" you explicitly referred to, or you, or Jason210, or me, or the prosperity gospel lunatics and on and on who've got an agenda with themselves at the center.

<<Jason wrote:
Well you shouldn't be 100% sure of it, because science isn't 100% sure of it.
I don't follow you here.  By definition isn't H2SO4 sulfuric acid?  Isn't that what science has called it?  thus wouldn't they be 100% sure it's sulphuric acid?  Could you explain a bit more please?>>

He was refusing to concede a point.

SteveJ

Not exactly. I believe the bible is full of allegory, poetry and literal narrative.

For sure.  My statements didn't mean to imply that it was literal.  I was just trying to say most believe the Bible is God breathed.  Meaning it came from God (but man wrote  it down).  I definitely don't dispute any allegorical or poetic stories in the Bible.  Personally, I believe it came from man with the purpose of spreading what they believed or wanted others to believe about God and Jesus.

But I'm not really sure what point your are making . . .

Trying to say just because people believe in something written down doesn't make it true.  Even people who don't necessarily believe in the religion or culture the texts support, they still may agree with the principles.

I think I follow what you are saying but you seem to be mixing a) what God actually says
IMO, we don't know what God actually says except through what the Spirit tells us.  I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, I believe it to be the Word of Man to spread who God is.

with b) what the bible says
What the Bible says is exactly that.  No disputing this one.

and c) what some people interpret the bible to mean.
This is where it gets ugly.  One big problem is translation.  Shoot, even the fact that the original languages are used differently now then they were 2k years ago.  Then you add in people's own personal feelings and one verse now means 50 distinct things.  This is why we have so many Christian denominations these days.  what am I talking about, even when Christ first came we had a bunch of different "denominations".


He was refusing to concede a point.
Possibly, but not necessarily.  If you've been around long enough you'll know that Jason has quite a different way of thinking.  His concept of the world, consciousness, existence, etc is quite eccentric.  This is why I wanted him to explain more.  This is why I enjoy discussing things with him.  He has such a different point of view on some things, it blows me away at times.  The best part about it though is most of what he believes makes sense.  I don't agree with him on a lot of it, but at least it makes sense and he has a reason for believing what he believes.  

About H2SO4, I suppose ne can mean Mark 16:17-18 - thouse who believe, will have a signs, like to speak new languages, ban  bad spirits, to take snakes with hands, to drink deadly fluids/drinks, to heal with hands.
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

In some "harismatic" churches speaking of languages is considered as sign to Holy Spirit, but Ap. Paul comments in meaning to have efforts for the better gifts, not just languages.(See I Korints, chapter 12)

But the Gifts can be individual
" 28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
 29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
 30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
 31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

I know some of mentioned things are possible, not drinked H2SO4 and fome soldiers been trained to take cobras

But for me the signs for the Holy Spirit could be recognised by Galatians 5:22-23
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Thanks CCSOFlag . . . this post is proof enough that words can be interpreted differently from how they were intended. Apparently I threw a match on Jason210s gas reserve and it took him nearly 10 minutes to extinguish the flame. He seems a little thin skinned.

Thanks Observer 123 . . . it all comes back to scripture.

By the way Jason210, that wasn't a "sense of humor" and you actually know nothing about mine.

SteveJ

CCSOFlag

I'll repsond to your question because I do believe that you are genuinely interested in what I have to say.

You and I have had these discussions before. I have said before that science cannot predict with absolute certainty. Callandor also pointed this out earlier in this thread, regarding miracles, and I had to agree with him. Which is never easy...

If we are to allow for the possibility of miracles in a literal sense, then it follows that the laws of physics may from time to time be broken, or do something completely unexpected. In your example of sulphuric acid, a genie may appear instead.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Now I don't think that's a very black and white view. To say that nothing is certain. Black and white is a metaphor for Boolean logic, which something either is, or is not. I am talking about probability. If you claim that some piece of empirical knowledge is 100% true then that excludes all possibility of doubt. That's the black and view, and it's not mine. It's not how empirical knowledge works.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that miracles are the reason why scientific knowledge is never absolute. Empirical knowledge is relative, not absolute. Science cannot prove, only disprove. It can safely say what is not, but not what is. An example. It only takes one reaction to produce something other than sulphuric acid, and suddenly what we had taken to be fact is no longer fact.

Now I, like everyone else, have my beliefs. I believe there are no such things as miracles in the literal sense. I believe that sulphuric acid will form, and not a genie. But I have good reason for holding that belief, and that goes for all my beliefs. Facts are quite solid.

What you probably find hard to accept is the apparent absence of any spiritual dimension in my thinking. Spiritual knowledge is not about thinking or ideas, it's about experience, about transformation of consciousness. Some may call it God entering your person, and the eastern philoshophies would talk more about a levels of consciousness and so on. The Hindu advaita school, which is probably the closest I can come to believing in a religion, would call spiritual knowledge the non-conceptual reflection in the mind of the supreme reality, that is subsequently conceptualised and finally expressed in words, but words can never convey it.

People get upset when I say that the personality vanishes when you die. They think I am trying to deprive them of something they need to believe in. If they were not identified with the body, they would not have this need. I'm pretty certain that is what Thomas meant when it quotes Jesus:

OK, I think it just clicked on your thought process Jason.  Thanks.  Now that I understand what you meant, I tend to agree.  I think I got thrown off by the words you used in some previous posts.  I do agree that something isn't true if it can't be proven.  Thus it's only a theory.

I would imagine you wouldn't believe in miracles.  Wouldn't that require you to believe in a supreme being?  or do you think a miracle can come from something else?

Honestly I think your ideas on consciousness and all is a type of spiritual existence.  Maybe not in the same way as a supreme being, but I find it spiritual none-the-less.  Maybe I jsut define spirituality differently.  Who knows.  Not that it mattes anyways, a belief is a belief.

Thanks again for the clarification.

Well, at the end of the day, all experiences could be within a dream. I can't be certain that what I cann the physical world, and all the events that take place in it is real, and not a dream, even though it seems real.

I believe it to be real, and most of the time I don't even question that belief. But when I think about it, it would NOT be right to say with 100% absolute certainty that it is real.

However, there is one thing that is impossible to doubt, impossible to deny. Awareness. At this given momenmy, I am aware. As Decartes said, I think therefore I am. However I have often toyde with the paraphrase: I am, therefore I think. But most certainly, I am.

Yea I think I remember you talking about that before.  I agree for sure.  It does amaze me with how so many people talk with certainty though.  I remember a thread where I was trying to tell people to prove unicorns, vampires, etc don't exist, since they claimed they didn't exist.  They were calling it a fact that these were just fantasy creatures, but how do we know?  I do like Descartes' phrase though.  I agree that it is the single thing that is beyond doubt.  Hopefully one day we'll know for sure how this whole thing works.  LOL  Doubt it, but I can hope, right?  

oh and you mentioned all this could be a dream.  I remember the first time I watched the Matrix, it totally freaked me out, because I sat there and thought of how possible that is, and I wondered how we'd even know if we were dreaming this all out or not...

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
1 Corinthians 13:9

observer,
The Matrix could be programmed to simulate the coming of Christ, so we still wouldn't know if it was real or not.  remember in a computer you can program anything you want.  It could simulate us going to heaven, feeling no pain, seeing ancestors, etc.  That is assuming your verse was in response to me saying we wouldn't know if we are dreaming...

I consider that instead just dreaming, the real things can be proved, by different peoples, or even scanners/machines. And for example the prophesies - it they happand as they been predicted every time by someone, this man is prophet. If someone heals every time with success(ot in mosts) - he is healer. Like this - by example :)

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Life is but a dream.

lol

propel, propel propel your craft
gingerly down the solution
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
existance is but an illusion

Jason210, your comment about how you are glad to explain stuff to CCSOFlag because he seems interested in understanding your beliefs wasn't lost on me. I am sorry I have given you them impression that I don't care for a couple of reasons. First, it's not true, I am interested. Second, it would be a very lame hobby to simply write crap, post it, and not look at or noodle on the responses.

But here's a great example of why I have difficulty with your thinking . . .

<<People get upset when I say that the personality vanishes when you die. They think I am trying to deprive them of something they need to believe in. If they were not identified with the body, they would not have this need. I'm pretty certain that is what Thomas meant when it quotes Jesus:

<<28. Jesus said, "I stood in the midst of the world, and came to them in the flesh. I found all of them drunk. I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul was saddened for the sons of men, for they are mentally blind. They do not see that they have come into the world empty and they will go out of the world empty. But now they are drunk. >>

If this in support of your belief that "personlity vanishes when you die" it's weak at best and misunderstood at worst. First, there's very little scripture that can stand on a few lines. In fact, that's where most crappy ideas about what is likely intended by scripture come from . . . a single line or two taken out of context. Not that this line is necessarily taken out of context, but it seems clear to me that Jesus is talking about the unsaved.

It's very easy to take scripture and apply head knowledge to interpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean. You have a lot of head knowledge . . . when discussing or debating spirituality there's value in head knowledge. It isn't just a debate or discussion to me.

That's our tragic disconnect.

SteveJ

hmmm . . . one last thing about head knowledge . . . H2S04 is sulfuric acid, not formica or oak or chocolate milk. That seems a confusing proposition to some. Unless you take the position that there's always uncertainty in everything. And if that's the position someone takes and also takes the position that miracles can't happen in the "physical" world, then that person is inconsistent in his beliefs.

Actually, Jason210 that's where the disconnect is between us. You are the proverbial "moving target" in debate. That seems to be a common issue in P&R. What starts off as a discussion turns personal ("Go f**k yourself" . . . Really, Jason 210? That's your rejoinder?)  and then it becomes a matter of being right and winning.

I get plenty of that nonsense from my youngest son . . .

SteveJ

Sssssh

lol

Steve,

He doesn't believe in miracles, he is trying to say there is no way for sure to say every time H2SO4 comes together that it will make Sulphuric Acid.  We know that all the times we have seen it it does make Sulphuric Acid, but there is not 100% certainty that it will always do that every time forever.  It may still be H2SO4, but it may no longer have the properties of Sulphuric Acid has as we know it.  He's speaking in definitive terms.   This is why I agree with him in this case.  We don't know for sure if what H2SO4 is and how it reacts will change.

or am I way off base here Jason?  LOL  

Steve think of it this way.  I know it's not the same thing, but I think the parallel is legitimate.

Before the first person fell out of an airplane without a parachute and survived (or their parachute failed) everyone most likely said you'd die for sure if you fell without a parachute.  By all means, the laws of physics would say you will die if you fall unaided from 5k feet much less 18k feet.  But I have heard stories about people somehow managing to survive these falls with just a broken leg or what not.  Whether it was a miracle or not, it still broke the laws of physics as we held on to them.  Thus now it's no longer 100% that if you jump out of a plane you will die.

Does that help at all?

CCSOFlag


Yes, this is the same logic that allows for miracles -- breaking the laws of physics. It would still be physics, but it would be a physics that we don't know. However, we'd probably not go so far as to say it's supernatural, although if I genie did unexplanably appear in the test tube it would certanly be beyond what science can explain and supernatural science in that sesne.

If you say that anything happens with 100% certainty, you are claiming that facts are absolute.

The parachute example is kind of the same thing. Although no laws of phsycis were broken something highly improbable happened.

Although no laws of phsycis were broken something highly improbable happened.

Yea I guess your right.  Just trying to get a good parallel.  LOL  thought that one would work.

mirror.jpg

Wow . . .

I am 100% certain that we call H2SO4 sulphuric acid . . . because if we looked at something and it wasn't H2S04 we wouldn't call it sulphuric acid. And if we combined hydrogen and oxygen in the proper amounts and we didn't get sulfuric acid (which appears to be possible in Jason210s universe) and we got a genie in a bottle, we wouldn't call it sulfuric acid. But are you saying the genie would be composed of H2S04 but not be sulfuric acid? This is the realm of weasely-speak I don't really want any part of.

Perhaps I shouldn't have referred to "combining", that seems to have gotten folks wrapped around the axle with my remark. We call HCL hydrochloric acid and we call NaCl salt and on and on and on. I cannot say with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can say with certainty that table salt will have impurities . . .is that what you are both alluding to? Or are you simply claiming that nothing is certain with respect to physical law? Would you also then say that no matter how many time 1+1 have been added together to equal 2, there's no certainty (Bertrand Russel notwithstanding) that 1+1 will always equal 2?

CCSOFlag . . . are you saying the probability of getting non-sulfuric acid when combining hydrogen and oxygen in the correct quantities is about the same as surviving a fall from 18k feet?

I wish I had posed my original question differently. sbt38232=283248 or whatever was the only person to directly respond. But as is typical for P&R the answers ranged from "no" to "go fuck yourself".

By the way Jason210 . . . in the interest of full disclosure,  I was patronizing you when I said your English was better than mine. But I am guessing you must have known that.

SteveJ

CCSOFlag . . . are you saying the probability of getting non-sulfuric acid when combining hydrogen and oxygen in the correct quantities is about the same as surviving a fall from 18k feet?
No, just saying they're both almost impossible.  And don't forget about the Sulfur.  :P

I am 100% certain that we call H2SO4 sulphuric acid
H2SO4 will always be H2SO4.  that is a 100% certainty.  It's because that's how we define it in and of itself.  Sulphuric acid on the other hand has certain properties to it.  IT reacts certain ways with certain things.  H2SO4 is a molecular compound.  Sulphuric Acid by human definition has certain properties to it.  If somehow one instance of H2SO4 didn't adhere to these properties we couldn't call it sulphuric acid any more.  It doesn't follow the properties of sulphuric acid.  It still is the molecule H2SO4, but it's not properties of the H2SO4 are now different.

1+1 will always be 2 unless humans change the meaning of 1 or 2 or what + means.

Or are you simply claiming that nothing is certain with respect to physical law?
I guess you can look at it that way.  To my knowledge there is not a physical law that is proven.  It's all theories and accepted because there is no disproof.  I could be wrong though; I'm not a physics major or anything.

<<CCSOFlag . . . are you saying the probability of getting non-sulfuric acid when combining hydrogen and oxygen in the correct quantities is about the same as surviving a fall from 18k feet?
No, just saying they're both almost impossible.  And don't forget about the Sulfur.  :P>>

Sorry. I was being a smart ass. The two seem so distant in probability . . . I can imagine surviving a fall from 18k . . . it has happened and though improbable it is easier to foresee that than producing a genie by combining H and O to produce sulfuric acid.

<<He doesn't believe in miracles, he is trying to say there is no way for sure to say every time H2SO4 comes together that it will make Sulphuric Acid.>>

That seems to me a defining point and the fallacy of his position. "I don't believe in miracles, yet it is not impossible that combining hydrogen and oxygen in quantities normally associated with sulfuric acid would produce a genie or something other than sulfuric acid."

Ok, maybe I don't follow. . . but that's ok . . . it's becoming less and less relevant that I understand:

<<Sssssssh>>

ROTFLMAO

SteveJ

Just in case anyone missed it, SteveJ is misrepresenting me by putting into speech marks around something I never said:
For the record, here is my quote:

"If we are to allow for the possibility of miracles in a literal sense, then it follows that the laws of physics may from time to time be broken, or do something completely unexpected. In your example of sulphuric acid, a genie may appear instead." #35280689

There is no fallacy.

Nope. Paraphrase. This is quoting you:

<<There is no fallacy>>

Yes, fallacy exists.

You say that to allow for the possibility of miracles in the literal sense then the laws of physics must be broken. The fallacy within which you frame your position is that your laws of physics are the elephant that the three blind men are trying to describe. It's just that they've done a fairly good job up to now. The laws weren't broken. That's the fallacy and arrogance of your position.

And here's my favorite quote from Jason210.

<< Go fuck yourself>>

It's still mind boggling that you would resort to that. I try and restrict my comments to those that I would make to someone's face. It's too easy to type that kind of nonsense onto an anonymous blog or web page.

Oh, well . . . IOH

SteveJ

Jason210's been taking the low road on some of his comments - in another thread https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/26887415/Is-G-d-omniscient-If-so-then.html?anchorAnswerId=35158936#a35158936, he said that he hoped SStory would be thrown to the lions.  I mentioned that it was a totally inappropriate comment to make, but he never apologized or explained himself.

SteveJ
Fail. My quote again: "If we are to allow for the possibility of miracles in a literal sense, then it follows that the laws of physics may from time to time be broken, or do something completely unexpected. In your example of sulphuric acid, a genie may appear instead." Notice the clause do something completely unexpected.

SteveJ
Another fail. Speech marks, in whatever context, signify a quote exactly as it was. That's basic knowledge for anyone who has had any contact with scholarly work. It's also specified in the MLA citation guidelines. When you paraphrase, you don't use speech marks. I don't care what insults you throw at me but you not going to misquote me and get away with.

Just like almost all your arguments, these two posts yet again indicate that you lack basic skills in debate, and basic gerneral knowledge.

*****

The reason we have disconnect SteveJ, is that we don't personally like each other. However, it is you who has dragged this down to a personal level, not I. While I have presented serious and intelligent arguments, you have not. On the rare occasion when you have attempted to argue an intelligent response and it failed, you switched to a game where you simply rebutt my arguments by posting comments heavily laden with sarcasm and usually containing thinly disguised insults. I find it almost exasperating how you can make claims and statements, which, when late exposed as flawed, you simply dismiss valid arguements with comments like "weasely wording" or "I don't care". If this kind of immature, provacative behaviour is normal for you (and I think it is), then you oughtn't to be surprised when someone occasionally turns round and tells you to fuck off (or if you were in a pub -- gives you a bloody nose).

And the interesting thing about all this, is you claim to be filled with the love, light and warmth of Jesus. ROFL!

Callandor, you forgot about the time when I told Bob Siemans to F-off also, and Waterstreet gave be a an official warning about that. I am not a robot, and if people are continually rude to me, and sarcastic and insulting, and there is no system in place to stop that kind of behaviour, then I may get angry from time to time. And then they get what they deserve. When I was younger I used to be much worse, these days it's rare but it happens.

This is NOT what happened with SStory. SStory's tactic in debate seems to be to wear opponents down by continually quoting scripture. He's very knowledgable on Christianity and I have actually saved some of his posts on my hard drive. I have nothing against him, other than he is totally unable to see things in any other way than his own.  He is such a typical Christian that it makes him an easy target for those kind of jabs. My comment was a joke. I was not even in a dialogue with Story when it happened. And I didn't see your later comment rebuking me for it. As to pigeon holing, what's wrong with that? He is what he is. I'll apologise to him for the nasty jab next time he is in discussion.

If you are the new moderator here now, what do you have to say about SteveJ's continual insulting and provocative posts? His tactic seems to be to provoke his opponents into losing their temper, then. When I swore at him it had nothing to do with the content of his arguments, but rather his condescending way of responding to them by resorting to some sarcastic irrelevant comment, for example about my English being poor, or my response being contrived, as in when he used the words "weasely wording". Another time he accused me of being a moving target. Each time he resorts to one of these tactics instead of responding, or just being silent. Do you find it acceptable to behave in that manner?

I never respond to people's who are pleasant or have genuine desire to discussion by making personal attacks. As you well know, I disagree with you on so many things, but I have always respected you because you have never been personal (even if we've been close to it...).

Now if you want me to leave these forums, then just say so. I will gladly go.

Jason210,

If you didn't intend to be malicious and are willing to apologize, I'll take your word on it.  I'm not the moderator, but I like to see people respect others as human beings, even if they have differences of opinion.  And yes, SteveJ can go overboard with the sarcasm and hurt people - I don't think he realizes that he does it sometimes, but I bet he will apologize if he recognizes that he's crossed the line with you.  We don't have body language aids to see how people take our posts, so we need to more careful when posting.

You don't really need my permission to post in this zone, and I would not want someone to stop participating just because we don't agree on topics.  I would say that those who make personal attacks should not participate, as it destroys the community.  It is sometimes difficult to know when we go too far, and then a forgiving heart is needed.

Jason210,

I've not intentionally been rude to you nor have I shown any disrespect.

The unfortunate nature of post/blog communication is that we are all misunderstood from time to time and things we said in jest are taken as insult. I will concede that I've perhaps been remiss in that regard.

You, sir, however, have stooped pretty low. You say that my tactic is to provoke into losing temper? That's your confession for giving me the power. I simply point out in my view the weak points in your statements. That you would lose your temper means that I "win" on both counts, neither of which I was trying to accomplish.

You are also incorrect in saying that we don't like one another. I don't know you. That you would not like me based on comments on an anonymous post says more about your spirituality than you may realize.

Last, I never said your English was poor. I implied that you were missing nuance. I think I may have been inadvertently calling you stupid. I apologize for that.

As for debate? You need to respond to specifics and you don't. That's poor debate. And you lose your temper, that too seems poor debate.

Good luck Jason210, I'll be praying for you.

SteveJ

Thank you Callandor.

Steve, I know can sound hard, and without "nuance" but that is my style of debate. I have responded to criticism of my arguments in this thread the way I usually do, although may be an unconscious factor has made me focus more on you. You, sir, have in return chosen to either make fun of my responses or dismiss them with some sarcastic comment. On other occasions, where you say you have pointed out the weakness of my arguments, you most often haven't. An example of this is a statement I made regarding the uncertainty of empirical knowledge. I had presented the idea that we can't be certain of anything other than our own awareness. You then claimed that you were 100% certain that a chemical reaction will produce a certain result. I rejected this, pointing out that if we were to allow for the possibility of miracles in a literal sense, then it follows that the laws of physics may from time to time be broken, or do something completely unexpected. The upshot of this is that one cannot, therefore, predict with certainty anything -- including your chemical reaction.

It was actually Callandor who first alluded to this idea in this very thread by saying that science doesn't know everything, and that miracles therefore must be a possibility. I had to agree. But when you said that you are 100% certain that a chemical reaction will produce a certain result, I had to disagree. Then you seemed to take it all personally and repeatedly tried to attack this simple logic statement by misquoting me on it, making fun of it, calling it a fallacy and God knows what. Instead of just conceding the point, you went on and on trying to attack it. And most annoying of all you eventually changed your argument from that of predicting a chemical reaction, to that of observing a chemical!

All you had to say was, ok, I see your point, but how about this? How about when I observe something right now? That is 100% right? The debate could have then preceded in a constructive manner.

I accept that I am incorrect in saying that we don't like one another. I think the reason for our "disconnect" is that you haven't been pointing out the weakness of my arguments using reason. I believe you allow your emotions to subvert your rational thought, and thus lose sight of an argument and wander off down some alley, taking the unsuspecting with you. This is why your threads tend to go on and on and on. They are without rational basis. You avoid outright emotional appeal, but your attempts at debate remain ruled by your attachment to emotion. I suspect your sarcasm partly is a defense mechanism for your insecurity about this.

That you might desire something to be true does not give reason to believe it, and the fact that you fear something being true does not give us reason to think it is false. To do either of these is a fallacy.

You're right, Steve, I don't know you, but I'm getting to. You don't know me, either, and you should be aware by now that it's not a good idea to make cutting sarcastic remarks to strangers. It's not a nice way to approach people.

You don't need to pray for me. If you really want to do something kind, you can stop hiding yourself from others.

Jason210,

I use sarcasm when I feel someone is being intellectually dishonest.

<<And the interesting thing about all this, is you claim to be filled with the love, light and warmth of Jesus.>>

This is the kind of statement that causes sarcasm to exude from my every pore because it is bizarre and absurd and a clear personal attack and the very definition of intellectual dishonesty. I have not made that claim on this post, and just because you didn't include it in quotes doesn't make it any more palatable to read. I have claimed to be a Christian, yes, but you don't know me, and you don't know what I used to be and without knowing either of those things and making that comment, you position yourself as . . . well . . . a jerk. Sorry. And if you know anything at all about Christianity, and it would seem though you can produce scripture and you have read some history you are missing some critical knowledge: I am human and prone to wonder. You, on the other hand, claim nothing personal and cuss at me. What's up with that? What's more I explained that the reference to weasel wording was aimed at my views on the worth of philosophy. Holy cow, man.

I made a poor point about sulfuric acid and later observed that I wish I had and should have said it differently.

I thought perhaps English was your second language because of a prior post. I was mistaken and I said so.

I made inappropriate remarks that I shouldn't have made and I believe I apologized for them.

And, no, you aren't getting to know me at all . . . that you would presume that I would be sarcastic in the sense of piss and vinegar rather than the sense of a "slap on the back and a grin" without asking?  I have committed the Sin of the Post which is to forget the narrow dimension. You are correct, people use sarcasm to mask all sorts of things. That you would presume to tell me that I am hiding myself, that you would presume that I don't like you, that you would presume to tell me I don't know anything about Christian history, that you would presume to tell me that my arguments are ad hominem indicates you have no interest in knowing me at all. And that you would tell me not to pray for you is at the same time presumptuous and odd. That's what I am called to do. And though as you point out, I am not perfect, I am trying.

SteveJ

Yes I am presuming things about you Steve.

Don't. For one thing, feelings will mislead you.

Ok, so I recommend both of you now take a few days off from this thread and let things settle down - it's too easy to say something you don't mean, and words can't be taken back easily.  I think both of you don't want this to get out of hand.

<<Don't. For one thing, feelings will mislead you.>>

Nope, certainly not this time. Jason210, you're patronizing comments and sarcastic tone are a fun foil to my condescension and sardonic sense of humor. It's too bad this discussion didn't take place face to face because I am fairly sure we would have come away with respect for one another. You have to believe me when I say that I was goofing with you. I never intended to piss you off. As you rightly point out, however, this form of media doesn't lend itself well to discussions between people who don't know one another.

I like the give and take. I don't mind setting myself up as a target on this forum to be mocked and ridiculed. Tho to be clear I don't think you mocked or ridiculed me . . . that was the bobsiemens, WernerVonBraun, patrickAB method of operation.

Jason210 . . . I am sorry that I spun you up. Honestly, I that wasn't my intention. You seem to be a bright guy and tho we don't appear to have much in common, I can't see a reason to end this thread with an admonition from Callandor to stop behaving like school boys.

Later,
SteveJ

Well, I took a few says off as Callandor suggested.

SteveJ
The reason I said that "you claim to be filled with the love, light and warmth of Jesus" is because much earlier in this thread you said:

SteveJ
Is there is a fundamental difference between my statement "filled with the love, light and warmth of Jesus" and your statement "believe with all my heart, mind and soul that there is a peace and joy to be gained by following Christ."?

Jason210,

I honestly don't know if you are being serious OR if I don't follow your question. First of all the ROFL after your comment indicated sarcasm to me. But more fundamentally, it indicated the common disconnect between most Christians and non-believers . . . which is . . . just because I say I follow Christ does not imply that I am incapable of losing my temper or behaving like a jerk.However, if I am honestly trying to follow Christ, then there should be a noteworthy improvement of my "behavior" over time. I thought that was obvious. Apparently not.

Your ROFL comment would imply that because I claim X, then Y should be present at all time. What I am saying is that I claim X, and over time Y will be present more and more often.

SteveJ

SteveJ,
You said I was absurd, bizzare, intellectually dishonest and a jerk because I said I found your behaviour odd for someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus. Pretty strong words. So, in humble defence of my blunder, l meekly point out your earlier post where you make this claim, and what do I get? I get the response "I have not made that claim on this post".

Well thank you for clearing it up! Now I understand. I also understand that is impossible to continue any form of discussion with you because I don't know which posts apply at any given momemt, and which don't! You're like a one-time code pad. Unfortunately I don't have the key, and so I don't and can't know what's going on in your head.

Jason210,

That's a pretty distressing post.

<<And the interesting thing about all this, is you claim to be filled with the love, light and warmth of Jesus. ROFL!>>

That is a bizarre, odd statement because I thought you understood that following Christ is a transformation that occurs over time. And I think that statement is intellectually dishonest because I believe you know that spiritual enlightenment is a transformation that isn't instantaneous with regard to behavior. And my belief that you posses the qualities of a jerk relate to telling me to "go fuck" myself.

<<I said I found your behaviour [sic] odd for someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus.>>

Again, I don't know whether to take you seriously or not. Are you under the impression that once someone says they follow Christ or that they love God with heart, mind and soul that they are then incapable of sin? I think that's where you are pretending to be confused in order to take the high moral ground. As I said, transformation happens over time.

<< I get the response "I have not made that claim on this post". >>

Har! From whom did you get that post? Wasn't me. Or perhaps you don't understand what I mean by intellectual dishonesty:

1) I claimed to follow Christ.
2) You said that doesn't appear to be the case.
3) I said following doesn't mean that I stop misbehaving with respect to Christ.
4) You said that I am now claiming not to have made the claim.

Really? I can't seem to qualify things that I've said without you asserting that I've changed my position.

Actually, I think you are trying to retaliate and get me spun up like I spun you up. Because I don't think you are really confused about my position. I think you may disagree, and I think you may believe I am wrong, but I don't honestly think you *really* don't understand like you are pretending to.

Sorry Jason210, you're no fun any more.

Sorry Callandor and WaterStreet. I stop posting.

SteveJ

Har!

Callandor and WaterStreet . . . I was apologizing for calling Jason210 a total asshole, but I didn't.

SteveJ

No, I'm not confused Steve. I can see your boundaries now. I got you all figured out. NEXT!

:-)

***looking hard for "noteworthy improvement of my "behavior" over time"***


***still looking***

Har!

Yes, you do have a problem with nuance. . . I considered calling you a total asshole but decided against it. I simply failed to remove the apology.

To wit: improvement over time.

***still looking***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JmA2ClUvUY&feature=related

Stop looking. People don't ever find what they don't want to see. Besides, I could never live up to your standards. You've made that pretty clear.

SteveJ

. . .and I should have shown some courtesy in that last post to let you know that my interest in this thread has dropped well below that necessary to follow a you-tube link. I'm sure it is very compelling.

But thanks anyway.

It was fun exchanging acerbic remarks until you began to be negatively effected by it. I'm genuinely sorry that I kept after you. I never intended to leave a mark.

SteveJ

Since I started joking around with you, you're the one who seems to have got all negative!

You should have looked at the you tube link.

Don't worry Stevie :-)

Everyone leaves a mark, and very often they don't mean it. I was at my wifes sister's the other weekend, and her 2 year old son had a hiccup and left a mark on my jeans. It washes out very easily.

As for your apologies, well that's a grown up thing, but yours seem to lack sincerity and mostly come packaged with criticism and comments seeking to justify your own behaviour and reproach mine, which tends to counteract the apology. May be you need to say you're sorry when you're in one of your rare Christian moments? Perhaps the moment never lasts long enough for you to complete it and the verbal diahorria comes out. But who I am to say? I really don't know how to interpret any of you posts because there is no standard by which to do it. I do not have the one-time pad necessary to decipher you.

I'm sure you make sense to yourself, and I'm sure there's a general improvement in your behaviour over time, even though it's not evident in this thread. I guess it's like a graph of economy growth. It dips down into the negative quite often, but looked at over a certain time scale a general trend can be identified. However the trend is by no means guaranteed - a irrecoverable collapse may come at any moment.

I genuinely apologise if I have said anything offensive in this posts or these threads!

Good luck
Jason

:-)

I think you two are not doing a good job of reconciliation, so I recommend that you both stop posting to this thread.  A change of heart is not going to happen overnight.

Jason210,

It's not often that my rants are compared to barf and liquid fecal matter . . . well, ok, maybe it happens all the time.

Yes, my apologies may have been glib. Kinda like when I used to fight with my wife and I really thought she was out of line and I was right . . . I'd apologize but in a way to convey the possibility that she was being an idiot.

I hope this apology doesn't sound insincere: I have been out of line and unfair. You have been correct to point this out.

Sorry Jason210 . . . honestly.

Steve

Thanks - i aplogise too.