Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Beliefs- GDR
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 1 of 1324 (698248)
05-04-2013 7:13 PM


Several threads that I have participated in lately have wound up in critiques of my beliefs from both atheists and fundamentalist Christians. In pretty much every case I think that I succeeded in taking the discussion a long way from the topic so I decided that I would attempt to lay out my beliefs and the rationale for them in a separate thread. I know that the idea of having a thread on my personal beliefs sounds just a tad egotistical so I’m hoping that it will be accepted in the light in which it is intended.
It is also going to be long and so I doubt that there will be many who will be want to make their way through it all but I want it to be complete. My apologies for my lack of brevity.
First off let me be clear that my Christian beliefs are a faith. They are not based on science but I do believe that my rationale for holding them is reasonable.
Firstly I believe in an intelligent first cause. I have been accused of arguing from a position of incredulity but I don’t regard that as a fair criticism. I can make the same argument to an atheist in that they can’t believe that there is a higher intelligence responsible for our existence. I believe that an intelligent first cause is far more plausible than a non-intelligent first cause.
When we look take a long look at our world and consider the complexity of a single cell then I find it very difficult to believe that that cell could be formed by the chance combination of particles that by chance came together to form atoms and molecules. It is my belief that my position is the more plausible of the two.
Secondly I am a theist. Once I accept the position that we are the result of an intelligent first cause I then have to ask myself, so what. Does it really matter whether we are or aren’t the result of an intelligent first cause? My first thought is that it would seem unlikely to me that this intelligence would create us without maintaining an ongoing interest in the project.
Also we are able to distinguish right from wrong. We have a sense of morality that IMHO goes beyond personal survival which indicates to me an on-going interest. As someone who believes in an intelligent first cause I have to believe that there was what would be called a miracle that got everything off and running. As it required involvement at that point I see no reason to think that in one way or another that this intelligence would not still be involved in what had been created.
With all that in mind I am a theist and not a deist.
Thirdly, I am a Christian. My Christianity essentially has one absolute, and without that one absolute I would not be a Christian. The Christian faith grew from the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us that if that isn’t true then our faith is in vain and we are, in his words, to be pitied. I think that he is correct. By resurrection I mean that Jesus died on the cross and was later resurrected into a new bodily form that was like, but at the same time different, than his pre-crucifixion body. It is my belief that God will at the end of time as we know it, resurrect all of creation in the renewal of all things, and (for lack of a better term), the resurrected Jesus was/is the prototype for our own resurrection.
I have read a number of books and listened to debates by Biblical scholars and others arguing both sides of the question of the truth of the resurrection. There are a lot of very bright and knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue but I find the argument for the resurrection far more compelling than the argument against. One of the simplest arguments is that if the resurrection story is either fabricated or mistaken there is no good reason for the movement to grow as strongly and quickly as it did. The argument against the resurrection is the almost solely the rejection of the possibility of it happening at all, as in every other case if someone died, other than for resuscitation, they have stayed dead. I find that position a little odd for anyone who believes in an intelligent first cause, they must believe that a miracle is possible as one would be required for God to get life started in the first place.
I should be clear though. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or that it has been dictated by God, which is not to say that God doesn’t use the Bible to impact our hearts and minds.
I agree that we are dependent on the Bible as the sole source for our information and that the gospels as we now have them were written decades after the event. However, the gospels are not the first written accounts of the life of Jesus. They are simply the first ones we have. Here is how Luke starts his gospel.
quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
So Luke tells us that he has drawn on many previous accounts and has verified them.
The gospels are written in such a style that the authors obviously believed what they wrote. So either they got it right or they got it wrong. Yes, some of the details don’t line up but frankly I would be suspicious if they didn’t. We all come to our own conclusions about their accuracy.
The Bible is a series of books written by a series of authors. I believe that the authors were inspired to write down their histories, their beliefs about God, what they believed God wanted them to know and so on. In the end the Bible tells the epic narrative of a people searching for god, getting some of it right and some of it wrong with the climax of the narrative being Jesus who was the incarnation of the Word of God which had been there from the beginning. Through what we have of what Jesus said we can then go back to the Hebrew Scriptures and discern where they got it right and where they got it wrong.
To understand the Bible as inerrant, or as dictated by God, not only makes God very inconsistent and contradictory, but also a God capable of cruelty and injustice. IMHO to understand the Bible as inerrant requires us to say that Jesus can’t be the incarnate word of God because Jesus taught that much of what the OT says that God told them to do was wrong. The Genesis creation account was written with the science they had then and it would obviously be written very differently today. Having said all that I do believe that God has always spoken to us through our hearts minds and imaginations and so we should take seriously the words of the Bible to sort out just what God does have to say to us. If Jesus is the incarnate Word of God then Jesus is the lens that we use to understand all of the Bible. I realize that what we have of Jesus is in the Gospels but again, starting with truth of the resurrection I believe that the Gospel writers and the material from which the Gospels were taken would have been very carefully maintained. Certainly the writers would have had their own interpretations of some of what Jesus had to say but that is true of any historical account.
Paul also had considerable contact with the original followers of Jesus and was convinced to make a complete turnaround in his beliefs about Jesus so I contend that what he has to say should be taken very seriously as well.
In my view the Christian message as I understand it makes sense of the world as I experience it, but everything that I have just outlined is taken on faith and are my subjective beliefs, no matter how well founded I contend that they are.
If what I subjectively believe is true it seems pretty obvious to me that it will have to be consistent with what we can objectively determine about our world. In that regard we should look at how it fits with our current scientific beliefs and historical record.
We shouldn’t try and fit God into the box of a God dictated inerrant Bible, which there is no good reason to do. We are then free, using our God given ability to reason, to try to understand how God has done what He has done, and even look at what He continues to do.
Everything that I write after this is based on the assumption that my beliefs are accurate
I have no training in biology but from what I have read it appears to me that the evolutionary record is conclusive, although I’m sure many of the details will change as we continue to learn. From my perspective as a Christian I then conclude that God created life through an evolutionary process. I’m inclined to think that He may well have intervened but however most of the Christian evolutionists I have read seem to believe that the process was designed at the outset and didn’t require any intervention. Personally, it is a matter of interest to me but not consequential particularly as I will never get a definitive answer anyway.
I also look at our historical record and it appears to me that not only have we evolved physically but that we are evolving morally as well. I would agree that it isn’t a consistent advancement but if you are to compare the culture in the majority of the world today to the most civilized cultures of the world 2000 years ago, or even just a couple of centuries ago, we are making progress.
A couple of years ago I read a secular book called The Evolution of God. In this book the author, (Robert Wright who describes himself as a materialistic agnostic), describes how over the years our view of god(s) has evolved, and that civilisation has become more compassionate. In the introduction Wright writes the following:
quote:
I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things in human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on.
But I don’t think a materialist account of religion’s origin, history, and future — like the one I’m giving here — precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.
It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusionary.
I found Wright’s book compelling and I found it confirming of the idea that we are teleological beings. Mankind seems to have purpose. If we are gradually becoming more compassionate then it follows that at some point the goal would be that all mankind would be truly compassionate. It is my view that God does influence us through our hearts, minds and imagination but also that He does use our socialization as a tool to spread the compassionate infection.
I also contend that this has been happening from the beginning. If we accept Jesus as the incarnate Word of God, and then we review the OT Scriptures we can see more of more of the message that Jesus espoused in the latter prophets particularly in Isaiah and Jeremiah as opposed to what we read in Leviticus and Numbers.
Although I look to the Bible and the wisdom of Biblical scholars to form my Christian beliefs, I look to our scientists, biologists etc in order to understand how God has done things, as in the case of evolution. More controversially I use it in an attempt to help me understand, even in a highly speculative way, how God fits into our physical universe.
This was not the primary thrust of Wright’s book but he also had this to say in the introduction:
quote:
The second aspect of the current world situation I’ll address is another kind of clash — the much-discussed clash between science and religion. Like the first kind of clash, this one has a long and instructive history. It can be traced at least as far back as ancient Babylon, where eclipses that had long been attributed to restless and malignant supernatural beings were suddenly found to occur at predictable intervals — predictable enough to make you wonder whether restless and malignant supernatural beings were really the problem.
There have been many unsettling (from religion’s point of view) discoveries since then, but always some notion of the divine has survived the encounter with science. The notion has to change, but that’s not an indictment of religion. After all, science has changed relentlessly, revising if not discarding old theories, and none of us think of that as an indictment of science. On the contrary, we think this ongoing adaptation is carrying science closer to the truth. Maybe the same thing is happening in religion. Maybe, in the end, a mercilessly scientific account of our predicament — such as the account that got me denounced from the pulpit of my mother’s church — is actually compatible with a truly religious worldview, and is part of the process that refines a religious worldview, moving us closer to the truth.
(if there are any errors in the quotes it is my fault as I had to copy it from the book directly.)
I think that Wright, even though we have come to different conclusions about God, has got it right. I think again, that just as we are evolving physically are minds are evolving as well. I contend that as we learn more about what God has created that we will learn more about God himself.
In the other threads I took some rather large leaps of a speculative nature in connecting some of my beliefs about God to modern science. One of the beliefs that I hold about God is that we are in some way connected to Him and his heavenly world. Various science theories hold to other universes and other dimensions that we are unable to perceive directly with our five senses. I have put those things together and speculated that God’s heaven exists in another co-existing universe or even in our own universe but that with different dimensions. When you consider that only 4.5% of the universe, (if our science is correct), is perceivable to us, it seems a little less far-fetched. Sure it is highly speculative but it does give us a new way of understanding the idea that God is with us but that we don’t directly perceive Him.
Part of what I believe as a Christian is that God is eternal. Both science and philosophers have speculated on having more than one dimension of time. We move infinitely around in 3 spatial dimensions so it seems reasonable to me that if God’s heavenly dimension had 3 time dimensions then that would allow for an eternal existence. Once again it is highly speculative but it does give us one possible way of understanding an eternal existence.
I agree that I am shoehorning my beliefs into a science that is looking at it another way entirely but on the other hand we all have our pre-conceived ideas about reality and so I don’t think that I am really much different than anyone else in doing that.
I have probably provided more than enough already. If a mod is prepared to promote this I suppose it should be in Faith and Belief.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 05-05-2013 1:53 AM GDR has replied
 Message 4 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-05-2013 2:14 AM GDR has replied
 Message 15 by Taq, posted 05-06-2013 1:03 PM GDR has replied
 Message 146 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear, posted 05-17-2013 7:17 AM GDR has replied
 Message 399 by Stile, posted 06-19-2013 1:05 PM GDR has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 1324 (698250)
05-04-2013 7:30 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the My Beliefs- GDR thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1233 by profydiddy, posted 10-02-2013 10:42 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 1324 (698267)
05-05-2013 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
05-04-2013 7:13 PM


Synopsis I
GDR writes:
I decided that I would attempt to lay out my beliefs and the rationale for them in a separate thread. I know that the idea of having a thread on my personal beliefs sounds just a tad egotistical so I’m hoping that it will be accepted in the light in which it is intended.
I for one am delighted to hear your beliefs. I will be asking you lots of questions...please bear with me.
First off let me be clear that my Christian beliefs are a faith. They are not based on science but I do believe that my rationale for holding them is reasonable.
First off, let me ask: In your opinion, are beliefs that people hold a product of their culture? In other words, if you or I were born in India, would our chances of being Christians diminish significantly? I believe that Jesus Christ is Gods character and transcends cultures. Comment?
GDR writes:
Firstly I believe in an intelligent first cause.
I agree. I believe that God exists and would exist even if no human on the planet believed in Him. I believe that the premise of Jesus Christ being Gods character in human form sent to humanity is also plausible.
Secondly I am a theist. Once I accept the position that we are the result of an intelligent first cause I then have to ask myself, so what. Does it really matter whether we are or aren’t the result of an intelligent first cause? My first thought is that it would seem unlikely to me that this intelligence would create us without maintaining an ongoing interest in the project.
I agree. Without trying to sound too religious, scripture speaks for itself on this: John 3:16-21(NIV)--
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
Also we are able to distinguish right from wrong. We have a sense of morality that IMHO goes beyond personal survival which indicates to me an on-going interest. As someone who believes in an intelligent first cause I have to believe that there was what would be called a miracle that got everything off and running. As it required involvement at that point I see no reason to think that in one way or another that this intelligence would not still be involved in what had been created.
Seems logical and reasonable to me.
Thirdly, I am a Christian. My Christianity essentially has one absolute, and without that one absolute I would not be a Christian. The Christian faith grew from the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us that if that isn’t true then our faith is in vain and we are, in his words, to be pitied. I think that he is correct. By resurrection I mean that Jesus died on the cross and was later resurrected into a new bodily form that was like, but at the same time different, than his pre-crucifixion body. It is my belief that God will at the end of time as we know it, resurrect all of creation in the renewal of all things, and (for lack of a better term), the resurrected Jesus was/is the prototype for our own resurrection.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
GDR writes:
I have read a number of books and listened to debates by Biblical scholars and others arguing both sides of the question of the truth of the resurrection. There are a lot of very bright and knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue but I find the argument for the resurrection far more compelling than the argument against.
This series is very well done. Atheists have their own videos, but to me they are no more compelling than this series. Part 1 is above.
The Bible is a series of books written by a series of authors. I believe that the authors were inspired to write down their histories, their beliefs about God, what they believed God wanted them to know and so on.
I agree, and add that these authors were quite spiritual men and had no selfish agenda...apart from educating the Jews on what it was they had missed.
To understand the Bible as inerrant, or as dictated by God, not only makes God very inconsistent and contradictory, but also a God capable of cruelty and injustice.
I agree, and believe that the Bible is in summation a story of the character of Jesus Christ..introduced to History as He stepped out of eternity into time and dwelt among us.
I do believe that God has always spoken to us through our hearts minds and imaginations and so we should take seriously the words of the Bible to sort out just what God does have to say to us.... Paul also had considerable contact with the original followers of Jesus and was convinced to make a complete turnaround in his beliefs about Jesus so I contend that what he has to say should be taken very seriously as well.
I agree, and believe that Paul had the indwelling Holy Spirit...something that not every human automatically has...and that even though every character in the Bible was human, only Jesus had the insight to avoid sin. Nowhere can it be suggested that Jesus ever sinned...but im sure the rest of them did, as do we.
GDR writes:
In my view the Christian message as I understand it makes sense of the world as I experience it, but everything that I have just outlined is taken on faith and are my subjective beliefs, no matter how well founded I contend that they are.
Yes, we cant say that it is objective...only fellow believers can say that it is objective within the context of their belief. Taken sociologically, it is all subjective.
We shouldn’t try and fit God into the box of a God dictated inerrant Bible, which there is no good reason to do. We are then free, using our God given ability to reason, to try to understand how God has done what He has done, and even look at what He continues to do.
God foreknew that humans would have limited imagination and intelligence..as well as certain inborn predispositions...and I believe that He communed with us from that perspective.
GDR writes:
I also look at our historical record and it appears to me that not only have we evolved physically but that we are evolving morally as well. I would agree that it isn’t a consistent advancement but if you are to compare the culture in the majority of the world today to the most civilized cultures of the world 2000 years ago, or even just a couple of centuries ago, we are making progress.
In some ways yes. In other ways, no. I believe that we have potential to a foreknown degree and that we are expected to try and do our best. Only then will God revisit us and finalize our eternal destiny.
It is my view that God does influence us through our hearts, minds and imagination but also that He does use our socialization as a tool to spread the compassionate infection.
Explain this concept further, if you will.
The second aspect of the current world situation I’ll address is another kind of clash — the much-discussed clash between science and religion. Like the first kind of clash, this one has a long and instructive history. It can be traced at least as far back as ancient Babylon, where eclipses that had long been attributed to restless and malignant supernatural beings were suddenly found to occur at predictable intervals — predictable enough to make you wonder whether restless and malignant supernatural beings were really the problem.
All I can say is that if malignant supernatural beings exist, their lone purpose is to keep people from believing the living truth. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I am unafraid to question the truth, but I have not doubted it..nor Him...whom I consider to essentially be "it".
GDR writes:
Part of what I believe as a Christian is that God is eternal. Both science and philosophers have speculated on having more than one dimension of time. We move infinitely around in 3 spatial dimensions so it seems reasonable to me that if God’s heavenly dimension had 3 time dimensions then that would allow for an eternal existence. Once again it is highly speculative but it does give us one possible way of understanding an eternal existence.
I agree that I am shoehorning my beliefs into a science that is looking at it another way entirely but on the other hand we all have our pre-conceived ideas about reality and so I don’t think that I am really much different than anyone else in doing that.
Lets talk, GDR! I always like discussing faith with others, and it is nice to have a fellow Christian to talk with. I have some simple questions to get this discussion going. First, I'll let you expound further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 05-04-2013 7:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 05-05-2013 10:28 AM Phat has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 4 of 1324 (698269)
05-05-2013 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
05-04-2013 7:13 PM


Thanks very much for a rich and thought-provoking post. I'm also a fan of Robert Wright, but I've only read "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny", so I'm grateful for the information and quotes from another book of his.
Your overall attitude toward science, and your general view of ethical, theological, intellectual as well as biological evolution, all lead me to think that any argument I'd have would amount to nit-picking. Well, so be it: here's some nit-picking I feel compelled to do.
On the one hand, you acknowledge that the Bible, as a document created, propagated and translated by humans, is imperfect. On the other hand, you attribute some very special and unique attributes to the life and teaching of Jesus, particularly the notion that he was physically resurrected after his death (although the "nature" of his "physicality" at that point was vaguely "special", in ways that so far are only described in terms of attributes that do not apply).
But you also acknowledge that the sole source for all "direct" information (i.e. evidence) about Jesus' life, teachings and resurrection is the Bible, where the particular text involved was apparently not committed to writing until decades after his death (and - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - those "original" texts were apparently or presumably written in a language (or languages) that Jesus himself did not speak).
So the apparent firmness of your beliefs about Jesus Christ would seem to have some motivation that goes beyond the text, and even beyond your presuppositions about "intelligent causation" for all creation, and the ongoing "involvement" of the creator in the various goings-on within this creation. I've seen/heard a lot of people express the notion that they have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, in the sense that he is perceived as being present and communicating with them "directly" (by means of an internal experience of "revelation", an "inner voice", etc). Do you count yourself among this group?
Do you believe that Jesus was perfect and without error in everything he did and said, despite having lived a human life? If so, and given that the not-inerrant Bible is the only source of evidence/direct information about him, how does this belief inform or influence your views, your decisions, and your actions?
If you count yourself among the people who believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus, do you have full confidence that you have been and will always be correct in discerning that it's actually him "speaking" to you, and that you always, immediately get a correct understanding of what he is "saying" to you? (If you don't count yourself in that group, perhaps someone who does could respond to that.)
There's plenty more I could nit-pick about - and I probably will in subsequent replies: the origin and ramifications of ethics/morality, the nature of the "on-going involvement" being exercised by the "creator" that you're trying to describe, and the general question of why any such "creator" would necessarily hold the kind of interest in mankind that you believe it does.
Given the scope of the OP, I'm looking forward to a lengthy thread here.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (minor grammar repair)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 05-04-2013 7:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 7:32 AM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 05-05-2013 4:02 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 5 of 1324 (698275)
05-05-2013 5:30 AM


Do you think that if you had been born in a small mountain village in Afghanistan, you would have come to the same conclusions?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 05-05-2013 7:35 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 1324 (698282)
05-05-2013 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Otto Tellick
05-05-2013 2:14 AM


the language question
... (and - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - those "original" texts were apparently or presumably written in a language (or languages) that Jesus himself did not speak).
I don't want to participate much on this thread but you did ask to be corrected if you are wrong about the language and you are. Because of the conquests of Alexander the Great some three hundred years earlier that whole part of the world spoke koine Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written. The Jewish apostles of Christ who wrote most of it wrote it in koine Greek, so the idea that Jesus did not speak that common language of the day is highly unlikely.
The common Greek made it possible for the Romans and Jews and sundry other nationalities to communicate with each other. Jesus may have been brought up speaking Aramaic as well, since that was the language of the region of Nazareth and He is quoted using some Aramaic phrases in the gospels. But that would not have been the language He taught in.
Some think that Hebrew was still the language of the temple but that is also highly unlikely at that time. They had the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures known as the Septuagint, made some two hundred or so years earlier, because the people had lost touch with Hebrew due to speaking Greek. It was a Greek speaking world, the NT was written in Greek and they would have had the OT in Greek as well. Jesus would not have spoken anything else in normal communications.
===============================================================================
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-05-2013 2:14 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 7 of 1324 (698303)
05-05-2013 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
05-05-2013 1:53 AM


Re: Synopsis I
Phat writes:
First off, let me ask: In your opinion, are beliefs that people hold a product of their culture? In other words, if you or I were born in India, would our chances of being Christians diminish significantly?
Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that someone born in India can’t respond to the God in their own way. It is my belief what God really wants is hearts that truly respond to His love for us.
Phat writes:
I believe that Jesus Christ is Gods character and transcends cultures. Comment?
I’m good with that.
GDR writes:
It is my view that God does influence us through our hearts, minds and imagination but also that He does use our socialization as a tool to spread the compassionate infection.
Phat writes:
Explain this concept further, if you will.
Jesus called his followers to take His message of love, peace, forgiveness, truth, justice etc to the entire world. By word and example they were called to be His agents in the spread of that loving infection. However, it is also clear that that the call was for all mankind. Loving people inspire others to emulate them. However of course evil can inspire evil as well. The good news is that on balance, as Robert Wright pointed out, the world is becoming a more compassionate place. Goodness is slowly winning.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 05-05-2013 1:53 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 05-05-2013 3:46 PM GDR has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 1324 (698336)
05-05-2013 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by GDR
05-05-2013 10:28 AM


Re: Synopsis I
GDR writes:
The good news is that on balance, as Robert Wright pointed out, the world is becoming a more compassionate place. Goodness is slowly winning.
Perhaps that explains the near inevitability of wars(and rumors of wars). Its not simply inequality and survival of the fittest. Its the enemy, faced with the realization that he,she,it,(us?) is losing...causing wars to try and kill the ever growing faith in goodness.
The concept of spiritual war...and war in general...shows me that something is not quite right.
We humans (unbelievers also) need to ask ourselves if we are fighting anything and what that is. We also need to ask ourselves if it is possible to have a global communion of love and acceptance without Jesus Christ.(The Spiritual head of it.) I think not...but of course critics would say I am biased towards religion and/or belief. Guilty.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by GDR, posted 05-05-2013 10:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by GDR, posted 05-05-2013 5:24 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 9 of 1324 (698337)
05-05-2013 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Otto Tellick
05-05-2013 2:14 AM


Otto Telick writes:
I'm also a fan of Robert Wright, but I've only read "Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny", so I'm grateful for the information and quotes from another book of his.
I have only read The Evolution of God and highly recommend it. He is a clear and lucid thinker and writes the same way.
Otto Telick writes:
On the one hand, you acknowledge that the Bible, as a document created, propagated and translated by humans, is imperfect. On the other hand, you attribute some very special and unique attributes to the life and teaching of Jesus, particularly the notion that he was physically resurrected after his death (although the "nature" of his "physicality" at that point was vaguely "special", in ways that so far are only described in terms of attributes that do not apply).
As we all know the Bible is a collection of books by many authors. They all had their own reasons for writing what they did. Some books like Kings for example were written by people who would have a political agenda, the prophets would be passing on their views of the message that God had for the Jews etc. The Gospel writers are clearly writing in a style that is meant to be believed as an account of what happened although of course using the idioms and references that a first century individual would understand and particularly a first century Jew.
The Gospels don’t build up the characters of the major players and in fact they show the disciples in a rather poor light a great deal of the time. The story of the resurrection itself is written as if to say that I know this sounds strange but here is what happened. Also many first century Jews would believe in resurrection but only for the Jewish people at the end of time. There was no expectation that a messiah or anyone else would be resurrected in the middle of human history. The resurrection story has the resurrected Jesus cooking and eating fish. If they were going to concoct some story about Jesus rising from the dead they would have had Him glowing in the dark or something like that.
Otto Telick writes:
But you also acknowl edge that the sole source for all "direct" information (i.e. evidence) about Jesus' life, teachings and resurrection is the Bible, where the particular text involved was apparently not committed to writing until decades after his death (and - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - those "original" texts were apparently or presumably written in a language (or languages) that Jesus himself did not speak).
Faith dealt with the language issue better than I could so I’ll leave that.
It is an old analogy but I think it’s true. When witnesses give an account of a car crash they are going to get some of the details wrong but they will usually agree on the important points. At a minimum they will all agree that there was a crash. All of the Gospel writers agree that Jesus died on the cross but that He was alive again in a bodily form later. Obviously this would grab their attention and as a result they would take care to, as closely as possible, record accurately what Jesus said and did, although that is not to say that they wouldn’t emphasize and possibly even embellish the parts of the narrative that were most important to them and the audience that they were writing for.
Even though the Gospels were put into their final form decades later they were, as Luke tells us, taken from earlier accounts, both written and oral. I stand to be corrected on this but as far as I know we don’t know whether or not the Gospel writers were eye witnesses themselves or not. However, we know that most of the disciples were still around as would be many other followers of Jesus that would have ensured that the Gospels didn’t go far wrong.
I’ll requote the opening verses from Luke that I used in the OP.
quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Otto Telick writes:
So the apparent firmness of your beliefs about Jesus Christ would seem to have some motivation that goes beyond the text, and even beyond your presuppositions about "intelligent causation" for all creation, and the ongoing "involvement" of the creator in the various goings-on within this creation. I've seen/heard a lot of people express the notion that they have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, in the sense that he is perceived as being present and communicating with them "directly" (by means of an internal experience of "revelation", an "inner voice", etc). Do yo u count yourself among this group?
Over 30 years ago I was a new Christian and was on a church weekend retreat. There had been a passage in scripture that was bothering me. I was by myself, and without me really thinking about the answer to what had been bothering me it came into my head and at the same time I got the idea that I was to be what they called a lay-reader in our little Anglican church in the suburbs of Montreal. The next day I went to our rector/minister/pastor and told him and as a result took on that role in the church. It meant mostly reading the scripture lessons during the service. However, one of the other things that they did was to go into a large senior’s facility in downtown Montreal and lead a service of Morning Prayer with the seniors. I found through doing that, that I connected with seniors and that I enjoyed my time with them
During that time I had been playing Christian music at coffee houses for various youth groups. One day someone asked me to go and play at a senior’s residence, (not the same one), and so I did. I played a bunch of the current folk music that I knew at the time but found I got a much better response when I played a song that they knew which happened to be Five Foot Two.
These two separate ministries came together and as a result of have had this ministry of leading sing songs with seniors now for over 30 years. ( I developed a taste for the pop music of my parents and grand-parents which came as a big surprise to me. )This was the direct result of believing that I was being told to be a lay-reader in our church. Was it really God speaking to me? Based on the outcome I believe it was but I have no way of knowing that objectively.
As far as a personal relationship is concerned I’m not even sure what people mean. I have the attention span of a gnat so my prayers are not very long and I probably don’t give God a chance to get a word in edge-ways anyway, so I’m probably not the best person to ask.
I certainly have a sense that God cares for me and that in some sense I have worth, but that is really pretty subjective. I also know that my life goes better and I am far more content when I live a life consistent with what I know is to be right as opposed to when I go the other way. I think that God does reach everyone, as I say, through our hearts, minds and imaginations so in that sense we all have a personal relationship with Him, it is just that some of us recognize it as being Him and some don’t. I think that is the best I can do in answering that question.
Otto Telick writes:
Do you believe that Jesus was perfect and without error in everything he did and said, despite having lived a human life? If so, and given that the not-inerrant Bible is the only source of evidence/direct information about him, how does this belief inform or influence your views, your decisions, and your actions?
John 14 has Jesus saying this:
quote:
28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus says that the Father is greater than Him. I think that this can be a statement of His humanity. He suffered grief, He loved, H e faced temptation etc.
My idea of sin is not based solely on what we do but is based on what is in our hearts, or if you like, what motivates us. It is my belief that Jesus’ heart, or His motivation was to always do the just, merciful and loving thing. In other words He would embody the heart of the Father. I also believe that He was the incarnate Word of God so that when He spoke, He spoke what the Father would have Him speak.
You are right in saying that I don’t think that the Gospel writers had His words down perfectly but I believe that they were intent on getting them as close as possible, which I said earlier. Also Jesus moved around the country-side speaking to people. He would have given the same talk in different places. Also, the message isn’t all that complicated when you get right down to it. and He continuously referenced the Hebrew Scriptures for His Jewish audience who would instantly understand His point.
The Gospels have to be read in big chunks to understand them properly. Yes, there are verses like I desire mercy not sacrifice that encapsulate much of what He had to say but we have to be very careful not to take verses out of the context of the entire narrative.
As to how it affects me personally I can only say this. I know that I don’t have all the answers. Hopefully I’ll have more tomorrow. I know that I will go to my grave with many questions unanswered and likely with many of the answers I thought I had being wrong. I’m ok with that. I know that God wants me to live a life that is guided by a loving heart, and He is in ways that I don’t directly discern changing my heart one day at a time.
Otto Telick writes:
If you count yourself among the people believe they have a personal relationship with Jesus, do you have full confidence that you have been and will always be correct in discerning that it's actually him "speaking" to you, and that you always, immediately get a correct understanding of what he is "saying" to you? (If you don't count yourself in that group, perhaps someone who does could respond to that.)
Good grief no. I’m heavily inflicted with the human condition. I will say this though. After I opened up my mind to the Christian faith I did notice a change in my life, specifically in how I talked about other people. I also think that over time God has imperceptively continued to soften my heart. The answer to your question then is no, but I’m getting better at it with a long way to go.
Thanks for your questions and interest.
Cheers

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-05-2013 2:14 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 10 of 1324 (698338)
05-05-2013 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
05-05-2013 3:46 PM


Re: Synopsis I
Hi Phat
First off I apologise for not thanking you for your detailed well thought out reply earlier. I was in a bit of a hurry as I wanted to get it posted before I headed off to church.
Phat writes:
Perhaps that explains the near inevitability of wars(and rumors of wars). Its not simply inequality and survival of the fittest. Its the enemy, faced with the realization that he,she,it,(us?) is losing...causing wars to try and kill the ever growing faith in goodness.
To quote that famous philosopher Pogo:
quote:
We have met the enemy and he is us
The Bible largely talks about a quasi-personal entity often referred to as "the Satan". We only have to look at some of the horrendous things that go in this world to know that there is a force for evil.
Phat writes:
The concept of spiritual war...and war in general...shows me that something is not quite right.
I suppose that is some ways all disagreements are spiritual. The thing that we should be aware of is that our response to evil should not be more evil. It becomes difficult when we try to figure out how to defend ourselves, but if we justify evil in order to fight evil then evil is going to win every time.
For example, in the west we have justified torture as means of getting information. Has it worked in getting that information? Probably. Is it worth it though? I would say no.
In the first place when we engage in torture we become no different than the evil we were fighting in the first place. Secondly, I believe that we are supposed to be about is changing hearts. Not only will turn the hearts of others against us, but it will harden the hearts of those who we hire to do the dirty work for us, and for that matter we should ask what it does to the hearts of our nations?
Do we need Jesus? Well. I would say that it depends what you mean by that. If my views are correct we have Jesus whether we want Him or not. In the ways that go way beyond my understanding we have Jesus as King over all the world regardless of our specific beliefs. Once again through our hearts, minds and imaginations we have His still small voice prodding us to the loving position.
If you ask whether or not it requires an acceptance of Jesus intellectually, I would only say that I believe it would be a big help but I believe that people of other faiths, or no faith at all can respond to His call without knowing Him by name.
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 05-05-2013 3:46 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 11 of 1324 (698343)
05-05-2013 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tangle
05-05-2013 5:30 AM


Tangle writes:
Do you think that if you had been born in a small mountain village in Afghanistan, you would have come to the same conclusions?
Highly unlikely if you are talking about becoming a Christian, but very possible if we are talking about serving God by having a merciful loving heart.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2013 5:30 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2013 3:20 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 12 of 1324 (698360)
05-06-2013 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by GDR
05-05-2013 7:35 PM


GDR writes:
Highly unlikely if you are talking about becoming a Christian
Let's be honest here, without external intervention, it would be impossible.
but very possible if we are talking about serving God by having a merciful loving heart.
The fact that someone can not become a Christian if they are born in the 'wrong' place but can serve god anyway by having a loving heart makes the concept of Christianity and all it's trapping redundant doesn't it?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by GDR, posted 05-05-2013 7:35 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 05-06-2013 11:27 AM Tangle has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 13 of 1324 (698380)
05-06-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tangle
05-06-2013 3:20 AM


The Gospel Message
Tangle writes:
The fact that someone can not become a Christian if they are born in the 'wrong' place but can serve god anyway by having a loving heart makes the concept of Christianity and all it's trapping redundant doesn't it?
I think that you are making the assumption that the point of being a Christian is that you will be on the right side of God and going to heaven when you die. I don’t see it that way. The Gospel message is first and foremost a kingdom message. Mark, Luke and John refer to it as the Kingdom of God whereas Matthew refers to it as the Kingdom of Heaven. Through Jesus, God established His eternal Kingdom on Earth for then, for now and forever.
The point of the Kingdom is to take Christ’s message of truth, love, peace joy, forgiveness, etc to the world. Yes, if one truly gives his/her heart to God and makes Jesus Lord of his/her life then they are made right with God but although that is important, the main point is that they are to get on with the job that Jesus’ followers have been given to do. It is all about personal salvation.
If you read through the Sermon on the Mount, (Matthew chap 5-7) it is clear that it is about having hearts that love and not simply about our theology. Jesus in that sermon even tells His listener this:
quote:
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
When you read the parable about separating the sheep from the goats, (Matthew 25 vs 31-46) it is clear that Jesus is asking for people to have hearts that care for the hungry, the naked , the homeless, those in prison, and the thirsty and then because of what is in their hearts they do something about that without thought of reward.
So in answer to your question the point is to make the world a better place for all. Jesus asked us to pray to the Father that His Kingdom would come on Earth as in Heaven, and so when you have people in Afghanistan loving their neighbour then God’s Kingdom, as established through Jesus, is being served. When God’s Kingdom is being served others are attracted to His love.
As the signature I use tells us, what God wants are humble hearts that love kindness and act justly. It ain’t that complicated.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2013 3:20 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 05-06-2013 11:59 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 14 of 1324 (698384)
05-06-2013 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
05-06-2013 11:27 AM


Re: The Gospel Message
GDR writes:
So in answer to your question the point is to make the world a better place for all.
Which, has nothing at all to do with Christ or religion. It's a universal desire.
Jesus asked us to pray to the Father that His Kingdom would come on Earth as in Heaven, and so when you have people in Afghanistan loving their neighbour then God’s Kingdom, as established through Jesus, is being served. When God’s Kingdom is being served others are attracted to His love.
No. When you have people in Afghanistan loving their neighbours they are doing it either because it's the will of Allah or because it's the right thing to do - but probably both. They would resent and deny any implication that they are serving a Christian God by living the way that they do.
But you are of course simply cherry pocking Jesus's sayings to suit what you prefer to believe:
Mark 16:16 ESV
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
John 14:6 ESV
Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Mark 1:15 ESV
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.
John 3:36 ESV
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
John 6:53 ESV
So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
John 15:1-27 ESV
I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. ...
And so on. It's pretty clear that accordingto the bible, you only get to the kingdom through a belief in Christ.
As the signature I use tells us, what God wants are humble hearts that love kindness and act justly. It ain’t that complicated.
It's very simple and it's a universal human desire; there is therefore has no requirement or need to believe in a Christian mythology or dreams of afterlife to achieve it.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by GDR, posted 05-06-2013 11:27 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by GDR, posted 05-06-2013 3:43 PM Tangle has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 15 of 1324 (698390)
05-06-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
05-04-2013 7:13 PM


Firstly I believe in an intelligent first cause. I have been accused of arguing from a position of incredulity but I don’t regard that as a fair criticism. I can make the same argument to an atheist in that they can’t believe that there is a higher intelligence responsible for our existence. I believe that an intelligent first cause is far more plausible than a non-intelligent first cause.
When we look take a long look at our world and consider the complexity of a single cell then I find it very difficult to believe that that cell could be formed by the chance combination of particles that by chance came together to form atoms and molecules. It is my belief that my position is the more plausible of the two.
My advice is . . . quit digging. You seem to be deepening your hole.
In order to justify your argument from incredulity you double down with a tu quoque fallacy, and it isn't even an accurate one.
Also, it isn't that an atheist can't believe there is a god. We can believe there is a god, we just need to see the evidence first.
Finally, you have not shown how one is more probable than the other. I understand that these are beliefs, but to assign a probability to them tries to push your beliefs into the realm of statistics where they just don't belong. Perhaps you could say that you personally find the theistic/deistic argument more compelling both spiritually and emotionally.
Also we are able to distinguish right from wrong. We have a sense of morality that IMHO goes beyond personal survival which indicates to me an on-going interest.
Why would this require a deity?
Thirdly, I am a Christian. My Christianity essentially has one absolute, and without that one absolute I would not be a Christian. The Christian faith grew from the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us that if that isn’t true then our faith is in vain and we are, in his words, to be pitied. I think that he is correct. By resurrection I mean that Jesus died on the cross and was later resurrected into a new bodily form that was like, but at the same time different, than his pre-crucifixion body. It is my belief that God will at the end of time as we know it, resurrect all of creation in the renewal of all things, and (for lack of a better term), the resurrected Jesus was/is the prototype for our own resurrection.
I have read a number of books and listened to debates by Biblical scholars and others arguing both sides of the question of the truth of the resurrection. There are a lot of very bright and knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue but I find the argument for the resurrection far more compelling than the argument against. One of the simplest arguments is that if the resurrection story is either fabricated or mistaken there is no good reason for the movement to grow as strongly and quickly as it did. The argument against the resurrection is the almost solely the rejection of the possibility of it happening at all, as in every other case if someone died, other than for resuscitation, they have stayed dead. I find that position a little odd for anyone who believes in an intelligent first cause, they must believe that a miracle is possible as one would be required for God to get life started in the first place.
So you can't accept a naturalistic origin of life or first cause even though we have some potential pathways, but your incredulity doesn't seem to stop you from believing that a deity came down in the flesh and rose from the dead.
Why incredulous of one, but not the other?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 05-04-2013 7:13 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 05-06-2013 11:03 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024