»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The Source
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The Source |
|
|
Dark Enchantress Senior Member
since 1999-07-27
Posts 1258meet Morgana |
I'm sure as everyone knows there is no real way of pin pointing the exact source of pain in a mentally disturbed person. Normally it is do to a chemical imbalance, which may have been influenced as well by society. Anyone who has a form of depression or mental illness knows this first hand. But in responce to what fractal posted, what makes the youth have these beliefs? We've discussed this already thoroughly saying that it was depression, their general outlook on life, rebellion, spirituality, religion, and so on...but it brings me to wonder about cause and effect. I believe that everything happens for a reason, to bring about a particular effect, if you will. What's to blame when the effect is not what is desireable? Or perhaps, is there even a source of blame? Maybe it's better to just be without it. I have witnessed many views similar in some form to what the youths that fractal told us about believe in. I had lost my faith in everything and simply shrugged thinking, "Well if it becomes too much there's always suicide." Which I know is NOT the solution. Suicide is a perminant "solution" to a temporary problem. That isn't entirely true though. It's only temporary if that person is "treated". So what is the treatment? What will save their soul? Their mind? Their spirit? Who else could do it but themselves? I couldn't imagine somebody wanting to get involved it the battle, but I suppose that's because I know how terrifying it can be. I'm not sure what I mean by all this. I just started rambling on about it all. Anyway, I guess I'm just kind of curious to see what anybody else got out of it all. Just generally. I am no one if not myself. Angel of Darkness [This message has been edited by Dark Enchantress (edited 02-12-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Morgana - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Dark Enchantress: I am glad that you have "rambled." Helps to get the crap off of one's chest and into the open, where people can dissect it if needs be. I am not a manic depressive, nor have I been diagnosed with any form of depression. However I have felt the depression that goes along with adolescance. I am sure that everyone else here has as well. It is the kind of thing that makes one cry out to a god or some other thing, because it seems that no "mortal" can possibly aleviate it. At least, that has been the common thing with me. I have heard from other people who have had it much worse, that the kind of depression that one experiences in manic depression is something that one would not wish on one's worst enemy. About cause and effect, it is quite possible that humanity as a whole is going through some stage of adolescence. Perhaps we are coming into a more holistic phase of our existence, but we keep teetering at the edge of oblivion. To me, the scarriest thing is living life not really knowing what to think or believe. I've often said to people that I can "see through everything" and see that it is just an elaborate construct by a society that is unwilling or unable to face the ultimate questions of existence. However, that view is extremely self righteous and probably won't lead me very far in life. The other thing that bothers me is the fact that death is the only way we will get the answers we want. I am not advocating suicide, but it seems to me that most of the world's religions[at least those religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam among others] talk about afterlives, like Heaven and Mecca and so on. They seem to be built heavilly around death. "When you die you will meet God" for example. And then, after all that's been said, Hell pops up in the discussion. "If you don't serve God you will go to hell." That's the thing that makes me extremely angry. If there's one thing that causes me to doubt the Bible, that's it. Hell and Satan and Heaven all seem to me to be elaborate ruses designed to make large sums of people believe and do certain choice things dictated by tsmall groups of people. Now, this is where I will likely be making several people here rather angry or at least frustrated with me. Don't get me wrong, I am Christian. However, I am also mad at God, or whoever it is that was responsible for creating me in the first place. If He wants me to live life in certain ways, then why doesn't he just say so. Instead, he has to give us "signs" that are indistiguishable from random occurances. Then, of course, people will quote the scriptures in response to this question, citing verses like those of Revelation's prophesy of the "lake of fire" and other things. So, in short, if you want a cause, it's narrow mindedness. The "existential"/Satanist or whatever other word there is for them youth are narrow minded, thinking that all spirituality is really an orwellian construct designed to stop people from thinking for themselves. The scariest thing to me is that nobody knows who's right in this whole thing. It all reminds me of Billy Joel's song Goodnight Saigon where he sings "Who was wrong, who was right? What did it matter in the thick of the fight?" Everybody's too darned busy backseat driving in each others lives to start living their own lives the way they want to. I don't know if you or anyone else shares this problem. All I know is that I am darned confused. Everybody's saying the same thing - "There's us, and then there's them who are all evil and trying to hurt you." Who is wrong? Who is right? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Someone once said something to me which impressed me deeply and though not verbatim it went something like this... "Go ahead and paint hell in the blackest most hopless colors you possibly can. Take it's sinister possiblilities to the greatest depths of darkness imaginable. Make it the most awful predicament one could think... and still it will only cause the love of God to shine even brighter ...The blacker the setting, the more glorious the precious stone. Augment hell and the compassion and grace of God will be augmented all the more. Why?? Because the worse that hell is, the greater the love of Christ is that he came and endured death and the cross and the very wrath of God to save us from that hell." Though the idea of hell is an awful thing, and I will never rejoice in it , the above thought has helped me out. It somehow changes things when you feel that God (as revealed through Christ) despises hell more than even we do and proved it through the cross for our sake. Yes I believe that hell is a reality and not a fabrication of man ...I have sensed it and percieved it myself. Besides, man seldom disqulaifies or condemns himself with his haughty self centered doctrines. But I believe in the grace of God more. |
||
|
Dark Enchantress Senior Member
since 1999-07-27
Posts 1258meet Morgana |
Well, I don't want to sound judgemental now so please understand that before you continue reading. I used to be very religious, but now I've been more focused on life itself. My biggest trouble has been that I often believe in the concept, but never the religion as a whole. Like the worshipping of a God. Conforming to what they want me to be. I'll always put my own dreams and desires before a "God"'s. Nothing against people who are firm believers and worshippers of God. It is my own humble opinion and nothing more. Yes, we all expierence great pains in our lives due to things we endure. The bumps in the road, if you will. It's just this manic depression and other mental illnesses that I wish to find a way of control. I refuse to take medication or to open myself up to a complete stranger (a psychiatrist). Nor would I ever put it on a friend of mine. As you said before, it's something you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. So I'm looking for other forms...any suggestions? I believe that every individual is very powerful if they allow themselves to be. Powerful enough to create "heaven" within themselves and in the enviroment around them. We'll never know who's right and who's wrong. We were never meant to. I went through this phase once where I was completely drawn away from mankind. Hated society with a passion, as I'm sure it shows through sometimes in my replies. I'm now though in love with the world and everything in it. It's important to be aware of ourselves. If we're not then how are we to know? No one or nothing will warn us. Nothing will stop us. Although I believe we as people do not have the ability to be truly evil. But that is a whole nother post.  I am no one if not myself. Angel of Darkness [This message has been edited by Dark Enchantress (edited 02-12-2001).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Stephanos: I am familiar with the "love of Christ" thing. I just hate the idea that you need to do this, this, this, this, and don't do anything else, and you will get into heaven. That makes Heaven sound more like some prestigious university than a place where one goes to be with an unconditionally loving God after death. In fact, isn't this idea presented in Matthew 7:13,14? "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Then this is repeated in Luke 13:24-27. Of course one could argue that it means that believing that Christ is the one will get you into Heaven. However, I've heard tonnes of other interpretations, like "my way or the highway," and "do this do this do this." I'm with Dark Enchantress in her idea of putting dreams and ambitions ahead of God. However, is this really doing that? We often hear phrases like "God is love." It seems to me that what is Godly is not a religion, but an entire orchestra of people who advocate love. Christ, above all else, was an image of God's compassion towards humanity. Many will tell you that there's evidence saying that he didn't even exist, let alone die and raise again. I would not be surprised if it came to be found that these people are correct. The point is not that the act took place, but that God is so loving that he is willing to give it all for us. But this is where I run into problems. Do I convince myself that I must believe something that is impossible to prove[ie the ressurection and the Christian view that it meant the destruction of sin] and go into heaven, or do I risk it all and believe that above all else God's greatest command is to love one another, no matter what you believe? So, I am sorry to say this, but my prayers most lately have gone along the lines of: "God, if you exist say so, then I will serve you. Since you've yet to reveal yourself I don't know what to do, so I'll just carry on with life as though you don't exist, until I really piss you off and you come and tell me off." Of course the common apologetic defense is "well God doesn't work that way." But if God can do all things, then why doesn't he do this? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Frac, You are absolutely right when you talk about the concept of "doing this this this and this and not that" to get into Heaven being an irritation and irrational thought. And there are scriptures which say that "no one will be justified by the deeds of the law". This is talking about God's moral law ...ie. Do this, this, and this, and don't do this this and that. In relation to the death of Jesus Christ, it would have been a meaningless occurrence if we could have all gotten ourselves right by behaving better. Conversely, if it is true that we have such a nature that we can never "be right enough" in our own resources to attain everlasting life, (which is what the scripture says in many places), then the great "substitution" of the cross was absolutely necessary. He recieved our death sentence, we recieve his righteousness if we believe it. So what do the above passages that you mentioned mean which talk about the narrow gate? Is it talking about rigorously trying to conform our outward behaviors to a legal code in order to get into heaven by the skin of our teeth? I don't think it is. Other places Jesus said things like "...I am the way, the truth and the life." So more than anything else it could mean that this narrow and straight path are the heart teachings of Jesus himself. But why is it called narrow? Because the doctrines he taught (both through word and example) though they are glorious, are exclusive in many ways. If you really believe what he said, you cannot believe any doctrine that blows across your path. Does this mean that you die intellectually? I don't think so. Maybe this is the narrowness of it all... The road to eternal life has parameters and dimensions... the path has edges, and not every vehicle will travel there. I'm not talking about cars and trucks. How about the vehicles of believing in unconditional tolerence of every philosophy, which says that no one is ever wrong... all paths lead to God...everyone will find Nirvana or oneness eventually in the cosmic scheme. If the path is narrow you can't ride a truck like that on there. Another vehicle may be to admit to a "god" or even God, yet always place our personal prerogatives above his own. If he is really God with a capital G, then how could we ever really say that we should put ourselves before him who is the mastermind of reality and all mysteries. If he can create the atomic world, I think he just might know what's best for our lives... just maybe. My point? If we acknowledge a god, but say that we will ever put his "things" below our own, then who is really God between the two? A God who rolls over and whimpers at my directives is no Lord, he is a fabrication, a phantom god, an idol. How is the right way "straight"? Though we can never be morally straight enough ourselves to save ourselves, the living way is a way where morality is strived for and honored. It would be crazy to say that since Jesus is my savior, and since I cannot save myself by good works, then I will do anything I wish. If we are deliberately crooked, are we really on the right path? Being straight won't get you on the path, but being on the path will get you straight. Good works are the fruit in a sense, while Christ is the root, not the other way around. This could be why preaching goes astray and makes people feel that they have to get everything straight and lined up and fixed before God will even look at them. NOT TRUE a million times over!! If that's true why would the scripture say, "Ro 5:8* But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He did that when we hated him and were at our worst, not when we finally "got our ducks in a row". As to the actuality of the existence (not to mention the crucifixion and ressurection) of Jesus Christ of Nazereth, there may be those who say there is no proof, but look into it yourself. There are "secular" sources that mention him in the early centuries, with an absolute assumption that he existed (even among the enemies of Christianianity). The phenomenon of doubting his actual existence as a person is a recent one (this century primarily). Historians of the early centuries KNEW he existed. The Roman Government could have easily despoiled Christianity if it could have proved that one man never existed... why didn't they? He existed. If he were crucified and they stole the body, all they would have had to do was produce it as evidence... BOOM! Christianity over...finis. There are many reasons also why the disciples never would have stolen the body which I do not have time to cover, but even if they had and Christ was not literally raised from the dead, why would they tout a messiah who was dead? They never said he merely rose in a spiritual sense (which is a watered down spiritual teaching I have heard). How could such a craze ravage the world of that time in such a way that by the time Rome fell, Christianity was thriving. And how could so many martyrs including the disciple who cowered from a little girls questions on the night of the crucifixion, give their very lives for defending a cadaver? But apart from the ressurection, the actual existence of Jesus Christ is seldom questioned by even secular historians. But Why does it have to be one way or the other, believing these things OR believing that God's command is to Love unconditionally. I think both can be believed and practiced and go much better together than apart. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 02-13-2001).] |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
If all of you can permit the natterings of a former Missions Major from a Christian University, I will continue. The 'narrow gate', in context, portrays the opposite of a broad gate, or one used by the majority of people, be they concepts, beliefs, or ideals that are both popular and contrary to His teachings; hence the narrow gate illustration, a doorway that is not often traveled and receives little traffic. There is also the narrow and wide path. The wide is easy to navigate, and gains come easily, though they may not be of great worth when all is said and done. The narrow path is much harder to travel, with many dips, thorns, boulders, and other obstacles, but the gain is worth more, since it took a personal struggle to surmount the problems. How many of you have done something the 'hard way' and succeeded? Know that feeling? You have an ugly exam. You could take the easy way and make crib notes to use on the test...it's a lot easier than actually learning the material, right? But what is the consequence to self? To others? Now, take the above example and reverse it. Say you do it the hard way and study, and study, and study until you can rewrite your notes from memory, and even if you didn't blow the bell-curve, you know the grade you received was based actually on what you knew, and that you did it on your own. Dark Enchantress, and others, I too know of being religious. And thankfully, I outgrew it, learning the Spiritual 'truths', if you will, which govern living. We are a cynical people, subjected to daily lies and half-truths by society and media and self. What proof would you demand? Would a burning finger in the sky carving holy writ on Mount Rushmore suffice? But how many would still not believe, or worse yet, get up in arms about defacement of a national monument? To say, 'Since I don't see the incarnation of God, He must not exist.' is kinda begging the question. I, for one, have never seen love, or trust, or hope, or justice, or a myriad of other things, but I know they exist. Grind the Universe to the finest powder, and sieve that powder through the finest sieve, then regrind that dust, and show me the tiniest iota of justice, of truth, of love. P'raps I've wandered a bit... Fractal, et al, I do hope you someday realize the intense feeling of overwhelming peace and love. And let me tell ya, the first time is very, very frightening, unless you are one of those rare individuals that come from an extremely well-adjusted, happy, loving home and environment. And that is just the tiniest speck of what God can give, if that is what your soul requires, and if you are able to open yourself up enough, to trust enough (very hard to do) to accept it. Even after such bestowment, do not expect your life to be peaches n creme...in all likelihood, it's gonna get rougher. Satan pays no mind to those who are not a threat, but those that become such receive his attention. If they can stumble, and stumble hard, all the better. There's an apocryphal story of a monk who daily prayed to know the true name of God. For many years, this was his singular prayer. One day, his prayer was granted, and he spent the rest of his life praying to forget. Pax Christu Pax Poeticus Alicat “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Stephanos: Actually, there are tonnes of doubts about the existence of Christ. You can read about them here: LINK I don't know about you, but I'm starting to think that my religion is nothing more than an orwellian social machine designed to gain power and control over the masses. I will get to Allicat's comments later on. I've a nasty sinus cold now, so I am finding it difficult to concentrate very well. |
||
|
Dark Enchantress Senior Member
since 1999-07-27
Posts 1258meet Morgana |
Can I ask everyone a question that is to be answered in all honesty? I don't mean to start any trouble I'm just curious about your own thoughts. Why do you believe in your religion? People have had religion since the Sumerians developed their civilization back in Mespotamia. I suppose to give them a feeling of purpose. They willingly had human sacrifices when the aristocrats died because they believed that it would bless their souls. Obviously, many new religions have appeared since then, but why? What makes you believe? In all honesty... I don't believe in god. I don't believe in the devil. I recognize their presence as metaphors. Why? I don't know why it's just not fitting for me. After I had begun to doubt it I continued to worship because I was afraid. I'm not afraid anymore though so now I'm doing as Alicat is, exploring spiritual 'truths'. I am no one if not myself. Angel of Darkness [This message has been edited by Dark Enchantress (edited 02-13-2001).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Dark Enchantress: I do not currently know what I believe. Although I consider myself a Christian[sorta] there is little evidence that any of the claims of Christianity are true. I guess it's just personal tradition. As far as purpose in life is concerned, I'm not sure I know what my purpose is, nor would I know what it was if I were a bona fide Christian. I used to belong to the "christian right" when I embraced Christianity back in the day[c 1996]. I still do go to Church, but my faith is not very high, now that I know that much of Christian history consists of scandalous forgeries and implausable historical events. However, I studied the Bible quite a lot when I was a fundie, so I know a lot more about it than the fully Christian people in my church. In fact, I often take on the pastors and teachers when we're having adult sunday school lessons, and usually beat them. So I'm pretty good at looking Christian. Also, the Messopotamians were not the first to start religion. In fact, mythical figures have been observed in cave paintings throughout Europe. Oddly enough, they depict a female "Goddess of fertility," assuming of course that these are gods that they depict. You might like to watch Gwen Dyer's "The Human Race"(I think that's what it was called). In that he presents his idea that patriarchy is not built into us, but rather it is the product of some "revolt" which took place somewhere in ancient history, perhaps in Egypt. Spiritual beliefs were often practiced among native tribes in North America. These peoples populated North America over 10000 years before modern civilization and colonization. Their beliefs often involved spirits who inhabited trees and other life forms. Religion has its origins in fear. For example, people feared death, and so they conjured up "afterlives" that one encountered after death. People feared uncertainty, so they conjured up gods who were in control of everything. |
||
|
Dark Enchantress Senior Member
since 1999-07-27
Posts 1258meet Morgana |
Hmmm...I hate when I'm mislead. Pardon my error. A book that I'm reading said that Sumerians were one of the first to begin religion. My mistake. It's kind of odd looking at them. They had over 3,000 deities...some of them were animal like. They had huge temples to worhip their gods and goddesses. They could even be wed to them through ceremonies...that is, only if you were in the council or a king. Doesn't it seem odd some of the things that people have put all their faith in over the course of time? I wonder if in the years to come people will look back on our generation and find us just as odd. I'm sure they will. I am no one if not myself. Angel of Darkness [This message has been edited by Dark Enchantress (edited 02-13-2001).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Frac: quote: I'm not going to let you get away with that one. American jurisprudence hasn't produced many shining stars but in the early 19th century, Professor Simon Greenleaf's produced his "Treatise on Evidence" that would continue to be held in the highest regard until the early 20th century. Greenleaf was challenged to apply the rules of legal evidence to the "claims of Christianity" and, particularly, to the resurrection accounts of the four Gospels (The Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). The result was "The Testimony of the Evangelists", a cross-examination of the claims of the four gospel writers. I don't think I need to go into much more detail than to say that Greenleaf's examination of the texts and his conclusion vigorously refute your claim. The book is cheap and is in print. You should be able order it easily enough. Not trying to sound preachy, but ignorance of fact is not the same thing as absence of fact. There is more than sufficient evidence to convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Gospel accounts are truthful renderings of the historical Jesus Christ (this is coming from someone who would have cross-examined Jesus MUCH more than "Doubting Thomas" is I had been present at the time). I will try to get back later to address the original question. Jim P.S. Alicat has the context of the broad/narrow path correct (I'm impressed!). Also, Frac, I will check out the link. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Just checked out the link. Frac, this is a poorly researched article with more omissions and half-truths than I care to count. A few omissions: Jesus' existence is acknowledged by several sources that were decidedly unfriendly to Christianity. The Jewish historian Josephus, for example lived during the late first century and ascribed Christ's miracles to witchcraft. The Roman Historian Tacitus, in his "Annals" not only refers to Christians and to Jesus Christ, but also to his crucifixion under the Roman Procurator, Pontius Pilate. The author's high regards for Roman "justice and fairness" are so far off the mark that they are almost funny! Even a novice historian knows that corruption permeated the Roman government and crucifixions were common. The "ablest scholars" reference early in the article is a blatant "best in field fallacy". The author neither identifies these able scholars nor does he give us any idea of when they lived. Doubts of Jesus' historical existence didn't really begin to surface until the mid to late 19th century. For some reason the arguments continue to live on in rhetoric long after they have crumbled under close scrutiny. The author's point about the uncertainty of the exact timing of the Messiah's birth is immaterial. We can get pretty close to the year from Luke's account (because we know from Roman records that there was a census ordered by Caesar during the last years B.C.. Am I to believe that one's historical existence can be cast in doubt if people cannot agree on the exact date of your birthday? If you want to read some doubters that actually try, I would suggest either Anthony Flew or Kai Nielson (both prominent athiest scholars). I warn you, however, that even Flew had difficulties with several of C. S. Lewis's arguments and Kai Nielson waffled his "Great Debate" with J. P. Moreland ("The Great Debate" should be available for you to order online). I encourage you to order it. Gotta go. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Dark Enchantress, To answer your question in brevity, I believe in my "religion" becasue I had a deep and real encounter with a being whom I am convinced is God. I guess that's why I've always felt that alot of what is called "religious" is more human ingeninuity than divine revelation. I feel that the main revelation from the scriptures is 1) an encounter, and 2) a relationship. I believe in God because I had an encounter with him, and he and I have a relationship which is real and personal. In this encounter, he showed me 2 things which I had never fully seen, 1) who I was, 2) who he was, and it was not all fun and games, alot of this I didn't want to face. The problem with this (or any kind of divine revelation) is that the experienced relationship of one person can be made into a tradition by a follower. That is what happens with a church, or a religion. What was to one man or women, or a group of men and women a fiery, dynamic experience can be translated by others into liturgical expression, and dull churchism. That's not all bad since many are taught scriptural truth through religious organizations. But it's all pretty meaningless unless one experiences God and Christ for themselves. And bottom line, this is why I believe in him. How could you ever argue the existence of your mother (assuming you've met your mother- but even if not, you know you have one). Even if you haven't seen her for years, you know that your mother is real. That's kind of how God is for me and for many others. After having met him in all of his wonder, no argument could ever convince you he just isn't there. I know it happens different for everyone. One person cannot expect someone else to know God in exactly the same way. Another reason is that once I had an encounter and relationship with him, the teachings and truths of the scriptures resonated with grandeur deep inside of me like nothing else I had ever known. I knew it was the truth. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, thanks for these references. I will check some of these out. This stuff is most intriguing to me. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Dark Enchantress, to answer your question about personal belief, here it is, with no apologies about sounding 'blasphemous'. Simply put, God is my Dad. My dad is my Dad as well, and I respect, love, and honor both. I give praise to both, for different reasons or aspects. It's simplistic, but then again, so am I. So was Jesus. We have the same Dad, He (Christ) being my older brother. That's all there really is. I understand the need, or should I say 'need', for religions, rites, rotes, ceremonies, papal bulls, doctrine and dogma, for those that need such for spiritual growth, for familial growth, to see that God isn't just an 'all seeing eye', or a 'big beard in the sky' or something like that. That kind of God scares me, the sort with fire and brimstone, where every action and activity is pre-ordained and I'm doomed to failure anyhow from pre-destination. Good thing I don't subscribe to Calvin. My faith is a simple one. Note the simple theme going on here. Two rules that make my life a lot happier and easier to live: 1) Love and respect my Dad. 2) Respect others. That's it. As Christ said, 'All of the Commandments are contained in these.' (verbatim). Hope that answers your question, DE. Pax Christu Pax Poeticus Alicat, former Biblical Missions Bible Major(sound a bit repetitive?), Abilene Christian University, presently Persnikitty “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Jbouder: OK, I concede that the document could have been more thoroughly written. But what about the claims in the document that there were forgeries left, right, and center throughout the early church? What about this claim? "The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of 'The Antiquities of the Jews' appeared, in which occurred this passage: 'Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.'" Stephanos: You say you've experienced God. However, many scientists will tell you that such experiences are nothing more than random stimulation of the temporal lobe. So basically, experiences with God are grouped into the same boat as experiences with ghosts, aliens, and incubi[I think that's the plural of incubus]. I don't mean to sound too offensive, but I just wish God would reveal himself in a way that cannot be found guilty of these scientific findings. Of course, I am assuming that you experienced God alone in your bedroom or something like that, while you were just about to go to sleep. However, I could be wrong. |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Dark Enchantress: About the multiple gods thing, just a little trivia. In ancient Greece, there was a god which looked over pretty much ever object in your house. For example, there was a god who presided over your kitchen, a god who presided over your stove, and so on. At least that's what I learned in socials class in grade 8. It would get kinda confusing, eh? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Frac: I will not dispute that over-zealous Christians in the Early Middle Ages "editorialized" some first century writings to read the way they wanted them to read. Pointing to the existence of forgeries, however, does not cast doubt on historical manuscripts that stand up to the scrutiny of legal-historical analysis. I will try to be brief ... the historical authenticity of a manuscript is tested using a three prong test: (1) The Internal Consistency Test (is the document self-contradicting), (2) The External Test (how do the claims in the manuscript stand up to collateral writings and archaeology) and (3) The Bibliographic Test (a comparison of copies to try to weed out "editorialisms" ... the date of the manuscript and the number of copies are both considered under this test). What you will find with even an cursory examination of the Biblical texts is that we can be much more certain of the authenticity and accuracy of the Old and New Testaments than we can be of any other ancient manuscript (Plato, Aristotle ... you name it). What the objectors won't tell you is that our most reliable copies of the "Histories" of Josephus DO refer to Jesus (it happens to paint him in a less-than-friendly light). Other "dis-honorable mentions" occur in the works of the Roman historian Tacitus and in the writing of the Athenian comedian, Pliny the Younger. They won't tell you about the Bodmer Papyrus, a fragment of the Gospel of John that dates within 10-20 years of the original. They won't tell you about the copy of Isaiah's prophesy dated 100 B.C. that decimated early arguments that the late chapters of Isaiah were Christian forgeries. What you will discover is that a militant atheist is just as likely as anyone else to say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind", even as the facts topple their intellectual ivory tower. The historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments is a tightly woven rug, Frac. If I was an atheist, I'd do everything in my power to ignore a legal-historical challenge. It's much easier to pick on the guys who handle snakes in the Ozarks.  Gotta go for now. Jim |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Alicat: quote: I believe the reference reads something like, "Love the Lord God with all you heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself" and, in its context, Christ was summarizing the essence of the Ten Commandments. I curious as to how this makes your life happier and easier to live? Can you say you honestly love your "Dad" with all your heart, mind and spirit? Do you truly love your neighbor in the same way you love yourself? To me, this is a horrifying standard one must reach! In fact, I would argue that this is an impossible standard. Is it not true that these standards can only be little more than ideals for us to strive toward (but never reach in this lifetime)? This is precisely why I believe doctrine is critical to understanding what Christianity is and what it isn't. Is it a relationship? Yes. Is it a religion? Yes. Theology is not merely a tool to facilitate spiritual growth ... it is the study of God. There is good theology and there is plenty of bad theology but I would consider it a grave mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water. I am personally concerned by existentialistic influences in modern Christianity. I think you will find that all of the spiritual experiences in the New Testament were responsive ... responsive to what? ... responsive to the hearing of the Gospel ... of the coming of the Messiah, His life, death, resurrection and promise to return. I think the Christian's understanding of these events directly effects their religious practices. Ignorance of theology often leads to repetition of past error. I am probably preaching to the choir ... forgive me? Yo Jimbo (Yes, Brad ... I know what that means) |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Done and done.  Respect, to me, combines all those different aspects so defined. If I respect my Dad, I'm not going to lie to him, steal from him, debase him, slander him, etc. If I respect my neighbor, I'm not going to lie to him, steal from him, cheat him, fool around with his wife/girlfriend/significant other. True, this could be an ideal, something to perpetually strive for. But faith is much more than that...it's a lifestyle, a way of seeing the world, a way of living. So, in essence and in truth, it is both an ideal and a standard, at the same time. Granted, I might get miffed with my neighbor if cut off while driving, or if his dog trashes my begonias, but it isn't long before forgiveness occurs. Howsoever, forgiving someone does not mean you must like them. Heh, don't get me wrong...I'm far from perfect (though many people say I look like Christ...must be the hair and beard....), but that doesn't mean that I should cease striving for perfection, though my cynical, jaded side knows such is an absolute rarity to achieve while still carnate. And, at times, I know my soul mimics Paul's, as per Romans 8. If I stumble, should I stay put? Where's the challenge in that? It's worth more to self to pick myself up and try again. And that, friends and neighbors, is what it all boils down to: meaning to self. Is your life meaningless? Why? Find the root. Is your faith empty? Why? Find the root. Do you hate the Bible or God for that matter? Why? Find the root. It was through such questions, and many questions after, that I am here, who I am now. I was not raised in the Church...far from it, but was raised to question, to find the root. But finding the root, finding knowledge is only half of the battle; what you do with such is the rest. And no worries about preaching to the choir, Jim. Some messages are worth hearing over and over. Addendum: Wouldn't you know it. Right before I clicked submit, Front 242's 'Hey Poor, Jesus is here' had to play....still cracks me up. Pax Christu Pax Poeticus Alicat, the Persnikitty “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin [This message has been edited by Alicat (edited 02-14-2001).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Alicat: Interesting. I too have been a traditionally scientifically minded person. However, I was often afraid of being punished for doing wrong. In fact, one time I stole some dirt or something from my brother, and I feared that the police were going to come and throw me in jail. So it seems that at my age I am in a state of confusion. There is no longer any certainty to life, so I both want to believe in the God of the Bible, but want to doubt it as well. So this is both an exciting and painful time for me. I fear what I will be doing and being in the future, but I also fear what the answer to the question of what I'm supposed to do right now is. Must be part of that teenaged angst or something that people often describe. All: I hope that I have not caused anyone else to enter into this tailspin by my posts here. I think I'm just experiencing the smaller scale of what happens when things such as pressure systems get out of balance in nature - tornadoes and hurricaines, lol. I am also very quick to draw conclusions all the time. I must figure out a way to stop doing that before I cause significant damage to myself or others... Jbouder: Thankyou for the references. I will look them up. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
jboulder, thanks. Your knowledge of historical criticism exceeds my own. You are stating things with clarity which I have heard and believe are true but cannot articulate very well (yet). allicat, Thank you for sharing the fact that God to you (above all philosophical or theological musings) is a personal being. I think ultimately we must all come to this understanding of God. We must enter the house of our Father even if some are compelled to first pass through the gate of intellectual understanding. To once again quote what someone above quoted, the scripture says to "Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength". Though some may have to develop this love in the mind first, the heart, soul, and strength will come. I think some Christians who now love him with all of their heart, soul and strength should take to heart some of the issues at hand with intellectual minds who question Christ, God and their existence, and learn to think as "intelliegent" believers, and so love him with their minds as well. As was mentioned, masses of Christians don't think enough, or even know why they believe what they do. Of course we all are not meant to be intellectual sorts and there are simple people everywhere who are not inclined or equipped for rigorous mental analysis. But they too have their gifts from God which are of no small value. Not everyone can do a complete historical analysis of the claims of Christianity... yet they believe. REALLY believe, not the shallow courtesy kind of belief which says "I believe 'cause mamma said, and her mamma said"...etc... That's why personal revelation is also a very important factor for anyone's faith (but it is not the only proof). Frac, I appreciate that you've shared where you are spiritually... that you are in a fierce and uncomfortable battle to know exactly what is to be believed. You don't want to believe Christianity just because convention or custom says you should. I totally admire that. Neither do you want to belief the atheist world view just because certain groups may deride you as a "fairy tale follower". You seem at a heart level to really desire to know which way is right. Either way is risky, which way should you take? One thing for certain. It is a definite fork in the stream. And though many have tried to go both, eventually one current or another will sweep you along. I noticed that you said you wanted an argument for the Christian God that stands up to the atheist's criticisms in a completely solid and objective way. This is tough since both Christians and Atheists are guilty (in laws of undisputable logical proof) of having a predisposed world view. I'll do my best to explain... The atheist says that according to science, nothing supernatural should be allowed as an explanation for anything, since any such explantion would be based on a scientifically unproven assumption... that something other than nature exists... something supernatural. And so the Christian is begging the question, using something unproven. Were there true miracles in the gospel accounts? The Christian says yes, but it is based on the assumption that something supernatural exists... which is really what the very question is; Did miracles (or supernatural occurences) exist?. And to be honest, here the atheist is correct. However the atheist is also begging his own question. He claims that everthing believed must be proven by scientific means. If one asked him why, he would probably say something like, "Because we know nothing exists outside of nature, therefore any supernatural explanation of proof is automatically disqualified." But the very assumption, the very bedrock worldview he first holds was never itself proven by any scientific means. As a matter of fact I have heard atheists say that the existence of God is not disproven, it is simply not to be believed until it is scientifically proven." and also "To prove that something doesn't exist you would have to search every inch of space at the same time, and then that would only prove that it didn't exist right at that moment." So atheists admit that the supernatural has not been disproven or ruled out. So from here I take you back to the atheists bedrock statement "We know nothing exists outside of nature, and therefore any supernatural explanation of proof is automatically disqualified." But do you see the inconsistency here? This is a statement which has never been scentifically proven. Yet they already said that something that wasn't scientifically proven cannot be beleived or assumed. It is equally as "unscientific" as the Christian preconception of supernaturalism. Notice I said "equally". So at this point. No one seems to win. An apparent logical deadlock here. However, I heard an argument the other night which was extremely compelling. It was on a debate held at the University of Southern California between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and atheist Dr. Gordan Stein called "Does God exist- the great debate". In this debate Dr Bahnsen readily admitted the gridlock situation due to preconcieved world views. However he presented another argument which to me looks impossible to penetrate (you'll have to let me know if you find anyone who really can). He called it the "Transcendental proof of the existence of God". This argument basically states that there are some things which exist which would be impossible to exist in the confines of a truely atheist world view... the presence of 1) natural law, 2) laws of logic, and 3) moral law. These entities he proceeds to explain are not explicable in terms of a soley materialistic world because they are absolutes. They do not change. In fact science itself is based on the premise that laws of matter over years, decades, centuries, milleniums, millions of years, billions of years, do not change. (Not that matter does not change but that the laws which govern matter do not change). The same goes with laws of logic. They cannot be thought of as convention or a matter of popular taste, or else no one (atheist or Christian) could present arguments based on logic. Circumstances surrounding logic change, the different applications of logic change, but the laws themselves do not. If they did how could anyone's logic be called "faulty", Who can prove it hasn't just changed? Mathematical laws are a similar concept. One plus one will always be two (in concept), no matter what you may call the names of these numrical values. These are unchangeables in a variable world. In short, he states that since there are such unchangeable laws, the existence of God is proven by the impossibility of the alternitive. If God did not exist, we couldn't even debate. There would be no immaterial absolute concepts to govern anything. However in a totally material universe made up of atoms alone, absolute laws are meaningless. Yet everyone governs their everyday lives by them. So the atheist is really "borrowing" fixed laws of logic, nature, and morality from a theistic world view in order to argue his case. Very interesting debate. And an argument which so far to me seem impervious in every way. Though Dr Stein, spoke against this argument, he never offered a valid explanation or alternative. I will e-mail you the exact link to the debate which you can hear with "Real Time". (and anyone else who is interested email me). I suggest you at least listen to this one and tell me what you think. (my description of the Transcendental proof of God is probably very poor since I've only just heard it- maybe what I said doesn't do it justice, but Dr. Bahnsen's presentation is worthy of consideration. Sorry so long. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 02-14-2001).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
Stephanos: I have been listening to that debate. I've found it to be quite enlightening. I especially liked the definition of atheism presented by the atheist. I think most atheists I've seen around town would call him a "liberal" atheist, LOL. The transcendental argument does seem to be rather interesting. I am sure that the atheist comunity will find some way around it soon enough. However, I must admit that biases are certainly clouding people's judgement. A lot of these biases have come in the form of expectations. For example, we expect that if we prove God exists, we will have proven that somebody who is outside the universe and created it exists. But as I said in my response to Brad's post, if somebody really found God do you think he/she would recognize Him? I'm not talking about those cushy stories about shoe makers inviting poor people into their houses and then finding out in dreams that they were God. I mean more along the lines of what the scientists expect God would be like. My biology teacher often said something which I partly agree with, but still think is a good point. He said that the creationists and the evolutionists are all full of "feces", and that there is no real answer to the question of our origins. I don't know about the idea of there being no real answer, but I do agree that the competitors are quite often full of themselves and not willing to stand back and take things in from other peoples perspectives. I am with Alicat in his reply to Brad's post, when he said that he liked Brad's saying that we judge all the time and that it's called making decisions. I am very experienced in what Brad said. My parents are divorced. I remember when I decided to move with my mother to British Columbia. There were guilt trips all over the place. I will not say who they were coming from, but I did finally decide to just do what I wanted to do. Why? Because I knew that I could not make both parties happy. I wanted to move out west. I think it has often been the same with religion. The only problem is that the guilt trips[most often in the form of snarky arguments and intellectual peeing contests] are a hundred times worse, so it's harder to pick one road and stick to it. I used to have no problem being Christian until the atheists came along and told me about the logical arguments against Christianity. Since then[about 2 years ago] my life has been rather strange, scary, and interesting. However, I am not saying that the atheists are bad or anything like that. They did after all make it so that I was not so closed minded. However, they also presented me with militant fronts that created quite a bit of trouble in my mind, and still do. For example, how do I know that Christianity is not merely some kind of dilusion? But what if it is not? Then there is the question of if there is a God, how do I know what I am supposed to do, since there are hundreds of individual religions out there? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Frac, I note that you said ..."The transcendental argument does seem to be rather interesting. I am sure that the atheist comunity will find some way around it soon enough. " My question is still, "Will their way around it be legitimate? Will it play fair by complying with the demands of true logic?" Though it may be considered in some ways a "bias", a worldview is no bad thing to base beliefs upon, assuming that worldview is right and doesn't defy the unchanging standards of logic. The difference between a "good" bias, and a not so good bias, is that the one which is true will ultimately live in harmony with the unchangeable laws which govern sound thinking. When all the "noise" of argument is hushed and the hoopla is swept away like confetti from yesterday's parade, the unchanging streets of logic will still be there to tell which direction was which and who went where. But in the final analysis God must prove himself. Though his laws may prove him in a lesser way for a time, ultimately it is God who must prove God. But even if this fuller revelation has not yet come to you in a personal way, logical thought is a good school-master. He (logic) is a follower of God and will stand with him in the end. Once you are sure of his existence, God being a Spirit of a "personal" nature (not just a metaphysical one), will have no problems conveying to you what you are supposed to do. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 02-15-2001).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
