Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
The New Testament is a compilation of letters and writings by Jesus' followers ... Assuming you mean 'eye witnesses'...
Ummm... If you look into it, most Biblical scholars agree that not a single book of the cannonized NT was written by a person who actually knew Jesus, or witnessed any of the events described in it persoanlly.
The only person who claims to have witnessed any of this was Saul, later known as Paul, and that was "after he heard a voice whilst walking on the road, converted, and claimed to have 'hung out with' Jesus after he was resurrected".
What was it that you said?...it does point out the variety of understanding people have about the Bible.
There is a HUGE difference between the "Historical Jesus", and the "Mythological Jesus" that has lead to many [different] traditional beliefs most do not question, and take as fact... They are however, wrong.
|
|
rrrADAM
climber
LBMF
|
|
The Koran was written by God too... No, it wasn't...
It was written by Mohamad, as dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. Thus, they believe it is devinely inspired...
However, it is akin to the NT, as they do recognize much of the OT, and do follow the same [Moses' God's] law... Like Christians regard the NT as Rev.1 to the OT, so do Muslims regard the Qur'an as Rev.1 to the same text. They also trace their lineage back to Abraham.
They are also awaiting the 2nd coming of Christ... Yes, Jesus Christ. And, the 'Virgin Mary' is mentioned more by name in the Qur'an than she is in the entirety of the NT. They do not believe Jesus is/was divine, just as they don't believe Mohamad was either. According to Islamic belief, they were both prophets.
And to be fair, it [Qur'an] is much more devinely inspired than the NT, as it was passed directly to Mohamad from God through Gabriel. The NT however, was written by many men, decades to over a century after the fact, then edited and revised numerous times. What books were written by actual 'eye witnesses' were not canonized, since they didn't fit the "Mythological Jesus" they wanted to center the religion on.
Back when the events were actually happening, and even shortly after Jesus' death, he just wasn't that important of a figure... As evidenced by John the Baptist garnering more mention by ancient historians of the day. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls don't even mention him 1 bit, and that group wasn't very far removed from the sects that Jesus ran with.
It took the early church fathers to spin him up, and control material, to influence the evolving mythology, and lead to many of the "traditional" [yet historically inaccurate] beliefs common today.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
I asked a pastor friend of mine if we have free will, if God is in control of all we do, omniscient, etc. He smiled, nearly pulled his hair out in jest but said yes, we have free will and that if God were in control, he’s not doing a very good job, is He?
After a long discussion his basic point is while we search for empirical evidence and truth about our world and experiences, when compared to God we are merely children and have limited understanding and resources to understand his ways, his ‘mind’, and our universe. We have partial knowledge and seeking to know and understand more is important.
When the bible was written only a select few were literate and little was known about our world. Most everyone was comfortable with mysticism back then and attributed the unknown to the works of God. Our understanding has grown immensely but we still have many unanswered questions. So baffling are these fundamental questions that many scientists today have defaulted, punted if you will, to a ‘God’ factor to explain these unknowns.
The pastor said he chooses to focus instead on faith, hope, and love. He is seeking to find how God is working in our world, in our lives and to encourage others to do the same. To him, that is the message of focus, loving one another. He’s many times embarrassed by fringe elements within the Christian community and it makes him difficult to serve. So many crimes, injustices, acts of immorality, etc. have been committed by religious leaders that it undermines the message. We are all broken in different ways and he encourages others to focus on the messages, not the messenger. Don’t confuse the two.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
rrrADAM, your statement below is a half-truth.
"Ummm... If you look into it, most Biblical scholars agree that not a single book of the cannonized NT was written by a person who actually knew Jesus, or witnessed any of the events described in it persoanlly."
Mark, Matthew, and Luke were 'written' by people who knew and followed the three apostles closely, heard their stories and probably even helped them write, since they were very old men or had just died by the time they were written. John was written by himself and was an apostle.
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
I see Tony and Adam are still raving on this thread...pitty.
I see you have some beautiful children in your profile Tony!
|
|
Fredrick
Social climber
Ocean City, NJ
|
|
Sorry Dr. F, I forgot that you're in on it to. So, what medical training did you go through Dr. F or is that just a screen name?
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
Dr F, you remind me of the bible thumping, snake kissing, hypnotically dancing charismatics; only the opposite. Your need to use absolutes points to an intransigent mind that is desperate to get everyone to finally give up and agree with you.
A psychologist friend of mine once said that those on the politically far left and far right, although of opposite opinion, think alike. The mental processes they go through is the same, they just input different parameters and develop extreme conclusions. Both are just as dangerous.
Here’s your quote:
“All evidence, all observations, all theories, all science, all rational, logical arguments would say No God exists”
Really? REALLY? All??
So much for objective reasoning.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
You cannot prove or DISPROVE that all evidence, observations, theories, and even science lead to God's existance or non-existence. There is a school of thought within the scientific community that subscribes to the existence of God simply because no other explanation for 'what is' is possible. Therefore, the argument cannot be "all". Perhaps in your mind the 'all' works, but that, as you like to say, is your fantasy.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
Oh, I've poked fun at my fellow Christians plenty here, even said God was created by his wife, who else? You see, none of us know and around and around we go. Thus, the interminal pissing contest. Just don't use absolutes in your arguments, they rarely work.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Weschrist- that is funny! I'm going to have to copy that one. I wonder, any chance we could put Tinkerbell in a thong?
I see new players have entered the stage. Fresh meat! I'll read some, but they're probably like all the others: clinging to bronze age stupidities and to the Abrahamic Indulgence.
Tony- I'm sad again. Just when you were beginning again to grow on me, you come forth to say with pride even you are a believer in the paranormal. Evidence? That's bogus. Advanced by charletans.
|
|
climbera5
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
I don't disagree with your observations on intellegent design. The school of science I'm refering to is concerned with the creation of the universe. The totality of where we came from. I think that God 'invented', for lack of a better word, evolution. I also think God created the earth and heavens over billions of years. He's not on a schedule. None of that belies the message God has for us, love one another.
On a similar vein, if there is no God, then is this all there is? Just a fantastic connection of fortuitous circumstances that created this amazing collection of life on this solitary planet? We die, and that's it? That just doesn't sit well with me. Seems pretty pointless and arbitrary.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
climbera wrote-
"I also think God created the earth and heavens over billions of years."
Which God? The "God" you speak of certainly wasn't Jehovah, God of Moses, God of Abraham.
I thought a dozen pages back or so you said you were a man of science.
"...then is this all there is... We die, and that's it? That just doesn't sit well with me. Seems pretty pointless...
There it is again, that ol tiresome refrain...
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
nita, the first five books of the OT, "pentateuch", were thought to have been written by moses. the koran was written entirely by mohammed. islamics consider themselves "people of the book" along with jews and christians, recognizing that written tradition of god. can't say for sure what agreement exists beyond that.
i got into egyptology a couple years ago, and i'd extend this tradition back to then, and not for the reason of the recent popular discovery of akhenaten by conservative christians. just the mood of things, the attitude towards god--the chief god of egypt was amen, and he's a kindly, if remote, god, a lot like god-the-father. the egyptians also have a very compelling judgement which takes place before you can enter the afterlife.
sorry to dismay you, fred. try sticking your own neck out a little instead of lurking. and keep your lustful eyes off my kids.
climbera5--i would dispute your information on gospel authorship. my sources tell me you're filling in a little too much information. the gospel of john was written in polemic to the gospel of thomas, which may have been the most important one at the time. john is not thought to be the author. bart ehrman, elaine pagels, both rather agenda-free scholars.
huffcuss, check back up the thread for my evidence. personal experience, not charlatans. of course, i could be a charlatan, right?
did i say he was happy, dr. F? not exactly the impression i got. i came away with something largo tried to explain a bit earlier--"the background". and if you've ever read the spoon river anthology, i think that would come close.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
btw, if you've never read sigmund freud's moses and monotheism, i think it's a great insight. freud was a better idea man than scientist, and this is quite imaginative.
akhenaten was thought to be the first glimmer of monotheist theology. he was a new kingdom pharoah who completely reformed egyptian religion, perhaps assisted by his lovely if controversial wife, nefertiti. the egyptians always did what their pharoah told them, but this was a bit too much. his version of the sun god, the aten, was a blazingly benevolent presence with which he was perhaps clinically enthralled. he built a new, short-lived capital for this, amarna, midway between the upper and lower capitals, and the end of this era came abruptly, the old gods restored with his son tutankhamen, with the old glory reflected so richly in his burial.
akhenaten is called the "heretic king" for this. freud suggests that moses showed up about a generation later and pulled together all the remnants of the aten cult, dubbed them god's chosen people, and led them out of egypt to a promised land. wow.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
A curious thing with regard to "Moses and Monotheism" and the thoughts of a variety of philosopher skeptics of the late 19th and early 20th century, is the sense or insight that monotheism is somehow a "progression" in the understanding of deity.
Why is the recognition of one deity seen, even in the philosophical realm, as an advancement, progress or evolution of our understanding of what God is?
If one God can exist then why not many? And who's to say that belief in a single God is a theological advancement?
Suggested reading: "Jesus and Yahweh" by Harold Bloom... remarkable book.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Paul- damn straight.
Weschrist- What Tony said is Religious Studies, Freshman Class, High School. Nothing new. The only shame is how religiously and theologically illiterate American pop culture is, so it won't make any progress till this changes.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
largo--never argue, if you crave the satisfaction of winning--today.
Winning? Name one person on this thread who knows who they are and what they are. Anyone out to "win" is power tripping, which is the opposite of being empowered, and knowing yourself is all about the later, not the former - of that you may be sure.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
ANS: HFCS. He knows who he is. He's an evolved being. He's a collection of 100 trillion cells, interconnecting. He's flesh and blood. A sentient fleshling.
Freshman in high school or college are on a course to "win." Graduation is a kind of "winning."
As Richard Dawkins and others have pointed out, we are the first generations in the history of our species to know our roots. They are evolutionary roots.
This isn't arrogance either. This is acceptance of fact. This is respect for science education. What is more, it is living up to one's science education. -Which is apparently easier for some than others. Lastly, this is expressing a stance, our stance, in education, science education and general life education.
Largo, you're climbing books are so clear. And yet... On these threads, I struggle to get you, I purposely search about to seek out your perspective or context so I can say, There, I see where's he's coming from now, but no, you are way out there on these subjects. A lot like Braun.
Just as the Abrahamic religions are bronze age, so are the Easterns. Being Eastern and exotic doesn't make em any more legit. Sorry.
Gotta say, some science education, which you seem bent on critiquing at every corner, would ground you.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Again... the problem here seems to be the definition of God. What is it?
The difficulty,logically, is the notion of an individulaized, eternal consciousness that has the ability to empathize and interact directly and personally with our lives, I don't see the evidence for such a being.
On the other hand if you say god is simply a final term as in "energy is God as it is eternal and can neither be created nor destroyed" well, that I might buy.
God may be the primary metaphor in human language.
It is an idea engaged in by every culture and every historical period apparently back even to Neanderthal times. It's born out of an inherent human belief or affinity or desire for an existence, an action, a realm beyond the forms of sensibility.
Those that believe do so because of a deeply seated sense of the sublime in the face of a wildly engaging mystery that permeates our being. What are we? Who are we? Why are we? Why must we die?
The remarkable syncretism of all faiths, both east and west, mitigates against the reality of any individual belief system.
But the mystery stands. Our sense of the mystery, our lives, our loves, our hates seem to require the validation of ritual and belief, and our experience of life is so overwhelming that not believing in a “spiritual” realm can seem unimaginable.
To stand beneath the Sierra sky on a clear moonless night and contemplate our being is to confront directly this great mystery.
But to contain this mystery in the rigidity of some dogma simply demeans it, to name it contaminates it.
If to be overwhelmed by the mystery is to be “spiritual”, then I’m guilty.
But God does a poor job of revealing himself except through the syncretic texts of men which are increasingly read as historical realities rather than the metaphors they are.
My argument isn’t against the amorphous and ultimately indefinable notion of the spiritual, it’s against the extrapolation from that that forms the basis of all organized religions.
We find ourselves alive in this strange existence confronted with love and hate, beauty and horror, sorrow and happiness, and always near to us the anxiety of anticipation and the dread of our own inevitable annihilation.
As well, we find ourselves compelled by curiosity as to what we are, how we got here and what our lives mean, if anything.
We are overwhelmed by the sublime nature of the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” and so demand, through a host of anthropomorphic deities, a reconciliation to our existential dilemma.
The very structure of our minds both forms and reflects our understanding and curiosity with regard to the natural world.
Reason is a product of the construction of our minds; our minds like our senses are the products of natural forces and an evolution that favors us as the survivors of a long struggle for viability. How is it that evolution would favor sensory perception that deceives us? Survival itself dictates the accuracy of our senses! Can’t we say the same for reason?
Reason, not unlike our sensory perception, is a natural mechanism that favors our success as inhabitants of this world. Why would we abandon it except as a path to reconcile ourselves to what we think we simply cannot abide?
And more to the point, why would a god give us a “reason” that so favors our success and yet so often stands vehemently against the faith many say he demands?
Nobody can, and nobody wants to, argue against a god that can be anything; certainly all possibilities are possible. What god might be or when and how god might function beyond being is a fascinating question but perhaps that fascination may elicit too easily the abandonment of reason for the pleasure, fascination and reconciliation allowed by faith.
Unfortunately the sleep of reason too often produces monsters.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Largo, you're climbing books are so clear. And yet... On these threads, I struggle to get you,
That's not his problem.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!