Atheist Frendly Q&A

quote:

---

A simple question about theology would be?

---

I don't want these answered here, but I was thinking of the following questions:1. When Joshua asked for a longer day, why did he aske God to stop the sun? Shouldn't he have asked God to make the Earth stop spinning?2. Why is the Nativity story different in each of the Gospels?3. Why was the gnostic movement quelled early in the development of the christian religion?Like I said, I don't want those answered here. I am just giving you an idea of the type of questions that might be appropriate for a theology/christian thread.

quote:

---

A question to you.....in the Old Testament, there was a prophet named Daniel, who in one instance experienced the need for immediate aid, and while he was still asking for help, an angel appeared to grant it.
What kind of science did the angel use to affect his purpose?

---

Theology ain't my thing. Science is. I would be happy to answer your science questions but I will leave the theology questions to others.

This is a spinoff from the thread Message 1. It is meant as a place where Atheists can ask questions and receive a reasoned, non-confrontational answer from theists. It is not meant as a place to debate then questions or answers.Please feel free to ask questions but try to remember the spirit of the thread.{Added by edit by Adminnemooseus:
The specific source of message 1 is message 58 of the above cited topic.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-08-2005 14:28 AM

---

Loudmouth asks ... There are several answers to that. First, assuming it is a true story, we would expect Joshua to ask a favor based on his knowledge. I doubt that anyone living at the time of Joshua really understood the nature of our solar system, so asking GOD to stop the sun was a reasonable request given what he would know about how the solar system works.If it were set in today's environment, then I'd expect Josh to simply ask for a longer day and leave the details (immense details I might add) up to GOD.The second explanation is that the story is simply historical myth. Getting the longer day is simply a Deux ex Machina plot device. It added interest, was a way for the storyteller to resolve the seemingly impossible situation he'd placed his lead character in. An interesting question and we sure don't have all the answers. It appears that there are several original stories, each slightly different. The authors of the different Gospels often drew from earlier works, and sometimes we end up with conflicting stories. You need to remember that we just don't know all that much about the origins of the various books of the Bible. For one thing, it was very common (and continues to be so right up to today) to write something and attribute it to some better known person. Another great question but in many ways only a partial one. We have pretty good documentation on why many of the heresies were suppressed. Much of the debate on those survive and can be studied today. Gnosticism was only one example. If you would like I can point you towards sources where you can read the various debates at the time. I warn you though it can get very difficult to follow some of the discussions without getting drawn into an unending series of sources. I think the issue of why the vast majority of early Christian sects were surpressed is both an important one and one where very little is known. There's a period of nearly 300 years where much of what was happening in the formation of Christianity is missing. It was not at all uncommon during that period (and indeed we can find examples of such behavior right up into the 20^th. Century) that all evidence of something abhorrent was just plain expunged.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think this thread is better reserved for theological questions rather than issues relating more to Bible scholarship.For instance I am in a position to discuss question 2, while many Christians would mainly be familiar with the hybrid mishmash of the two stories that is usually encountered.It is clear that the two Nativity accounts (Matthew and Luke) are different and incompatible stories. Matthew's in particularshows clear signs of legendary development and it is quite possible that both are stories that grew up around the belief that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (a belief that could easily be untrue).

If this is judged inappropriate for this thread, ignore it, but I do have an honest question about theism.First, a short background for the context of the question, and I ask for the reader's indulgence. I was raised in a Baptist home and went to a Baptist church as a child. I was fully indoctrinated. Sorry, but I can't think of a better word.Due to reading the Thor character from Marvel Comics, at about age 12 I got interested in mythology. I read Norse to start, soon branching out to Greek, Egyptian, and everything I could get my hands on. The thing that struck me was how all the stories were so similar, both among what I the different myths I had read and to the religion I was a member of.I read further, and the similarities kept adding up. I came to the conclusion that these stories were ones that people needed to hear, and they dressed them up with local flavor. Imagine my surprise when I discovered Joseph Campbell some time later.So, my question is this: since all the myths of the world tell fundamentally the same stories. What exactly leads one to the conclusion that one is the truth and all the others are not? What is it that makes one better then all the others when the same basic lessons are taught?My opinion is that it can only be that people embrace what they are raised to believe and never really question it. Is it something else? I really don't understand.

quote:

---

I think this thread is better reserved for theological questions rather than issues relating more to Bible scholarship.

---

I agree. The only question I was really curious about was the third one dealing with gnosticism. I guess I could ask a follow up question. Is gnosticism heretical within the christian faith? I remember that one of the Pauline letters dealt with gnosticism, but I forget which one.The first question (Joshua's Long Day) could be couched in terms of how literally the Bible should be read within the confines of Christian Theology.The second question (different nativity stories) could be how Jesus's birth is important to christian theology. If it isn't too important, then the historical accuracy of the nativity accounts would not be a problem.

Joseph Campbell is fascinating, isn't he. A great question and one I hope others will chime in on.I believe for many the answers is, as you mention, based upon the life experiences and culture of the individual. When faced with but a single choice there is really only two options, accept it or reject it. That leads to extremes regardless of which choice is made.As the options increase you move from a world of absolutes into one where there is shading, perhaps even hue. Then it becomes necessary to make decisions, to discriminate between a host of possibly viable choices. That can be frightening to some. I think a big factor in how that plays out deals with the presentation.I think part of the approach needs to be concerned with the components as simply the facts, the abstract as opposed to the specific. An understanding of what is Faith, what are Beliefs, what are Morals is as important as what the faith happens to be, what the belief happens to be, what the moral is. Once the person gains some understanding of those, it's possible to expand into the specifics as it applies to a given religion. As an example, at the second stage you might be considering "How should a person behave?"The next step, once those two are grounded, is to look at how such ideas developed over time. This is when you look at the various sources, the developments from around the world. It's where the concept you developed before on "How a person should behave" is compared with that same question as resolved by other religions. One example would be the Buddhist concepts of Right Thinking and Right Action. Another would be to examine the vast discussions in the Koran of interpersonal relationships.If the various philosophies and religions of the world are approached in this manner it becomes possible to concentrate on the similarities instead of the differences. The goal becomes one of finding commonality. The result is often that you gain an understanding of the message and tolerance for the medium.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Short answer = Yes!Somewhat longer one though is that many remnants still exist and some features have been included and incorporated into the mainstream theology. But Gnosticism is only one of many variations that were deemed heretical and certainly not the most prevalent.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If the various philosophies and religions of the world are approached in this manner it becomes possible to concentrate on the similarities instead of the differences. The goal becomes one of finding commonality. The result is often that you gain an understanding of the message and tolerance for the medium.

---

Firstly, I deeply respect the religious convictions of everyone here, or lack thereof. My statements are always made in this light.He's not exactly one of the greatest philosophers of our time, but I really liked Louis L'Amour as a young adult. His autobiography is quite amazing and sheds a lot of light on his stories. He is, by no means, a great literary mind but he seems to be the model for the average Joe. His philosophy was that different religions were all paths leading to the summit of the same mountain. This isn't exactly an original philosophy, but it seems to be equivalent to the view you are espousing.To me, this philosophy seems to remove divinity from religion. So my question is whether divinity or morality plays a larger role in theism? I could also phrase it as "is it moral because it is derived from divinity, or is it from divinity because it is moral?" To strike a little closer to home, is the christian moral system bankrupt without a Resurrected Christ, or is the morality portrayed in the New Testament independent of the divinity of Jesus? To put it into evolutionary terms, are commonalities between religiously driven morality a case of convergent evolution or only possible through direct interaction with a deity? You don't have to answer everyone of these questions, I think they are all closely related.

You are of course correct and your approach reasonable. One cannot possibly deny that.I can understand theists of your type, Jar. The ones that baffle me are the ones who do adamantly insist on one set of myths as true. It may just be simple ignorance. They may just be unaware of the facts about myth and it's worldwide commonalities, so their dogmatic approach is understandable.But there must be some who are, on at least some level, aware of the commonality of myth and the lessons it teaches yet still maintain belief in one system exclusively. I had hoped for a reply from a believer such as that.Still, thank you for your insightful reply.

Where are all the creo fundies? So far, we only have atheists talking with atheists...

Jar is a theist. I am sure others will chime in soon. You have to remember that the ratio is a bit skewed on this site.

quote:

---

1. When Joshua asked for a longer day, why did he aske God to stop the sun? Shouldn't he have asked God to make the Earth stop spinning?

​

2. Why is the Nativity story different in each of the Gospels?

​

3. Why was the gnostic movement quelled early in the development of the christian religion?

---

1. Joshua's question is logical for someone who saw the sun come up on one side of the horizon and go down on the other. Knowledge of a spinning earth came later.2. Why do two people recount the same accident (for example) differently?
The twelve apostles: Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the Younger, Thaddeus, Simon Zealotus, and Judas. Matthew is most likely telling the nativity accurately, having been around Christ for about three years. Luke has most likely told the story from hearsay and embellished the way a poet may, in his case a physician. All accounts agree that Christ was born.3. The quelling of any movement is a political issue, not a biblical one. The Bible does not say 'thou shalt stop the gnostic movement', it says 'thou shalt love the Lord and your neighbor as yourself'. I have seen no exceptions to that mandate.I hope that helps.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

1. Joshua's question is logical for someone who saw the sun come up on one side of the horizon and go down on the other. Knowledge of a spinning earth came later.

---

Totally agree. It was really more of a baited question. It relates to geocentrism vs. heliocentrism and the accuracy of the science found in the Bible. I see nothing wrong with your answer, either biblically or theologically.

quote:

---

Matthew is most likely telling the nativity accurately, having been around Christ for about three years.

---

Again, it was more of an practice question. Just a quick comment, I would think that Mary would be a better source, but that is just me.

quote:

---

3. The quelling of any movement is a political issue, not a biblical one. The Bible does not say 'thou shalt stop the gnostic movement', it says 'thou shalt love the Lord and your neighbor as yourself'. I have seen no exceptions to that mandate.

---

The question about gnosticism was really my only honest question. I was under the impression that it was a theological issue as well as a political issue. I am pretty ignorant of the early history of the christian movement, but from my understanding there were quite a few divergent and geographically isolated sects in the early church. The RCC seemed to win the early power struggle until the Protestant Movement. Also, Paul's letters seemed to be an attempt to bring all of those far flung sects of christianity into one movement. Am I on to something, or am I blowing smoke?

Man, you guys is making an old man work hard. Lot's of great questions. As an ideal, I think the best way to view it as divinity and morality play two separate roles in religion. They are equally important but in two different spheres. That's the kind of question that keeps philosophers employed so I am prohibited by Guild Rules from giving you the answer. Well, I've said several times here at EvC that I believe that Christianity would be much the same even if Jesus was shown to be just another story told round the campfire. Usually I get a lot of flack for that from the more literalist Christians that come here (Where's Des?) but I believe it is a defensible position. The existence and life of Jesus IS an article of Faith for all Christians though and so for us, his life and mission is true and absolute. But let's look at the Moral System?Is "Love GOD and Love others as you love yourself" dependent on the literal existence of Jesus or the Christian GOD? Would it work equally well if the GOD was Thor or Allah? Sorry, Guild Rules forbid discloser of the answer. But does it matter? The final result for those of us living is how the moral system works within our society. Since similar Moral precepts can be found within both the religious and irreligious communities, they may well be convergent evolution. There is still the factor of teaching and promulgating the moral system and religions can provide a great medium for that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion