Why do so many people believe in God? (Serious Question?)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1321 - 1340 of total 4502 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Jun 19, 2010 - 07:08pm PT

Tony-

I've actually read many of the actual Gnostic Gospels in translated form. Quite a different view emerges regards marriage, relations with others, etc. This in a way was the theme of "The Da Vinci Code." That Jesus was actually married.

I just find it interesting that most "mainstream Christians" don't even want to look at anything that might disrupt their worldview.

Pagels doesn't come very close to adequately discussing the subject of early Christianity. Read "The Templar Revelation" instead.

Tony Bird

climber

Northridge, CA

Jun 19, 2010 - 08:03pm PT

please, brokedown, don't ask me to read something on the basis of such a dogmatic declaration. reading requires commitment of time and thought. if you want me to read something, tell me about it. i might get curious.

pagels is an impressively meticulous scholar, as is ehrman. there are so many people with agendas these days. true, most scholars of early christianity have believer agendas, but there are also revisionists who stampede over facts to push nonchristian agendas. one i bristled at is that piece of scientific ignorance and old hat mythology called zeitgeist. i also have a book called caesar's messiah by a fellow who hasn't spent much of his life studying the subject, but who believes the entire jesus story was made up by the roman empire in order to create a submissive public. i couldn't sympathize more with the premise, but facts might get in the way. there is a small school of scholars who suggest that jesus never existed at all. haven't looked into that much, but i met one of the fellows and he at least can hold down a professorship.

ehrman got my attention with his little book, "truth and fiction in the da vinci code". he loved the story too, but had to tell us a lot of it is bunk.

btw, therein lies the appeal of ron brown's book. it makes something a lot more fleshed-out and human out of a figure who is basically a sketchy, aloof, otherworldly phantom whom so many are required to believe is god incarnate. i think the gnostic gospels do the same thing in a different way, but none of it is anything i'm going to get too excited about. like ehrman, who started out as a conservative christian but then realized that this literary mess could not possibly be the work of god, i prefer being a happy agnostic.

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Jun 19, 2010 - 08:16pm PT

"The Templar Revelation" has been reviewed on Amazon (by ME) and I am not suggesting that it is the final word on the subject of Jesus. It is analytical and has some rather novel insights into the mainstream Christian story--as well as some reasons that the sexism involved with the mainstream Church got it's start at the Council of Nicea. The whole male-dominated priesthood of the early church is discussed in light of the Gnostic Gospels. It took me week to finish after much re-reading of large portions of the text. I'm a very fast reader, too.

Tony Bird

climber

Northridge, CA

Jun 19, 2010 - 08:27pm PT

i don't like to read fast, especially if there may be subtleties involved.

what you're telling me is much of what pagels puts in beyond belief: the secret gospel of thomas. the gospel of thomas is sort of a "hippie" christianity (she doesn't use that word), and it may have been the dominant school at the time. the gospel of john, she says, was written as an intentional polemic to stamp out the thomas people and, yes, the heavy hand of the roman empire came to bear with constantine, who might be right down there with nero and caligula when all the history finally gets written.

my devoutly catholic brother won't hear of it. all this stuff is made up by protestants. "in hoc signo vinces" we heard, growing up catholic, but then why did jesus say his kingdom was not of this world, and that if it were of this world, his followers would be fighting to save him?

as i said to tripl, god's dirty work, and it sure makes god smell.

Brokedownclimber

Trad climber

Douglas, WY

Jun 19, 2010 - 08:48pm PT

Just for fun, get a copy of a book of Da Vinci's paintings. Leonardo was a believer in the John the Baptist cult. The so called "John Gesture" is portrayed in many of his paintings, including the Last Supper. Leonardo believed John of greater holiness than Jesus.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 09:51pm PT

Gee Go-B, but for your supernaturalist belief, you'd have me with just about every post....

bestill

Trad climber

s. ca.

Jun 19, 2010 - 10:09pm PT

show me god and i will believe. but wait,what is god?where is god?when is god?why is god? and how is god? can you or... even you answer these simple questions for me. if not,well,we are simply back where we started. so where did we start? was it here or there?

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 10:47pm PT

Largo wrote-

"You have here a totally mechanistic system of causation."

-damn straight.

A little out of context but a beautiful sentence.

Now wonder if people, at least more people, tried adapting to this modern "new age" science supported model instead of fighting it. They might discover it's got potential to empower in the "practice" of living after all.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 10:56pm PT

Dr. F.- No worries, man, I get you all the way.

P.S. Anybody seen Agora, the film, starring Rachael Weisz, yet? Highly recommended. Shows the roots of the mess that eventually was institutionized that some of us today are fighting to get past in the interest of better living.

go-B

climber

In God We Trust

Jun 19, 2010 - 10:57pm PT

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 11:04pm PT

For many of us, the Abrahamic super-religion wouldn't be any more significant in our lives than astrology if it kept away from science, education, politics and law.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 11:08pm PT

Freedoms exist in a mechanistic universe. Of course they do.

Anyone care to debate that you cannot have freedom- meaningful forms of freedom- in a strictly mechanistic universe? If so, let's hear your best shot.

(Of course, it would go much smoother, too, if you didn't bring up that by and large useless nonsensical term, free will, unless your intent is to derail the conversation.)

Astrophes- personification of a mechanistic universe.
I believe in Astrophes. Belief in Astrophes makes a lot more sense than belief in Jehovah. Astrophes is a version of Hypercrates.

"Your words are unknown to me, HFCS, therefore meaningless." That's okay, really.

TripL7

Trad climber

san diego

Jun 19, 2010 - 11:14pm PT

By tending to explain phenomena by referencing ONLY the physical or biological causes is tantamount to climbing a route by listening to only the soundtrack of a climbing vid!(maybe not so good of an analogy).

You are leaving out the actual physical and visual(mechanical)elements, etc.

In fact, you are leaving out the very nature/presence/essence of that which you are attempting to define/explain/experiance(the supernatural)...it can not be done.

Edit: A tire without air...it lacks form/utility/completeness!!

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Jun 19, 2010 - 11:25pm PT

Dr. F wrote:

So if I don't do the right kind of meditation

I must do the right kind of Zen meditation, or I'm just wasting my time

Is that it Largo, my experiences are not worthy of any true Religious, or zen experience

Typical blow off, you gotta do it the right way, you weren't committed enough, you didn't do it long enough
-

The thing is, just look at how rigid people are here with their beliefs. What do you think it would take to shake High Fructose out of his mechanistic views? Can you imagine the experience that he'd have to have to rattle his conviction about what he thinks he knows, is certain that he knows, etc?

Then we have you, Dr. F., who in part, tie an almost rabid atheism at least in part on having supposedly already exhausted the entire field of meditation. You apparently found no Christian God in the process, and have since gone on to universalize your experiences declaring, unequivocally, that since you experienced nothing greater than yourself, nobody, in the history of mankind, ever has, and anyone claiming otherwise is either a wholesale bullshitter, a simpleton, hasn't read the "science," or is simply delusional.

Then I hear you describing Zen mediation in terms of "states," which is curious since Zen works to get past states.

One of the barometers in any of the esoteric arts is how rigidly a person holds onto states, content, beliefs, ideas, stuff, material, and can let themselves drop into the very heart of the unknown, the "nothing," or "container space" that I keep mentioning. Why? Consider this:

Couple hundred years ago there was a quirky German bachelor, who was never late for anything, named Kant. He swore up and down that our minds act like tracks in a pinball machine, railroading the careening balls of raw experience into channels of understanding. This process is so insidious, wrote the Kraut, that the fundamental is-ness of rocks and trees and Indian chiefs is entirely unknowable. We know facts and facets, concepts and properties, but never the ding an sich, or the-thing-as-such. Yet this very ding flickers in the space between thoughts. And if you can somehow hang there for a while, you might encountered the is-ness of yourself. And the whole universe became so much noumena, known instantly and at dept by the genius of your (fill in the blank). Now the Kraut I mentioned would swear the ding an sich did not exist, like many here swear up and down that all there is, is material. Period.

Now what new experiences are these people really open too, or is it more likely they have given up asking questions, and concentrate only on whatever confirms their own convictions.

So maybe the starting point with you might be: What is it that you really and truly don't know, in terms of human life and experience, and would very much like to know?

JL

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 11:34pm PT

"What do you think it would take to shake High Fructose out of his mechanistic views?"

It is science's stance. By multiple convergent lines of evidence.

What some fail to grasp is it is science's stance. Perhaps because of a lack of science exposure, education. My stance reflects science's stance. After 40 years in science and science education I trust in it. Proof is every engineering wonder, from contact lenses to planes to vaccines to computers and ipods.

Religious people, in different terms, supernaturalists, bent on preservation or whatever choose to fight this. Science education enlightens. It points to a mechanistic universe as surely as it points to biotic evolution.

What some fail to grasp or perhaps better fail to respect is that when it comes to facts, some beliefs are correct in regard to how the world works, some are incorrect.

Red has a longer wavelength than blue. It's a simple fact. I believe red has a longer wavelength than blue. That is the correct belief. Similarly, the belief that in 1941, Egyptians bombed Pearl Harbor, is an incorrect belief.

Sometimes a "closed mind" is a good thing. It's a mind that has made a decision, a judgment. Sometimes an open mind or a mind that never closes is not a good thing. There is an art to the practice of opening and closing the mind to information and decision making and naturalists (for lack of a better word) and supernaturalists plainly practice this art with different styles.

It is lame (weaksauce here at the Taco) to just say someone has a "closed mind" and to leave it at that without any followthrough explanation or context.

Yeah, my mind is "closed" to the claim that Serapis emerged from stone as tightly as it is closed to the claim that Aphrodite arose from sea foam.

My mind is open- very open- to the idea that there are other "big beasts" of intelligence in the Milky Way.

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Full Silos of Iowa

Jun 19, 2010 - 11:47pm PT

Dr. F.- Who are you posting to? Your last post, was that directed to me, title your posts.

If so, I certainly do not believe in God Jehovah or God Jesus anymore than Zeus or Serapis. Insofar as I've speculated about Diacrates, say, and still do, it's only as Einstein did. And as far as Hypercrates, well, that's just a working personification of Fate in the same way Grim Reaper is a working personification of Death.

EDIT 9:00p Okay, good to hear, title that baby, so there's no miscomm or misundg. Cool.

WBraun

climber

Jun 20, 2010 - 12:31am PT

One of the qualities that the Supreme Lord, God exhibits, is he's all attractive.

Even the atheist is attracted.

If God is not attractive to every person, how can He be God?

The atheist chants "There is no God" continuously.

This is how they are attracted.

There's no escape .......

TripL7

Trad climber

san diego

Jun 20, 2010 - 12:53am PT

Dr.F- "No God ever came out and said here I am, look at me..."

Come on doooooood!

There are practically NO educated, DOCtorate level published writers of any ilk taking the stance that the person, Jesus Christ, did not indeed exist on planet earth during the first quarter or so of the first century!

That is no longer a key issue.

Get with it! Your DENIAL of the fact that JC did actually reside here is proof of your staunch devotion to your own obstinate opinions!

And He did claim to be God! And people did indeed look at Him, etc...

Get with it DOC!!!

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Jun 20, 2010 - 01:05am PT

If God is, he must be supremely attractive or he is not God. But if he is God he must be supremely unattractive as well, if not then how can he be God?

The sword of faith always has two edges.