Gannet101;675494 wrote: > I don’t see it saying anything about females while it is very clear when it comes to males.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
romans 1:26 talks about lesbians
How'd I miss that? Thanks.
Why?
Why?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Gannet:-6
Which law? " The Ten Commandments" and the 600 plus in Leviticus or just the 10 commandments?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Which law? " The Ten Commandments" and the 600 plus in Leviticus or just the 10 commandments?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Clint:-6
In Canada we have many thousands who go to bed hungry every day because our governments are too busy with the window dressing. This in itself is a sin of the utmost severity.
If the law is clearly inhumane it is wrong regardless of the law maker. I am not personally bound to follow any law that is wrong. In the case of Numbers 31 it would appear that God not only encourages but condones war crimes. The fact of the matter is I do not believe this came from God. It was a later editorial addition to the writing. "The One Volume Commentary".
As to homosexuality the only sin involved there is the abuse that the rest of society including "Christians" subjects them to.
First of all it is not unnatural but a part of the very lives of 10% of all living creatures. It is not a choice but a given. God produced them that way.
Secondly Leviticus says that "for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination". However part of that same system of laws says that to wear at the same time clothing made of more than one fiber is wrong. If you fall into that last point, and I do, then we are committing a sin:not eating pork, stoning of prostitutes, stoning disobedient children and so on are also part of that law. We cannot have it both ways. Apparently a great number of Christians, despite their denial, do pick and choose what to follow.
Apparently St. Paul was preaching against homosexuality. I say apparently because he also apparently said that women should shut up in churches and have long hair and have their heads covered. We now know that at least half of the books attributed to Paul are pseudo Paul. They were written under his name after his death. This was not considered wrong at the time but was an attempt to add his authority to what was said.
It is well known that Paul had women missionaries and preachers. Either he speak with forked tongue or it is not from Paul.
Paul also had his own problems in life and tended to put some of them onto others much like St. Augustine in his anti sexual writings.
Apparently the laws are not absolute.
To comment on the "Law". If we mean only the 10 commandments, they say nothing about homosexuality and for that matter neither did Jesus. If by the law we mean both sets, the 10 and 600+ then we are bound to wear clothing of only one fiber, stone prostitutes, stone disobedient children, not eat pork, not associate with others not of the Jewish faith etc. We cannot have it both ways nor can we tolerate a god that does not follow his own laws. That would be the height of hypocrisy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In Canada we have many thousands who go to bed hungry every day because our governments are too busy with the window dressing. This in itself is a sin of the utmost severity.
If the law is clearly inhumane it is wrong regardless of the law maker. I am not personally bound to follow any law that is wrong. In the case of Numbers 31 it would appear that God not only encourages but condones war crimes. The fact of the matter is I do not believe this came from God. It was a later editorial addition to the writing. "The One Volume Commentary".
As to homosexuality the only sin involved there is the abuse that the rest of society including "Christians" subjects them to.
First of all it is not unnatural but a part of the very lives of 10% of all living creatures. It is not a choice but a given. God produced them that way.
Secondly Leviticus says that "for a man to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination". However part of that same system of laws says that to wear at the same time clothing made of more than one fiber is wrong. If you fall into that last point, and I do, then we are committing a sin:not eating pork, stoning of prostitutes, stoning disobedient children and so on are also part of that law. We cannot have it both ways. Apparently a great number of Christians, despite their denial, do pick and choose what to follow.
Apparently St. Paul was preaching against homosexuality. I say apparently because he also apparently said that women should shut up in churches and have long hair and have their heads covered. We now know that at least half of the books attributed to Paul are pseudo Paul. They were written under his name after his death. This was not considered wrong at the time but was an attempt to add his authority to what was said.
It is well known that Paul had women missionaries and preachers. Either he speak with forked tongue or it is not from Paul.
Paul also had his own problems in life and tended to put some of them onto others much like St. Augustine in his anti sexual writings.
Apparently the laws are not absolute.
To comment on the "Law". If we mean only the 10 commandments, they say nothing about homosexuality and for that matter neither did Jesus. If by the law we mean both sets, the 10 and 600+ then we are bound to wear clothing of only one fiber, stone prostitutes, stone disobedient children, not eat pork, not associate with others not of the Jewish faith etc. We cannot have it both ways nor can we tolerate a god that does not follow his own laws. That would be the height of hypocrisy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted,
You and I have been around this thorny bush over and over. I’m not going to be drawn in again. I don't get excited about splitting theological hairs. I’m willing to let history be the judge on this one.
You and I have been around this thorny bush over and over. I’m not going to be drawn in again. I don't get excited about splitting theological hairs. I’m willing to let history be the judge on this one.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint:-6
I really have no problem with that. Do you wear clothing made of more then one fiber or separate pieces made of different fibers?
Which law?
This is indeed not splitting theological hairs. Many of these things are fundamental, a word I hate, to the whole of the Christian faith. You cannot in all honesty, a Christian trait, tell others that homosexuality is wrong if you do not tell them that the clothing issue is part of the law.
As for history perhaps you should read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I really have no problem with that. Do you wear clothing made of more then one fiber or separate pieces made of different fibers?
Which law?
This is indeed not splitting theological hairs. Many of these things are fundamental, a word I hate, to the whole of the Christian faith. You cannot in all honesty, a Christian trait, tell others that homosexuality is wrong if you do not tell them that the clothing issue is part of the law.
As for history perhaps you should read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted;676032 wrote: Clint:-6
I really have no problem with that. Do you wear clothing made of more then one fiber or separate pieces made of different fibers?
Which law?
This is indeed not splitting theological hairs. Many of these things are fundamental, a word I hate, to the whole of the Christian faith. You cannot in all honesty, a Christian trait, tell others that homosexuality is wrong if you do not tell them that the clothing issue is part of the law.
As for history perhaps you should read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted,
If I told you I had personally known 100 people who died instantly when they put on clothing with mixed fibers your position wouldn't change. I know of no law made by man or God that wasn't made for some reason. At the time the law was made it was useful. Sadly, because we don't know why it was useful some people today use its existance to argue unrelated issues.
I really have no problem with that. Do you wear clothing made of more then one fiber or separate pieces made of different fibers?
Which law?
This is indeed not splitting theological hairs. Many of these things are fundamental, a word I hate, to the whole of the Christian faith. You cannot in all honesty, a Christian trait, tell others that homosexuality is wrong if you do not tell them that the clothing issue is part of the law.
As for history perhaps you should read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted,
If I told you I had personally known 100 people who died instantly when they put on clothing with mixed fibers your position wouldn't change. I know of no law made by man or God that wasn't made for some reason. At the time the law was made it was useful. Sadly, because we don't know why it was useful some people today use its existance to argue unrelated issues.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint;676040 wrote: Ted,
If I told you I had personally known 100 people who died instantly when they put on clothing with mixed fibers your position wouldn't change. I know of no law made by man or God that wasn't made for some reason. At the time the law was made it was useful. Sadly, because we don't know why it was useful some people today use its existance to argue unrelated issues.
No offense but that sounds like a pick and choose your law stance.
If I told you I had personally known 100 people who died instantly when they put on clothing with mixed fibers your position wouldn't change. I know of no law made by man or God that wasn't made for some reason. At the time the law was made it was useful. Sadly, because we don't know why it was useful some people today use its existance to argue unrelated issues.
No offense but that sounds like a pick and choose your law stance.
Why?
YZGI:-6
Exactly. Christians who take the Bible literally do this all the time, their denial notwithstanding.
When you try to pin them down they simply refuse to answer the questions. I know. I've been there and done that many years ago.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Exactly. Christians who take the Bible literally do this all the time, their denial notwithstanding.
When you try to pin them down they simply refuse to answer the questions. I know. I've been there and done that many years ago.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted;676385 wrote: YZGI:-6
Exactly. Christians who take the Bible literally do this all the time, their denial notwithstanding.
When you try to pin them down they simply refuse to answer the questions. I know. I've been there and done that many years ago.
Shalom
Ted:-6
From what I can tell he is saying that the homosexual law is useful in todays world but the mixed fiber law isn't. Why does he think he can choose the usefulness of any of the laws? I grew up in the Methodist and Church of Christ denomination and this has always baffled me. I have read nearly all of your posts Ted and they have been very educational and enlightening. Thank you.
Exactly. Christians who take the Bible literally do this all the time, their denial notwithstanding.
When you try to pin them down they simply refuse to answer the questions. I know. I've been there and done that many years ago.
Shalom
Ted:-6
From what I can tell he is saying that the homosexual law is useful in todays world but the mixed fiber law isn't. Why does he think he can choose the usefulness of any of the laws? I grew up in the Methodist and Church of Christ denomination and this has always baffled me. I have read nearly all of your posts Ted and they have been very educational and enlightening. Thank you.
Why?
YZGI:-6
Thanks.
It seems to me that what happens with fundamentalists is a lack of trust in God. Thus they need something in writing, like a contract signed sealed and delivered. Thus the Bible becomes the inerrant word of God so they can have such a contract. Now this leads to blinders like those used on horses. They ignore and refuse to consider parts of the sacred scriptures because it might upset their faith. Like the old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts as I've already made up my mind.
Needing something tangible demonstrates a lack of trust in God and leads to a form of idolatry where the Bible becomes paramount even over God.
The "Word of God" rightly belongs to only one, "The Word made flesh", one Jesus of Nazareth. This makes no comment on any of the other great faiths to whom God has spoken in ways they can better understand.
The study of the sacred scriptures and how they came to be and their compilation is a very interesting study for those interested.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks.
It seems to me that what happens with fundamentalists is a lack of trust in God. Thus they need something in writing, like a contract signed sealed and delivered. Thus the Bible becomes the inerrant word of God so they can have such a contract. Now this leads to blinders like those used on horses. They ignore and refuse to consider parts of the sacred scriptures because it might upset their faith. Like the old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts as I've already made up my mind.
Needing something tangible demonstrates a lack of trust in God and leads to a form of idolatry where the Bible becomes paramount even over God.
The "Word of God" rightly belongs to only one, "The Word made flesh", one Jesus of Nazareth. This makes no comment on any of the other great faiths to whom God has spoken in ways they can better understand.
The study of the sacred scriptures and how they came to be and their compilation is a very interesting study for those interested.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
YZGI;676284 wrote: No offense but that sounds like a pick and choose your law stance.
No offense taken.
We pick and choose laws all the time. Cities have laws that govern the process by which a housing development is planned. Other laws govern how it is constructed and there are laws that govern them once they are built. The law governing the planning isn't used after the construction begins but it is still a valid law.
No offense taken.
We pick and choose laws all the time. Cities have laws that govern the process by which a housing development is planned. Other laws govern how it is constructed and there are laws that govern them once they are built. The law governing the planning isn't used after the construction begins but it is still a valid law.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint:-6
On what basis is one law in the Bible maintained while the other is disregarded?
So then, from your point of view it is ok to pick and choose what we use from the Bible?
Again you have not answered my question concerning which law we are talking about.
Shalom
Ted:-6
On what basis is one law in the Bible maintained while the other is disregarded?
So then, from your point of view it is ok to pick and choose what we use from the Bible?
Again you have not answered my question concerning which law we are talking about.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted;676409 wrote: YZGI:-6
Thanks.
It seems to me that what happens with fundamentalists is a lack of trust in God. Thus they need something in writing, like a contract signed sealed and delivered. Thus the Bible becomes the inerrant word of God so they can have such a contract. Now this leads to blinders like those used on horses. They ignore and refuse to consider parts of the sacred scriptures because it might upset their faith. Like the old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts as I've already made up my mind.
Needing something tangible demonstrates a lack of trust in God and leads to a form of idolatry where the Bible becomes paramount even over God.
The "Word of God" rightly belongs to only one, "The Word made flesh", one Jesus of Nazareth. This makes no comment on any of the other great faiths to whom God has spoken in ways they can better understand.
The study of the sacred scriptures and how they came to be and their compilation is a very interesting study for those interested.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I very intentionally avoided using the Bible in this thread. As a matter of fact I use it very little at all in these discussions. I try to take God's word from what He does more than anything else. Your fall back position is consistantly that the other person is a fundamentalist. Are you a fundamentalistaphob?:-3
Thanks.
It seems to me that what happens with fundamentalists is a lack of trust in God. Thus they need something in writing, like a contract signed sealed and delivered. Thus the Bible becomes the inerrant word of God so they can have such a contract. Now this leads to blinders like those used on horses. They ignore and refuse to consider parts of the sacred scriptures because it might upset their faith. Like the old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts as I've already made up my mind.
Needing something tangible demonstrates a lack of trust in God and leads to a form of idolatry where the Bible becomes paramount even over God.
The "Word of God" rightly belongs to only one, "The Word made flesh", one Jesus of Nazareth. This makes no comment on any of the other great faiths to whom God has spoken in ways they can better understand.
The study of the sacred scriptures and how they came to be and their compilation is a very interesting study for those interested.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I very intentionally avoided using the Bible in this thread. As a matter of fact I use it very little at all in these discussions. I try to take God's word from what He does more than anything else. Your fall back position is consistantly that the other person is a fundamentalist. Are you a fundamentalistaphob?:-3
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint:-6
No more so than most others. However, I firmly believe that fundamentalism is not an appropriate position. It denies the reality that we all see around us. It is an attempt to limit God which can only be done in one's mind.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No more so than most others. However, I firmly believe that fundamentalism is not an appropriate position. It denies the reality that we all see around us. It is an attempt to limit God which can only be done in one's mind.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted;676625 wrote: Clint:-6
No more so than most others. However, I firmly believe that fundamentalism is not an appropriate position. It denies the reality that we all see around us. It is an attempt to limit God which can only be done in one's mind.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Did you know it's possible for one to get wound up so tight over something that their dogmatizm starves a discussion until it dies?
No more so than most others. However, I firmly believe that fundamentalism is not an appropriate position. It denies the reality that we all see around us. It is an attempt to limit God which can only be done in one's mind.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Did you know it's possible for one to get wound up so tight over something that their dogmatizm starves a discussion until it dies?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint;676611 wrote: No offense taken.
We pick and choose laws all the time. Cities have laws that govern the process by which a housing development is planned. Other laws govern how it is constructed and there are laws that govern them once they are built. The law governing the planning isn't used after the construction begins but it is still a valid law.
So are you saying that picking and choosing laws in the bible is the correct way? If so, who decides which ones we should abide by and which ones are irrelevant?
We pick and choose laws all the time. Cities have laws that govern the process by which a housing development is planned. Other laws govern how it is constructed and there are laws that govern them once they are built. The law governing the planning isn't used after the construction begins but it is still a valid law.
So are you saying that picking and choosing laws in the bible is the correct way? If so, who decides which ones we should abide by and which ones are irrelevant?
Why?
Clint:-6
What discussion? As far as I can see it has been one sided. You do not respond to questions. You claim not to follow the Bible is a cop out. If you don't follow the biblical laws on what basis do you think that homosexuality is a sin?
I don't believe we need either dogma or doctrine. We need to walk the talk.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What discussion? As far as I can see it has been one sided. You do not respond to questions. You claim not to follow the Bible is a cop out. If you don't follow the biblical laws on what basis do you think that homosexuality is a sin?
I don't believe we need either dogma or doctrine. We need to walk the talk.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
YZGI:-6
I didn't get an answer to that question but perhaps you will.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I didn't get an answer to that question but perhaps you will.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why?
I went back and read the first page of this thread. The impasse here seems to be the point of the first few posts.
Why?
I feel I should make a further comment on my point of fundamentalism being inappropriate. There was a time and a place where such a position may have been appropriate; in a different era with its knowledge base and a different culture. Culture evolves. Our understandings evolve with our continuous mental and spiritual growth.
In this day and age and with the great fund of knowledge we have and the shrinking of the world things have changed: our conceptualization abilities, our ever increasing knowledge etc.
For the last 400 years since the reformation(s) the whole gospel is not being taught. Some important parts got left behind because of the very human attitude that developed as a result of the abuses of the Church at that time. Anything that smacked of Roman Catholicism was abandoned as if there was nothing of value in the Church of that day. This was a naive and ignorant approach. It amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Of course the church needed to change but Luther's intentions were to change the church from within very much the same as Jesus intentions. Jesus did not want to create a new faith he wanted to change Judaism from within. He was a devout Jew.
Since the reformation, it seems to me much of fundamental Christianity has become limited in what it teaches, more selfish and self centered, ignorant of the great and powerful traditions of the very early church, blinded by its horse blinders, obsessed with what they see as the nature of the Bible which is far different from the very early church, lacking in knowledge of the nature of sacred writing and the vocabulary being used, making God too small and trying to make comprehensible the incomprehensible.
The emerging Christian church of today is trying to get in touch with reality as we now know it and it many ways trying to get back to the very early church that began after the crucifixion of Jesus. Far too many want to remain in the middle ages with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
The scoffing and ridicule of evolution, the big bang, the other great faiths of the world and a whole host of other things is nothing more than pure fear mongering and a lack of trust in the Divine. I will post a short parable to demonstrate this shortly.
Is fundamentalism wrong? No, it had its time and place. If it make for comfort for those involved its is great. On the other hand when it leads to the triumphal exclusivism it is a danger to the rest of the world in many ways.
Shalom
Ted:-6
In this day and age and with the great fund of knowledge we have and the shrinking of the world things have changed: our conceptualization abilities, our ever increasing knowledge etc.
For the last 400 years since the reformation(s) the whole gospel is not being taught. Some important parts got left behind because of the very human attitude that developed as a result of the abuses of the Church at that time. Anything that smacked of Roman Catholicism was abandoned as if there was nothing of value in the Church of that day. This was a naive and ignorant approach. It amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Of course the church needed to change but Luther's intentions were to change the church from within very much the same as Jesus intentions. Jesus did not want to create a new faith he wanted to change Judaism from within. He was a devout Jew.
Since the reformation, it seems to me much of fundamental Christianity has become limited in what it teaches, more selfish and self centered, ignorant of the great and powerful traditions of the very early church, blinded by its horse blinders, obsessed with what they see as the nature of the Bible which is far different from the very early church, lacking in knowledge of the nature of sacred writing and the vocabulary being used, making God too small and trying to make comprehensible the incomprehensible.
The emerging Christian church of today is trying to get in touch with reality as we now know it and it many ways trying to get back to the very early church that began after the crucifixion of Jesus. Far too many want to remain in the middle ages with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.
The scoffing and ridicule of evolution, the big bang, the other great faiths of the world and a whole host of other things is nothing more than pure fear mongering and a lack of trust in the Divine. I will post a short parable to demonstrate this shortly.
Is fundamentalism wrong? No, it had its time and place. If it make for comfort for those involved its is great. On the other hand when it leads to the triumphal exclusivism it is a danger to the rest of the world in many ways.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Oh man religious scares me. Christians, Muslims, all of them.
Push a rock, don’t question.
Blow yourself up, don’t question.
Do as we say, don’t question.
It is ‘God’ telling you what to do, don’t question, just do!
Be a stupid robotic moron and just do!
Push a rock, don’t question.
Blow yourself up, don’t question.
Do as we say, don’t question.
It is ‘God’ telling you what to do, don’t question, just do!
Be a stupid robotic moron and just do!
-
Kathy Ellen
- Posts: 10569
- Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:04 pm
Why?
Hey Far Rider,
Good to see ya again....
Good to see ya again....
Why?
FarRider:-6
What you describe sounds to me like a very loving caring family. Which family doesn't have its share of problems?
I loved the Nike advertisement response. Perfect.
Now to answer your question or is it right or wrong. Now you are asking me to play God. Sorry but that I cannot do.
I do know this. Historically western Christendom is essentially the invention of the reformation as is an inerrant Bible.
All of the great faiths lead to God. We can call the Divine by any name but there is still only one ultimate reality that some have called God and others, Allah, the Great Spirit or Vishnu.
Just to respond to the first part of your post I'm 64 and have been studying theology and translation and Biblical history for some 44+ years. I am also a lay preacher and have done services in many churches with many repeat visits. As well I am called to the Eucharistic ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada.
My father was a church organist and choir director in the same church for some 36 years and my mother and I sang in the Choir. Even in the choir loft I was able to move from the choir loft to the pulpit.
I walk the talk all the time in one way or another. Just did the sermon last Sunday. The priest was quite happy with its content.
Shalom
Ted:-6
What you describe sounds to me like a very loving caring family. Which family doesn't have its share of problems?
I loved the Nike advertisement response. Perfect.
Now to answer your question or is it right or wrong. Now you are asking me to play God. Sorry but that I cannot do.
I do know this. Historically western Christendom is essentially the invention of the reformation as is an inerrant Bible.
All of the great faiths lead to God. We can call the Divine by any name but there is still only one ultimate reality that some have called God and others, Allah, the Great Spirit or Vishnu.
Just to respond to the first part of your post I'm 64 and have been studying theology and translation and Biblical history for some 44+ years. I am also a lay preacher and have done services in many churches with many repeat visits. As well I am called to the Eucharistic ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada.
My father was a church organist and choir director in the same church for some 36 years and my mother and I sang in the Choir. Even in the choir loft I was able to move from the choir loft to the pulpit.
I walk the talk all the time in one way or another. Just did the sermon last Sunday. The priest was quite happy with its content.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
mikeinie;685939 wrote: Oh man religious scares me. Christians, Muslims, all of them.
Push a rock, don’t question.
Blow yourself up, don’t question.
Do as we say, don’t question.
It is ‘God’ telling you what to do, don’t question, just do!
Be a stupid robotic moron and just do!
Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and others. In philosophical terminology, existence of God arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God. The debate concerning the existence of God raises many philosophical issues. A basic problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Viewpoints represented include atheism, either no belief in God or the view that God does not exist; theism, the view that God exists; and agnosticism, the view that whether or not God exists is unknown or unknowable. Although once regarded as a non-issue in much of western academia, the question of the existence of God is now subject to lively debate both in philosophy[1] and in popular culture.[2]
Contents
[hide]
Push a rock, don’t question.
Blow yourself up, don’t question.
Do as we say, don’t question.
It is ‘God’ telling you what to do, don’t question, just do!
Be a stupid robotic moron and just do!
Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and others. In philosophical terminology, existence of God arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God. The debate concerning the existence of God raises many philosophical issues. A basic problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Viewpoints represented include atheism, either no belief in God or the view that God does not exist; theism, the view that God exists; and agnosticism, the view that whether or not God exists is unknown or unknowable. Although once regarded as a non-issue in much of western academia, the question of the existence of God is now subject to lively debate both in philosophy[1] and in popular culture.[2]
Contents
[hide]
- 1 Philosophical issues
- 1.1 Definition of God's existence 1.2 Epistemology
1.2.1 The problem of the supernatural
1.2.2 Nature of relevant Proofs/Arguments2 Arguments for the existence of God- 2.1 Arguments from historical events or personages 2.2 Inductive arguments (for)
2.3 Arguments from testimony (for)
2.3.1 Arguments grounded in personal experience3 Arguments against the existence of God- 3.1 Empirical arguments (against) 3.2 Deductive arguments (against) 3.3 Inductive arguments (against)
3.4 Subjective arguments (against)4 Conclusions- 4.1 Theism
- 4.1.1 God exists and this can be demonstrated
4.1.2 God exists, but this cannot be demonstrated or refuted4.2 Atheism- 4.2.1 Strong atheism
4.2.2 Weak atheism
4.3 Agnosticism5 Psychological Issues 6 See also 7 Further reading 8 Notes
9 References and Further Reading//
[edit] Philosophical issues
[edit] Definition of God's existence
Main articles: Definition, God, Deity, and Ontology
Today in the West, the term "God" typically refers to a monotheistic concept of a Supreme Being that is unlike any other being. Classical theism asserts that God possesses every possible perfection, including such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect benevolence. Of course this definition is not the only possible definition of "God". Other philosophical approaches take a logically simple definition of God such as "the Prime Mover" or "the Uncaused Cause",[3] or "the Ultimate Creator"[4] or "a being greater than which nothing can be conceived"[5] from which the classical properties may be deduced.[6] By contrast Pantheists do not believe in a personal God. For example, Spinoza and his philosophical followers (such as Einstein) use the term 'God' in a particular philosophical sense, to mean (roughly) the essential substance/principles of Nature.[7]
In the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism, reality is ultimately seen as being a single, qualityless, changeless being called nirguna Brahman. However, nirguna Brahman is understood to be beyond "ordinary" human comprehension.[8] What we ordinarily perceive - that is, a world of many things - is brought on by consequences of our actions.[citation needed] Thus, Advaitin philosophy introduces the concept of saguna Brahman or Ishvara as a way of talking about Brahman to people. Ishvara, in turn, is ascribed such qualities as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.
Polytheistic religions use the word "god" for multiple beings with varying degrees of power and abilities. Some stories such as those of Homer and Ovid portray gods arguing with, tricking and fighting with one another.
[edit] Epistemology
Main articles: Epistemology and Sociology of knowledge
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. One cannot be said to "know" something just because one believes it. Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from belief by justification.
Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided in a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also been described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism). Much of the disagreement about "proofs" of God's existence is due to different conceptions not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth" and "knowledge". Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) falls in the second, a priori class of "knowledge".
Different conclusions as to the existence of God often rest on different criteria for deciding what methods are appropriate for deciding if something is true or not; some examples include
whether logic counts as evidence concerning the quality of existence
whether subjective experience counts as evidence for objective reality
whether either logic or evidence can rule in or out the supernatural.
[edit] The problem of the supernatural
One problem posed by the question of the existence of a God is that traditional beliefs usually ascribe to God various supernatural powers. Supernatural beings may be able to conceal and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon. In addition, according to most concepts of God, God is not part of the natural order, but the ultimate creator of nature and of the scientific laws.
Religious apologists offer the supernatural nature of God as one explanation of the inability of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, the assertion of the existence of a supernatural God would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis, not in the domain of scientific investigation. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is beyond the domain of Science.
Proponents of intelligent design (I.D.) believe there is empirical evidence for Irreducible complexity pointing to the existence of an intelligent creator, though their claims are challenged by most in the scientific community. Even some scientifically literate theists appear to have been impressed by the observation that certain natural laws and universal constants seem "fine-tuned" to favor the development of life (see Anthropic principle). However, reliance on phenomena which have not yet been resolved by natural explanations may be equated to the pejorative God of the gaps.
Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer viewed any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning.
[edit] Nature of relevant Proofs/Arguments
Since God (of the kind to which the Proofs/Arguments relate) is neither an entity in the Universe nor a mathematical object it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God[9] mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question. John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in Physics are the ideas of Quantum Mechanics which are paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.[10] However you cannot do experiments on God, and, if God exists and is indeed the creator of reality, God created the laws of Physics and is not necessarily bound by them, so it will inevitably be more difficult to reason reliably about God[11].
Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds: both of which are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic[12].
One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) the existence of God or Naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other[13] Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way. In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However since an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the Prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice-versa[14].
[edit] Arguments for the existence of God
The Cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God.
The Teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by belief in a loving creator God.
The Ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists[15].
The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for Theism as against Materialism.
The Anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The Moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
The Transcendental argument for the existence of God suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
The Will to Believe Doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages.
[edit] Arguments from historical events or personages
Judaism asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments, thus demonstrating his special care for the Jewish people, and a fortiori his existence.
The argument from the life of Jesus. This asserts that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, that in this he was either deluded, deceitful or truthful, and that it is possible to assess Jesus's character sufficiently from the accounts of his life and teaching to rule out the first two possibilities. C S Lewis put forward this argument (the Trilemma) and it is followed in the widely adopted Alpha Course.[16]
The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection and that this vindicates his claim to be Son of God and a fortiori God's existence.[17]
Islam asserts that the life of Muhammad and especially the revealing of the miraculous Koran by an angel similarly vindicates Islam.
Mormonism similarly asserts that the miraculous finding of the Book of Mormon vindicates Mormonism.
[edit] Inductive arguments (for)
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.
Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?. [18]
[edit] Arguments from testimony (for)
Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[19]
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The Majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.
[edit] Arguments grounded in personal experience
The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another.[20] God's existence, then, cannot be proved--Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality--it must be felt by the mind.
In his Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher (died 1834), who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[21]
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the Divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against Modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore His existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of Creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")
[edit] Arguments against the existence of God
Each of the following arguments aims at showing that some particular conception of a god is either inherently meaningless, contradictory, or contradicts known scientific and/or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described does not exist.
[edit] Empirical arguments (against)
Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.
The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.
The problem of evil contests the existence of a God who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a God should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design.
The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a God would do a better job of gathering believers.
The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in god[22], the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
[edit] Deductive arguments (against)
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises. These arguments inherently depend on specific definitions of the term "God".
The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?". It is reasonable to assume that God knows all the answers, then, if one were to ask the question: Please tell me something you don't know. If God confirms, it would mean that God does not have all the answers, which contradicts the assumption. If God knows everything, then he does not have the answer to this particular question. The cycle continues.
Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically asking "how can an All-Knowing Being change His mind?" See the article on omniscience for details.
The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will - or has allotted the same freedom to his creations - by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god.
The Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on this argument, [23], seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.
The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.
It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the constraints of time and space, and the fact that it cannot be proven if God is in either. [24]
[edit] Inductive arguments (against)
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.
The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."
The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris.
[edit] Subjective arguments (against)
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.
The conflicted religions argument where specific religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants. All the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, so many if not all religions must be incorrect.
The Argument from a Proper Basis mentioned in the "Arguments From Testimony (For)" section of this article is in itself inherently flawed. It argues that the existence of god should be accepted despite being unprovable, because statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain" can also not be proven through scientific method, when in fact they can. Seeing a chair can be verified by asking the subject to point in the direction of the chair, whilst pain can be detected through sudden elevated levels of serotonin and adrenaline in the brains frontal cortices responsible for the sensation of touch and pain. Taking statements like "god exists" at face value is more comparable to accepting similarly unprovable statements without question, such as "pigs can fly".
The "Need for an Answer" argument states that if God needs no beginning and needs no end, why does the cosmos need a begininng and end so badly that humans need create concepts such as a divine creator and the apocalypse without proof.
[edit] Conclusions
Conclusions on the existence of God can be roughly divided into three camps: theist, atheist, and agnostic.
[edit] Theism
The theistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there are sufficient reasons to believe in the existence of God or gods.
[edit] God exists and this can be demonstrated
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the Thomist tradition and the dogmatic definition of the First Vatican Council, affirms that it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that God's existence has been rationally demonstrated. For the proofs of God's existence by Saint Thomas Aquinas see Quinquae viae. Many other Christian denominations share the view that God's existence can be demonstrated without recourse to claims of revelation.
On beliefs of Christian faith, theologians and philosophers make a distinction between:
doctrines arising from special revelation that arise essentially from faith in divinely inspired revelations, including the life of Christ, but cannot be proved or even anticipated by reason alone, such as the doctrines of the Trinity or the Incarnation, and
doctrines arising from general revelation, that is from reason alone drawing conclusions based on relatively obvious observations of the world and self.The argument that the existence of God can be known to all, even prior to exposure to any divine revelation, predates Christianity. St. Paul made this argument when he insisted that pagans were without excuse because "since the creation of the world [God's] invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made".[25] In this Paul alludes to the proofs for a Creator, later enunciated by St. Thomas[26] and others, but that had also been explored by the Greek philosophers.
Another apologetical school of thought, a sort of synthesis of various existing Dutch and American Reformed thinkers (such as, Abraham Kuyper, Benjamin Warfield, Herman Dooyeweerd), emerged in the late 1920s. This school was instituted by Cornelius Van Til, and came to be popularly called Presuppositional apologetics (though Van Til himself felt "Transcendental" would be a more accurate title). The main distinction between this approach and the more classical evidentialist approach mentioned above is that the Presuppositionalist denies any common ground between the believer and the non-believer, except that which the non-believer denies, namely, the assumption of the truth of the theistic worldview. In other words, Presuppositionalists don't believe that the existence of God can be proven by appeal to raw, uninterpreted (or, "brute") facts, which have the same (theoretical) meaning to people with fundamentally different worldviews, because they deny that such a condition is even possible. They claim that the only possible proof for the existence of God is that the very same belief is the necessary condition to the intelligibility of all other human experience and action. In other words, they attempt to prove the existence of God by means of appeal to the alleged transcendental necessity of the belief -- indirectly (by appeal to the allegedly unavowed presuppositions of the non-believer's worldview) rather than directly (by appeal to some form of common factuality). In practice this school utilizes what have come to be known as Transcendental Arguments for the Existence of God. In these arguments they claim to demonstrate that all human experience and action (even the condition of unbelief, itself) is a proof for the existence of God, because God's existence is the necessary condition of their intelligibility.
[edit] God exists, but this cannot be demonstrated or refuted
Others have suggested that the several logical and philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God miss the point. The word God has a meaning in human culture and history that does not correspond to the beings whose existence is supported by such arguments, assuming they are valid. The real question is not whether a "most perfect being" or an "uncaused first cause" exist; the real question is whether Yahweh or Vishnu or Zeus, or some other deity of attested human religion, exists, and if so, which deity. Most of these arguments do not resolve the issue of which of these figures is more likely to exist, although all empirical arguments suggest that none of them do. Blaise Pascal suggested this objection in his Pensées when he wrote "The God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob — not the god of the philosophers!", see also Pascal's wager.
Some Christians note that the Christian faith teaches "salvation is by faith",[27] and that faith is reliance upon the faithfulness of God, which has little to do with the believer's ability to comprehend that in which he trusts.
The most extreme example of this position is called fideism, which holds that faith is simply the will to believe, and argues that if God's existence were rationally demonstrable, faith in His existence would become superfluous. In The Justification of Knowledge, the Calvinist theologian Robert L. Reymond argues that believers should not attempt to prove the existence of God. Since he believes all such proofs are fundamentally unsound, believers should not place their confidence in them, much less resort to them in discussions with non-believers; rather, they should accept the content of revelation by faith. Reymond's position is similar to that of his mentor, Gordon Clark, which holds that all worldviews are based on certain unprovable first premises (or, axioms), and therefore are ultimately unprovable. The Christian theist therefore must simply choose to start with Christianity rather than anything else, by a "leap of faith". This position is also sometimes called Presuppositional apologetics, but should not be confused with the Van Tillian variety discussed above.
An intermediate position is that of Alvin Plantinga who holds that a specific form of modal logic and an appeal to world-indexed properties render belief in the existence of God rational and justified, even though the existence of God cannot be proven in a mathematical sense. Plantinga equates knowledge of God's existence with kinds of knowledge that are rational but do not proceed through proof, such as sensory knowledge.[28]
[edit] Atheism
The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments indicate there are insufficient reasons to believe in the existence of God or gods.
[edit] Strong atheism
Strong atheism is the position that a god or gods do not exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts god's non-existence[29]. Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible, for example claiming that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (For example: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the non-existence of such a God is a priori true. It needs to be noted that believing the qualities of a particular God to be contradictory is not the sole basis of strong atheist; many strong atheists would assert that, owing to the lack of evidence, even a God described in a manner that was not contradictory is still unlikely to exist. It should also be noted that many religions credit human achievements to God, many strong atheists consider this to be outrageous, and that human achievements are the result of millions of years of inspiration and innovation.
[edit] Weak atheism
The term weak atheism is used of those who do not believe that a god or gods exists. This is different from agnosticism which states that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable. There is some controversy in the use of this term. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion uses the term "strong atheist" but not "weak atheist" [30]
[edit] Agnosticism
The term agnosticism refers to the philosophical position that the existence of God is unknown, specifically in distinction from theism and atheism. A stronger form of this position, also called agnosticism, is that the question of whether or not God exists cannot be known - this is sometimes called "strong" agnosticism. This seems to have been the position of Thomas Huxley who coined the term[31]; however, other self-described Agnostics like Anthony Kenny hold the "weaker" position[32].
[edit] Psychological Issues
In his book "Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion," Todd Tremlin argues that universal human cognitive process naturally produce gods. In particular, an agency detection device (ADD) and a theory-of-mind module (ToMM) lead us to expect an agent behind every event. We err on the side of attributing agency where there isn't any - a trait that no doubt served our ancestors well.
We ask why we are here and whether life has purpose; we are anxious about being alone. Religious beliefs may recruit the cognitive mechanisms. William James emphasized the inner religious struggle between melancholy and happiness, and pointed to trance as a cognitive mechanism. Sigmund Freud stressed fear and pain, the need for a powerful parent to care for us, the obsessional nature of ritual, and the hypnotic state a community can induce.
[edit] See also
Apologetics
Conceptions of God
Elohim
Existence of Jesus
God in Buddhism
God in Hinduism
God in Sikhism
Gödel's ontological proof
Metaphysics
Mythology
Philosophy of religion
Polemic
Problem of evil
Quinquae viae
Rationalism
Spectrum of Theistic Probability – a way of categorizing ones belief about the existence of a deity, first formulated by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion"
[edit] Further reading
The Classical Islamic Arguments for the Existence of God by Majid Fakhry
Philosophy of Religion.Info Introductory articles on philosophical arguments about the existence of God (for and against)
A collection of arguments for the existence of God
Jesus Evidence Arguments for the existence of God based upon the evidence for Jesus Christ.
Christian Bible God/Jesus Truth A collection of Bible quotes pertaining to the flawed morality of God.
Arguments for the Existence of God from the Christian Cadre.
Proofs of God's Existence - Islam - Ahmadiyyat
Arguments for Atheism from Infidels.org
StrongAtheism.net References page A listing of references containing atheistic arguments.
"50 simple proofs" that God is imaginary.
The Existence of God - Catholic Encyclopedia
The Rationality of Theism London: Routledge (2003) ISBN 0415263328 - a collection of essays by 13 philosophers exploring the arguments for and against the existence of God
Does the Divine exist ?
[edit] Notes
^ see eg The Rationality of Theism quoting Quentin Smith "God is not 'dead' in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s". They cite "the shift from hostility towards theism in Paul Edwards's Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) to sympathy towards theism in the more recent Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy ^ Consider the sales and lively discussion of a whole raft of recent books arguing for and against theism, such as The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The Language of God by Francis Collins ^ Both following Aquinas, see Quinquae viae. ^ A modern re-statement, see [1] ^ Following Anselm's Ontological argument ^ See Swinburne's Does God Exist? or Polkinghorne
^ See the articles on them, and especially Einstein's 1940 paper
interesting reading huh
- 4.2.1 Strong atheism
- 4.1.1 God exists and this can be demonstrated
- 4.1 Theism
- 3.1 Empirical arguments (against) 3.2 Deductive arguments (against) 3.3 Inductive arguments (against)
- 2.1 Arguments from historical events or personages 2.2 Inductive arguments (for)
- 1.1 Definition of God's existence 1.2 Epistemology
Why?
jimbo:-6
Interesting post.
The fact of the matter is that any debate on the existence or non-existence of God is purely a waste of time. These arguments generally rely on logic and rationalism both of which being human creations are imperfect and have their limitations.
One of the great atheists, Nietzsche, called for God in the latter days of his life. The poem can be found in "The Existence of God", Hans Kung.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Interesting post.
The fact of the matter is that any debate on the existence or non-existence of God is purely a waste of time. These arguments generally rely on logic and rationalism both of which being human creations are imperfect and have their limitations.
One of the great atheists, Nietzsche, called for God in the latter days of his life. The poem can be found in "The Existence of God", Hans Kung.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
FarRider:-6
Excellent post. Thanks for the response. I will try to explain.
I do not want anyone to take what I say without serious thought.
In the traditional church authority rested in three places; the scriptures, traditions of the church as handed down from earlier times and common sense. Having been trained in translation in both Hebrew and Greek and interpretation and Biblical history and knowing how the Bible came about I cannot accept it as totally authoritative. I can give information here if you wish. However, my faith is not based on a book but on the experiential reality of the risen Lord to which that particular book attests.
I also know that many of the stories in the Bible are metaphorical and were written as such. The ancient Hebrew style of writing is called midrash and it makes extensive use of metaphor. In this style a more ancient story is used in interpreting a newer event. For instance as in the story of the Exodus, which is their most important story they crossed the Reed Sea on dry land. A second and very important story is the entrance to the promised land so to show its importance Joshua crosses on dry ground.
A second one and one you will be equally familiar with is the story of Moses being hidden from the pharaoh's edict about small children. This reproduced once again in the story of the escape of Jesus to Egypt. It is told this way to convey its importance.
Part of the problem today stems from the enlightenment. If it was not historical it was not true. This totally disregards the very powerful truths that are better presented in metaphor. For example Oliver Twist is a fictional character. However, there were many Olivers in Dickens day. It presents a truth about the society of the day. I very much believe in the truths presented in the Bible but for the most part they are not historical truths.
I call "God" the Divine simply because the names God, Yahweh, Elohim are all human inventions. I accept that God is beyond any human ability to really comprehend, define or describe No human language can even come close to doing the job. God is so far beyond that. So contrary to making God less than s/he is I recognize our inability to converse about the Divine and thus recognize the absolute greatness of the Divine. J. B. Phillips, a Bible translator and scholar, once wrote a book titled "Your God is Too Small" in recognition that we as humans cannot come to grips with the Divine in human terms.
I am not casting any judgment on fundamentalist/literalism. I am simply pointing out what I know about history. The reformers in their great zeal to get rid of the errors of the existing church really through the baby out with the bath water. Luther did not want to start a new church. He very much wanted to change the existing one. This is very much the same with Jesus. He was a devout Jew. He did not want to create a new church but was forced to.
When it comes to interpreting the Bible I firmly believe that it must not contradict the reality that we see around us. Evolution is no longer an idea it is accepted as fact. The sun does not stand still for 24hrs. In fact it is the earth rotating on its axis that creates the appearance that the sun is moving. We know for a fact that the creations stories in the Bible come from three different sources and they were borrowed from the Mesopotamians as with the story of Noah. None of this changes the profound truths those stories present.
Rather than destroying or reducing my faith all of the above has made it much more intense and certain.
Now you speak of the dangers of what I am saying. Please consider the other side of the coin. How many folks have been turned away from a religious faith because they are being asked to believe something they know cannot possibly be true. We now have a new creation story that makes far more sense to many than the old Adam and Eve story. I know this happens. I've seen it. I've experienced the folks who say they cannot accept such stories as history.
Science, archaeology and history do not support the historical and literal interpretation of the Bible. However, once people begin to see it as a literary style they begin to see the very powerful messages therein.
I was pleased with your response because it initiated a dialogue rather than confrontation. That is all I ask for along with the recognition that there are other points of view and that some respond better to one than the other. I hope that helps explain my position. I don't ask you to accept it but only to understand there are other points of view.
Does it matter? I don't believe so, personally. We are all looking to the one ultimate reality, the Divine creator.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS. Sorry about the length.
Excellent post. Thanks for the response. I will try to explain.
I do not want anyone to take what I say without serious thought.
In the traditional church authority rested in three places; the scriptures, traditions of the church as handed down from earlier times and common sense. Having been trained in translation in both Hebrew and Greek and interpretation and Biblical history and knowing how the Bible came about I cannot accept it as totally authoritative. I can give information here if you wish. However, my faith is not based on a book but on the experiential reality of the risen Lord to which that particular book attests.
I also know that many of the stories in the Bible are metaphorical and were written as such. The ancient Hebrew style of writing is called midrash and it makes extensive use of metaphor. In this style a more ancient story is used in interpreting a newer event. For instance as in the story of the Exodus, which is their most important story they crossed the Reed Sea on dry land. A second and very important story is the entrance to the promised land so to show its importance Joshua crosses on dry ground.
A second one and one you will be equally familiar with is the story of Moses being hidden from the pharaoh's edict about small children. This reproduced once again in the story of the escape of Jesus to Egypt. It is told this way to convey its importance.
Part of the problem today stems from the enlightenment. If it was not historical it was not true. This totally disregards the very powerful truths that are better presented in metaphor. For example Oliver Twist is a fictional character. However, there were many Olivers in Dickens day. It presents a truth about the society of the day. I very much believe in the truths presented in the Bible but for the most part they are not historical truths.
I call "God" the Divine simply because the names God, Yahweh, Elohim are all human inventions. I accept that God is beyond any human ability to really comprehend, define or describe No human language can even come close to doing the job. God is so far beyond that. So contrary to making God less than s/he is I recognize our inability to converse about the Divine and thus recognize the absolute greatness of the Divine. J. B. Phillips, a Bible translator and scholar, once wrote a book titled "Your God is Too Small" in recognition that we as humans cannot come to grips with the Divine in human terms.
I am not casting any judgment on fundamentalist/literalism. I am simply pointing out what I know about history. The reformers in their great zeal to get rid of the errors of the existing church really through the baby out with the bath water. Luther did not want to start a new church. He very much wanted to change the existing one. This is very much the same with Jesus. He was a devout Jew. He did not want to create a new church but was forced to.
When it comes to interpreting the Bible I firmly believe that it must not contradict the reality that we see around us. Evolution is no longer an idea it is accepted as fact. The sun does not stand still for 24hrs. In fact it is the earth rotating on its axis that creates the appearance that the sun is moving. We know for a fact that the creations stories in the Bible come from three different sources and they were borrowed from the Mesopotamians as with the story of Noah. None of this changes the profound truths those stories present.
Rather than destroying or reducing my faith all of the above has made it much more intense and certain.
Now you speak of the dangers of what I am saying. Please consider the other side of the coin. How many folks have been turned away from a religious faith because they are being asked to believe something they know cannot possibly be true. We now have a new creation story that makes far more sense to many than the old Adam and Eve story. I know this happens. I've seen it. I've experienced the folks who say they cannot accept such stories as history.
Science, archaeology and history do not support the historical and literal interpretation of the Bible. However, once people begin to see it as a literary style they begin to see the very powerful messages therein.
I was pleased with your response because it initiated a dialogue rather than confrontation. That is all I ask for along with the recognition that there are other points of view and that some respond better to one than the other. I hope that helps explain my position. I don't ask you to accept it but only to understand there are other points of view.
Does it matter? I don't believe so, personally. We are all looking to the one ultimate reality, the Divine creator.
Shalom
Ted:-6
PS. Sorry about the length.
Why?
FarRider:-6
The feelings re each other are mutual. You are a fine Christian man. Not a judgment but an observation from my point of view. God alone is the judge. I have another fundamentalist e-friend. He keeps trying to take me back to the reformation and I keep trying to bring him into the 21st Cent. We disagree but highly respect each other and get along well even discussing one of the no-nos, religion. We haven't got around to sex or politics yet except for the homosexuality issue.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The feelings re each other are mutual. You are a fine Christian man. Not a judgment but an observation from my point of view. God alone is the judge. I have another fundamentalist e-friend. He keeps trying to take me back to the reformation and I keep trying to bring him into the 21st Cent. We disagree but highly respect each other and get along well even discussing one of the no-nos, religion. We haven't got around to sex or politics yet except for the homosexuality issue.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
FarRider:-6
The use of s/he for "God" is rather simple. God is not a being. He is spirit. "Father" was used originally because it was very much a patriarchal world. God has no gender as such but displays both male and female qualities. Other words in used today are brother, sister, companion, friend, guide, mother, etc. Here I might add that I don't accept theism but panentheism. Please note I did not say "pantheism".
As far as historical truth is concerned as I see it you are trapped by the enlightenments belief that if it is not historical it is not true. That is simply a fallacy. All teachers know that metaphor is a very powerful tool used in teaching and in fact can present truth, many times, better than historical fact.
I'm not sure if you mentioned atonement here or on the other thread. I will respond here. There are several interpretations to the death of Jesus just as there are several interpretations to his life and what it meant.
Do we worship a different God? I don't think so. You have a concept of God and I firmly believe that God is beyond human concept. He is the "unnameable" as Eckhart said. I trust God without question. The experiential reality of the risen Lord is all I need.
You think it matters and that I am leading folks astray. Perhaps it is you that are doing that. As I said I've seen folks turned away from a faith in God because they were asked to believe what they considered the impossible and even ridiculous.
There are many names applied to the unnameable but there is only one "Ultimate Reality".
Shalom
Ted
The use of s/he for "God" is rather simple. God is not a being. He is spirit. "Father" was used originally because it was very much a patriarchal world. God has no gender as such but displays both male and female qualities. Other words in used today are brother, sister, companion, friend, guide, mother, etc. Here I might add that I don't accept theism but panentheism. Please note I did not say "pantheism".
As far as historical truth is concerned as I see it you are trapped by the enlightenments belief that if it is not historical it is not true. That is simply a fallacy. All teachers know that metaphor is a very powerful tool used in teaching and in fact can present truth, many times, better than historical fact.
I'm not sure if you mentioned atonement here or on the other thread. I will respond here. There are several interpretations to the death of Jesus just as there are several interpretations to his life and what it meant.
Do we worship a different God? I don't think so. You have a concept of God and I firmly believe that God is beyond human concept. He is the "unnameable" as Eckhart said. I trust God without question. The experiential reality of the risen Lord is all I need.
You think it matters and that I am leading folks astray. Perhaps it is you that are doing that. As I said I've seen folks turned away from a faith in God because they were asked to believe what they considered the impossible and even ridiculous.
There are many names applied to the unnameable but there is only one "Ultimate Reality".
Shalom
Ted
Why?
Ted,
God is not the Father? With all due respect, aren't you just making it up as you go? I would call it creative eisegesis also known as driving beyond your headlights.
God is not the Father? With all due respect, aren't you just making it up as you go? I would call it creative eisegesis also known as driving beyond your headlights.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint:-6
No, I am not making it up as I go. Any theological book written today by both scholars and many clergy are saying the same thing. In fact that is what is being taught in many schools of theology around the world.
You are certainly free to call it what you like.
I think it is becoming very clear that there are, in fact, two Christianities in the world today. The is one that is trying to maintain the invented Christianity that came out of the reformation and the second one that is a return to the early church that developed withing some 400 years of the crucifixion.
Because of cultural and historical differences as well as our current very large and ever growing fund of knowledge we must learn to ask what the Bible, tradition and common sense means for us today in our present culture etc.
The question is not "Is it historically true?" but "What does it mean in our understanding today?"
Shalom
Ted:-6
No, I am not making it up as I go. Any theological book written today by both scholars and many clergy are saying the same thing. In fact that is what is being taught in many schools of theology around the world.
You are certainly free to call it what you like.
I think it is becoming very clear that there are, in fact, two Christianities in the world today. The is one that is trying to maintain the invented Christianity that came out of the reformation and the second one that is a return to the early church that developed withing some 400 years of the crucifixion.
Because of cultural and historical differences as well as our current very large and ever growing fund of knowledge we must learn to ask what the Bible, tradition and common sense means for us today in our present culture etc.
The question is not "Is it historically true?" but "What does it mean in our understanding today?"
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Why?
Ted you can count me as un-enlightened then, and I shall live in the real world and do what it is I believe something tells me and leave you to your journey through spiritualism. You are making a huge error one that leaves you like these verses below.
I do believe is the spirit and not in the Church. I can only live in the world that surrounds me and gives me peace.
I do believe is the spirit and not in the Church. I can only live in the world that surrounds me and gives me peace.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Why?
Ted;688339 wrote: Clint:-6
No, I am not making it up as I go. Any theological book written today by both scholars and many clergy are saying the same thing. In fact that is what is being taught in many schools of theology around the world.
You are certainly free to call it what you like.
I think it is becoming very clear that there are, in fact, two Christianities in the world today. The is one that is trying to maintain the invented Christianity that came out of the reformation and the second one that is a return to the early church that developed withing some 400 years of the crucifixion.
Because of cultural and historical differences as well as our current very large and ever growing fund of knowledge we must learn to ask what the Bible, tradition and common sense means for us today in our present culture etc.
The question is not "Is it historically true?" but "What does it mean in our understanding today?"
Shalom
Ted:-6
You missed at least one additional "Christianity". You missed those of us who focus on the first century church.
We believe the church that came out of the reformation never shook off the baggage attached to it by Constantine. The church that developed after the first century was heavily influenced by Constantine’s sun god worship.
The church that is emerging from man’s imagination today is totally confusing and without hope for anyone.
The Apostles and Disciples of the first century continued in Judaism only separated from their Jewish brothers and sisters by their belief in Yeshua the Messiah and his teachings regarding the spirit of the law and freedom.
No, I am not making it up as I go. Any theological book written today by both scholars and many clergy are saying the same thing. In fact that is what is being taught in many schools of theology around the world.
You are certainly free to call it what you like.
I think it is becoming very clear that there are, in fact, two Christianities in the world today. The is one that is trying to maintain the invented Christianity that came out of the reformation and the second one that is a return to the early church that developed withing some 400 years of the crucifixion.
Because of cultural and historical differences as well as our current very large and ever growing fund of knowledge we must learn to ask what the Bible, tradition and common sense means for us today in our present culture etc.
The question is not "Is it historically true?" but "What does it mean in our understanding today?"
Shalom
Ted:-6
You missed at least one additional "Christianity". You missed those of us who focus on the first century church.
We believe the church that came out of the reformation never shook off the baggage attached to it by Constantine. The church that developed after the first century was heavily influenced by Constantine’s sun god worship.
The church that is emerging from man’s imagination today is totally confusing and without hope for anyone.
The Apostles and Disciples of the first century continued in Judaism only separated from their Jewish brothers and sisters by their belief in Yeshua the Messiah and his teachings regarding the spirit of the law and freedom.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Why?
I have never believed in Church..........I have always believed in spirit.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Why?
nvalleyvee;688600 wrote: I have never believed in Church..........I have always believed in spirit.
Do you find value in being with others who believe as you do?
Do you find value in being with others who believe as you do?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
FarRider:-6
There is not one shred of physical evidence for the exodus as written. The exodus story arose out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. The story is a myth.
BTW I do live in the real world.
As far as spirituality goes that was what the early Christian church was about. The problem is it lost that spirituality over the centuries since the death of Jesus.
Now let me see the Bible says that God is a spirit. We talk about the Holy Spirit. I've often heard it said that we are a spiritual being in a physical body. However, spirituality is out?? So you say. More picking and choosing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is not one shred of physical evidence for the exodus as written. The exodus story arose out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta. The story is a myth.
BTW I do live in the real world.
As far as spirituality goes that was what the early Christian church was about. The problem is it lost that spirituality over the centuries since the death of Jesus.
Now let me see the Bible says that God is a spirit. We talk about the Holy Spirit. I've often heard it said that we are a spiritual being in a physical body. However, spirituality is out?? So you say. More picking and choosing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Clint:-6
No you do not represent the first century church. Any good historical reading would clearly point that out to you. I can say this because back in Jesus day there were many Judaisms not just one. "The Birth of Christianity", J. Crossan. Just as there are now some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world so to in the first century there was not just one church. Some followed one set of scriptures and others different ones. Among these are the many that did not make it into the present Bible.
The inerrant Bible is the child of the reformation. While some thought it was inerrant the majority knew it as a metaphorical and midrashic writing. Crossan, Borg, Spong etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
No you do not represent the first century church. Any good historical reading would clearly point that out to you. I can say this because back in Jesus day there were many Judaisms not just one. "The Birth of Christianity", J. Crossan. Just as there are now some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world so to in the first century there was not just one church. Some followed one set of scriptures and others different ones. Among these are the many that did not make it into the present Bible.
The inerrant Bible is the child of the reformation. While some thought it was inerrant the majority knew it as a metaphorical and midrashic writing. Crossan, Borg, Spong etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted;688810 wrote: Clint:-6
No you do not represent the first century church. Any good historical reading would clearly point that out to you. I can say this because back in Jesus day there were many Judaisms not just one. "The Birth of Christianity", J. Crossan. Just as there are now some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world so to in the first century there was not just one church. Some followed one set of scriptures and others different ones. Among these are the many that did not make it into the present Bible.
The inerrant Bible is the child of the reformation. While some thought it was inerrant the majority knew it as a metaphorical and midrashic writing. Crossan, Borg, Spong etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Where did I say I represented anything? I said we focus on the first century church. You are correct that there were many Judaisms just as there are today. As Bible following Christianity today has many denominations so it was then. As I’m sure you know, I was refering to the common theme(s).
When I see the red herrings come out I suspect I’m seeing a discussion coming to a close.
No you do not represent the first century church. Any good historical reading would clearly point that out to you. I can say this because back in Jesus day there were many Judaisms not just one. "The Birth of Christianity", J. Crossan. Just as there are now some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world so to in the first century there was not just one church. Some followed one set of scriptures and others different ones. Among these are the many that did not make it into the present Bible.
The inerrant Bible is the child of the reformation. While some thought it was inerrant the majority knew it as a metaphorical and midrashic writing. Crossan, Borg, Spong etc.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Where did I say I represented anything? I said we focus on the first century church. You are correct that there were many Judaisms just as there are today. As Bible following Christianity today has many denominations so it was then. As I’m sure you know, I was refering to the common theme(s).
When I see the red herrings come out I suspect I’m seeing a discussion coming to a close.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint:-6
No red herring. You said you focus on the first century church. Which one?
It is interesting that you criticize Constantine. Without him the church probably would have slipped into oblivion and secondly without him you would not have the Bible as you have it today.
Some, of course, are anti-scholarship but without scholarship we would not have the Bible we have today which by the way was chosen by a vote. The wisdom they left out is as important as the wisdom the kept.
This says nothing abut the redactions and editorializing that has gone on.
Shalom
Ted
No red herring. You said you focus on the first century church. Which one?
It is interesting that you criticize Constantine. Without him the church probably would have slipped into oblivion and secondly without him you would not have the Bible as you have it today.
Some, of course, are anti-scholarship but without scholarship we would not have the Bible we have today which by the way was chosen by a vote. The wisdom they left out is as important as the wisdom the kept.
This says nothing abut the redactions and editorializing that has gone on.
Shalom
Ted
Why?
FarRider:-6
You do speak your mind and that is as it should be. I to must be allowed to speak mine. If you come on with a, say, power of 8 I will respond at the same level. You have one point of view and I hold another. You seem to think that I should shut up because for some reason you think that you have a handle on God and I don't.
The fact of the matter is you have no idea as to the breadth or depth of my faith.
You want to go with blind faith and I choose to use the Bible, faith with tradition, common sense and reason. If I find that something written does not match the reality I see around me then I want to know the truth of the matter. I am not afraid of the truth and Jesus was quite clear that we would know the truth and it would set us free.
I am free under my experiential reality of the risen Lord and my commitment to him. I have come to realize there are no absolutes with the exception of the Divine whom we see manifest, as much as is possible in a human can do so, in Jesus of Nazareth. Anything else is beyond our human abilities at conceptualization.
If you choose to see God as some being that walks around with a big stick and beats on people that don't follow exactly what some have declared he said then go for it.
I have had the experiential reality of the Divine, also referred to as a transformation, and now realize that this very old view of the Divine is simply not something in which I believe. Could I be wrong? Yep but so could you. Could I be right? Yep in part or in whole. But human beings are not my judge. God alone is the judge and I have the greatest of faith in Him/Her.
BTW the word used for justice in the Bible does not refer to retributive justice but distributive justice as can be quite clearly seen in the life and teachings of Jesus.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You do speak your mind and that is as it should be. I to must be allowed to speak mine. If you come on with a, say, power of 8 I will respond at the same level. You have one point of view and I hold another. You seem to think that I should shut up because for some reason you think that you have a handle on God and I don't.
The fact of the matter is you have no idea as to the breadth or depth of my faith.
You want to go with blind faith and I choose to use the Bible, faith with tradition, common sense and reason. If I find that something written does not match the reality I see around me then I want to know the truth of the matter. I am not afraid of the truth and Jesus was quite clear that we would know the truth and it would set us free.
I am free under my experiential reality of the risen Lord and my commitment to him. I have come to realize there are no absolutes with the exception of the Divine whom we see manifest, as much as is possible in a human can do so, in Jesus of Nazareth. Anything else is beyond our human abilities at conceptualization.
If you choose to see God as some being that walks around with a big stick and beats on people that don't follow exactly what some have declared he said then go for it.
I have had the experiential reality of the Divine, also referred to as a transformation, and now realize that this very old view of the Divine is simply not something in which I believe. Could I be wrong? Yep but so could you. Could I be right? Yep in part or in whole. But human beings are not my judge. God alone is the judge and I have the greatest of faith in Him/Her.
BTW the word used for justice in the Bible does not refer to retributive justice but distributive justice as can be quite clearly seen in the life and teachings of Jesus.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why?
Ted;688843 wrote: Clint:-6
No red herring. You said you focus on the first century church. Which one?
It is interesting that you criticize Constantine. Without him the church probably would have slipped into oblivion and secondly without him you would not have the Bible as you have it today.
Some, of course, are anti-scholarship but without scholarship we would not have the Bible we have today which by the way was chosen by a vote. The wisdom they left out is as important as the wisdom the kept.
This says nothing abut the redactions and editorializing that has gone on.
Shalom
Ted
When I speak of the first century church I’m speaking of the one that included those who walked with Jesus. They understood what he was trying to teach them better than Constantine, Luther or modern day scholars. They were not a weak fragmented group. They posed a significant threat to Constantine because they believed they were called to follow Yeshua the Messiah first. If it hadn’t been for the way they were taught to honor authority over them Constantine’s problem with them may have been much greater.
You can thank Judaism for keeping God’s Scriptures (Tanakh). Since the first believers in Yeshua were Jews who knew how to preserve the written and oral traditions you can also thank them for preserving the truth we have today in the B’rit Hadashah (New Covenant).
Do I struggle with the translations and the decisions to include or exclude? You bet I do but I don’t think that the exclusion of something valuable means that what was included isn’t valuable or accurate.
What about Constantine? Constantine was Roman emperor 306-337 AD and father of the Roman Catholic Church. He was a worshipper of the sun god holding the title of High Priest until death even though he was supposedly baptized a Christian.
Indeed, the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, edited and approved of by him. Since he made many changes to the Christian faith blending worship of the sun into Catholicism one has to wonder what he might have done in that process.
The birthday of the pagan Sun god was December 25th and was made the official birthday of Jesus even though we know it is highly unlikely he was even born at that time of the year.
He made it unlawful to rest on Saturday (The 7th Day) so Christianity changed their day of rest to the first day (Sunday, the day of the sun).
The coins during Constantine reign were committed to the “Invincible Sun” and bore pictures of the sun god.
Constantine built the arch of Constantine in 315 AD. There are no Christian symbols on it, only those of Mithras, Jupiter, Mars and Hercules.
You would think Constantine’s new Christian empire would immediately banish evil acts, such as Gladiator fights, mass executions and other pagan Roman entertainment. Sadly they didn’t, the events continued in the Roman Coliseum until the 6th century AD.
Sorry, I’m not giving Constantine credit for anything but confusing what Jesus became incarnate to clarify.
It is interesting however, that the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles were not removed from the Bible by Constantine even though doing so would have been convenient for him. Those events including the resurrection must have been so imbedded in tradition by that time that he didn’t dare try to remove them.
No red herring. You said you focus on the first century church. Which one?
It is interesting that you criticize Constantine. Without him the church probably would have slipped into oblivion and secondly without him you would not have the Bible as you have it today.
Some, of course, are anti-scholarship but without scholarship we would not have the Bible we have today which by the way was chosen by a vote. The wisdom they left out is as important as the wisdom the kept.
This says nothing abut the redactions and editorializing that has gone on.
Shalom
Ted
When I speak of the first century church I’m speaking of the one that included those who walked with Jesus. They understood what he was trying to teach them better than Constantine, Luther or modern day scholars. They were not a weak fragmented group. They posed a significant threat to Constantine because they believed they were called to follow Yeshua the Messiah first. If it hadn’t been for the way they were taught to honor authority over them Constantine’s problem with them may have been much greater.
You can thank Judaism for keeping God’s Scriptures (Tanakh). Since the first believers in Yeshua were Jews who knew how to preserve the written and oral traditions you can also thank them for preserving the truth we have today in the B’rit Hadashah (New Covenant).
Do I struggle with the translations and the decisions to include or exclude? You bet I do but I don’t think that the exclusion of something valuable means that what was included isn’t valuable or accurate.
What about Constantine? Constantine was Roman emperor 306-337 AD and father of the Roman Catholic Church. He was a worshipper of the sun god holding the title of High Priest until death even though he was supposedly baptized a Christian.
Indeed, the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, edited and approved of by him. Since he made many changes to the Christian faith blending worship of the sun into Catholicism one has to wonder what he might have done in that process.
The birthday of the pagan Sun god was December 25th and was made the official birthday of Jesus even though we know it is highly unlikely he was even born at that time of the year.
He made it unlawful to rest on Saturday (The 7th Day) so Christianity changed their day of rest to the first day (Sunday, the day of the sun).
The coins during Constantine reign were committed to the “Invincible Sun” and bore pictures of the sun god.
Constantine built the arch of Constantine in 315 AD. There are no Christian symbols on it, only those of Mithras, Jupiter, Mars and Hercules.
You would think Constantine’s new Christian empire would immediately banish evil acts, such as Gladiator fights, mass executions and other pagan Roman entertainment. Sadly they didn’t, the events continued in the Roman Coliseum until the 6th century AD.
Sorry, I’m not giving Constantine credit for anything but confusing what Jesus became incarnate to clarify.
It is interesting however, that the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles were not removed from the Bible by Constantine even though doing so would have been convenient for him. Those events including the resurrection must have been so imbedded in tradition by that time that he didn’t dare try to remove them.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why?
Clint:-6
One of the problems with looking back in history and trying to judge things is that we are so prone to judging things by todays standards. This is simply not at all accurate or truthful. For instance the use of the "sun" as a god was very prevalent back then. It was a recognition that without the sun all life would cease to exist. As the source of life it became a symbol for the one ultimate reality. That is a very logical ancient thought. Crossan, Borg. Let me give you an example. Today many are opposed to the veneration of relics. However, during the early period of the church the people were convinced that the power of the saints rested partly in their body. By touching the relics they hoped to gain some of the saints apparent powers. Perfectly logical at that time but not now though some still follow that practice. In fact they become symbols not idols.
Now we find people picking and choosing. They look to the ancient church and pick out the practices and beliefs that they like and ignore the rest. Apparently Jesus gave Peter the nod to become the head of the church. It is quite logical to assume that the apostolic succession would continue since the expectation that the day of the Lord would arrive during Jesus' lifetime and after his death within a very short time. When this didn't happen it was logical to pick a successor to Peter who was apparently the head of the church. Peter and the other disciples were apparently told that whatever sins were forgiven on earth were forgiven in heaven and those not forgiven would not be forgiven in heaven. Here again is another example of picking and choosing. These same comments hold true as well for chanting, the liturgy, prayers etc.
As to what they thought about Jesus, is rather difficult to tell. The gospel writers never met Jesus. We don't even know who they were. They were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of writing. 85% of the words attributed to Jesus actually came from the early church. They are the words the evangelist put into Jesus mouth.
The reason for changing the sabbath to Sunday had nothing to do with Constantine but was based on the presumed day of resurrection. Borg, Crossan, Fox etc.
Of course we do not know on exactly what day Jesus was born and since the folks enjoyed a festival on Dec. 25 it was a clever idea to put Christmas there. The people would thus celebrate the birth and would not have time to engage in the other celebrations.
It is amazing what one learns at theological school especially when one studies under men like Crossan who is the recognized premier Jesus scholar in the world as well as an expert in the Roman Empire.
Shalom
Ted:-6
One of the problems with looking back in history and trying to judge things is that we are so prone to judging things by todays standards. This is simply not at all accurate or truthful. For instance the use of the "sun" as a god was very prevalent back then. It was a recognition that without the sun all life would cease to exist. As the source of life it became a symbol for the one ultimate reality. That is a very logical ancient thought. Crossan, Borg. Let me give you an example. Today many are opposed to the veneration of relics. However, during the early period of the church the people were convinced that the power of the saints rested partly in their body. By touching the relics they hoped to gain some of the saints apparent powers. Perfectly logical at that time but not now though some still follow that practice. In fact they become symbols not idols.
Now we find people picking and choosing. They look to the ancient church and pick out the practices and beliefs that they like and ignore the rest. Apparently Jesus gave Peter the nod to become the head of the church. It is quite logical to assume that the apostolic succession would continue since the expectation that the day of the Lord would arrive during Jesus' lifetime and after his death within a very short time. When this didn't happen it was logical to pick a successor to Peter who was apparently the head of the church. Peter and the other disciples were apparently told that whatever sins were forgiven on earth were forgiven in heaven and those not forgiven would not be forgiven in heaven. Here again is another example of picking and choosing. These same comments hold true as well for chanting, the liturgy, prayers etc.
As to what they thought about Jesus, is rather difficult to tell. The gospel writers never met Jesus. We don't even know who they were. They were writing what the church had come to believe about this Jesus at the time of writing. 85% of the words attributed to Jesus actually came from the early church. They are the words the evangelist put into Jesus mouth.
The reason for changing the sabbath to Sunday had nothing to do with Constantine but was based on the presumed day of resurrection. Borg, Crossan, Fox etc.
Of course we do not know on exactly what day Jesus was born and since the folks enjoyed a festival on Dec. 25 it was a clever idea to put Christmas there. The people would thus celebrate the birth and would not have time to engage in the other celebrations.
It is amazing what one learns at theological school especially when one studies under men like Crossan who is the recognized premier Jesus scholar in the world as well as an expert in the Roman Empire.
Shalom
Ted:-6