Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 0:33:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you would expect Christians and Jews to agree on which books to use - they aren't the same religions. As far as the books that Protestants don't use and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, they really don't make that much of a difference theologically, so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing for content. The same is true for the slight variations in texts used today and used in 300 AD - the differences tend to be minor and have more to do with variances in translation than any substantive theological differences, although certainly even slight variations can lead to big theological disputes - no variation at all leads to that, too.
At the period in time when any ancient text was written, the sociological factors you named were in force. It doesn't necessarily invalidate any entire religion. That seems a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Reading such texts with a historical perspective rather than a fundamentalist perspective is one way to deal with those issues, and many religious practitioners do just that. I think you would be surprised, if you were to read some of the sections you probably have heard are the most offensive to women, to find that left to interpret it on your own, you can often find completely different and non-sexist ways to interpret them. Not all instances, but some of the most common ones are open to being seen in other lights. Kind of like the don't blame Christ for the Christians thing - the text isn't entirely to blame for how it's been interpreted.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 0:49:33 GMT -5
On the Ecumenical councils and the canonizing of the books of the bible - Nicea didn't have anything to do with that. Nicea was mostly about responding to near-schism due to Arianism, which was refuted by the adoption of the Nicene Creed. The primary purpose of Nicea was to establish some defining beliefs that constituted Christianity, and although not yet canonized, there wasn't any real debate about which books constituted the Bible, New or Old Testament, at that time. The New Testament as used by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox today was canonized fifty or so years after Nicea, by Pope Something That Begins With an A. Or maybe a D.
The Council of Trent was convened to deal with the Reformation, and at that point, the Catholic church said that the changes in the books constituting the canon that Luther wanted weren't happening. They also said ixnay on the his theory of justification, something my mother and many other fundamentalists are still pissed off about. I think that even though the what-is-the-Bible issue was part of the Council of Trent, it wasn't really that important in and of itself. The issue was the attempted preservation of unity (and some might argue centralized power) and the clarification of some fundamental theological themes, and which books constituted the canon was just one small aspect of that greater whole. To this day average Catholics and Protestants are much more at odds over justification than they are over which books are considered inspired and which aren't.
By the same token, the only way I could really prove that God did create everything is to die, meet him and come back and tell you. It's something that's either taken as a matter of faith or it isn't.
This is the hardest thing to grasp when i comes to religion for me.
I'm not sure why you would expect Christians and Jews to agree on which books to use - they aren't the same religions. As far as the books that Protestants don't use and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do, they really don't make that much of a difference theologically, so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing for content. The same is true for the slight variations in texts used today and used in 300 AD - the differences tend to be minor and have more to do with variances in translation than any substantive theological differences, although certainly even slight variations can lead to big theological disputes - no variation at all leads to that, too.
But a minor variation in translation can make a huge difference in the meaning. Take John 1:1. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I grew up reading that passage as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jehovah's Witnesses read that passage as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." One letter difference changes the meaning altogether.
And, you're right, even without the variation, one could interpret each individual phrase several different ways. That's what leads to the problem as I see it. People choose what they are and aren't going to believe. If there is a God, none of us knows what he's like or what he wants us to do. Nobody knows if he really disapproves of homosexuality, or he really thinks we should all go to church on Sunday, or he really thinks we should all get naked and run around in the rain. So, people base what they believe on (1) the Bible, (2) what other people say the Bible says, (3) what the church tells them to believe, or (4) whatever they, personally, decide is right. And really, it all comes down to the last one because each person decides how much of the first three they are going to adopt as his/her own. But that's not faith in God, then. That's just developing your own moral code/belief system and attributing it to a higher power.
Which leads me to the idea that you can believe in God and the church, but not believe that you should "push" that belief on other people. The Bible says that we only can be saved through faith in God, repenting for our sins, and accepting Jesus as the son of God (it's been awhile, but that's the way I was taught anyway). By that reasoning, anyone who does not believe in God cannot be saved, and thus, cannot go to Heaven. That leaves Hell or just ceasing to exist, and all the churches I grew up in just taught that Hell was the other option. If I truly believed that everyone I knew who didn't believe in God was going to Hell, shouldn't I feel that it was a moral imperative for me to spend my life trying to help those people avoid eternal suffering? I'm not saying stand on a corner outside of a Marilyn Manson concert telling all the fans that they are going to Hell. I'm talking about making sharing God's word the first priority in everything I do. Wouldn't that be the only possible option? Like in the movie, The Big Kahuna. Shouldn't all believers be like Peter Facinelli's character? Or, not to be irreverant, but the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine finds out that Puddy is Christian, and she's upset because he believes that she's going to Hell, but he doesn't care enough to try to save her? If a person believes that non-believers are going to Hell and doesn't spend his/her life trying to convert those non-believers, does he/she really care about people?
And, if you don't believe that all non-believers are going to Hell, how do you support that conclusion, other than a personal belief that it would be wrong for God to punish good people who just happen to not believe?
(As a side note, I know some people have expressed that particular belief, that they do believe, but don't think they should push their views on anyone. I just want to be clear that I am not trying to get personal with anyone, call anyone a bad person, or uncaring, or anything like that. Basically, this was one of the major things I struggled with when I went to church, and, although I no longer consider myself religious, it still perplexes me. Also, sorry for the big, giant post!)
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 8:55:30 GMT -5
Those are questions I've thought about alot, too. Fisrt of all, there are ways of looking at the heaven and hell thing that do not lead to the belief that one is either going to heaven or going to hell, and there is a whole segment of Catholicism that believes that. There is a book by Catholic theologian Karl Rahner called The Fundamentals of Christian Faith that deals with that, and basically posits that there is a hell, but nobody is there, because ALL people desire reconciliation with God and thus a path is made for all people to get there, sooner or later. This school of thought also believes not in the physical state of a heaven or hell, but the idea of heaven being the state of being in union with God and hell being the state of disunion with God, and by association, with other people. With this interpretation there is thus not much need for proselytizing. I'm not explaining it very well, and I'm making it sound like just another pulled-from-the-hat dogma, but Rahner in particular is a pretty hard-core theologian, inarguably brilliant, and supports his ideas very well. If I recall, about 800 pages worth in that book alone! And no, I didn't read the whole thing, it's really dense, even for someone who digs that kind of reading.
But if one does believe that people are going to burn in a real hell for eternity if people do action a, b or c etc, then it would seem that the moral imperative for those people would be to proselytize. Like, and this will probably stir up a shitstorm, but abortion rights foes. I'm not one of them and am pro-choice, but on the other hand, if I were certain that life began at conception and abortion was murder of the inocent, wouldn't I have a moral imperative to try to do something about it? The debate I have had on this issue with active anti-abortion peopleruns along the lines that the belief that life begins at conception can only be supported by religious belief and nothing else, and therefore the choice to have or not have an abortion should not be subject to politicising in a non-secular nation. This argument isn't usually embraced by those people, but really - it isn't a very solid one so why should it be? I think to a certain degree it comes down to how much weight an individual puts on what they believe vs. what they KNOW, and recognizing the difference between the two. But all of us, including atheists, get pretty worked up about our beliefs and will try to convince others ours are the correct one, so I personally try not to get too worked up when people are pushing something I disagree with, as long as they seem to be doing it out of conscience and not just arrogance.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 9:01:42 GMT -5
Oh, and why apologise for a big giant post in the religion thread? It's not really a bumper-sticker topic, all the bumper stickers about it notwithstanding.
people base what they believe on (1) the Bible, (2) what other people say the Bible says, (3) what the church tells them to believe, or (4) whatever they, personally, decide is right. And really, it all comes down to the last one because each person decides how much of the first three they are going to adopt as his/her own. But that's not faith in God, then. That's just developing your own moral code/belief system and attributing it to a higher power.
THIS!
I am a personal believer that each person is his/her own God. You decided what you believe.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 9:19:04 GMT -5
Of course people decide what they believe. But for many if not most people, the way in which they arrive at their belief system is considerably more complicated than just "you decide what you believe" and for many it is an evolving process filled with real, intense searching and often struggle and uncertainty in a quest to understand the world and our place in it. I guess I don't like the idea of trivializing or oversimplifying that process, when for many people it's much, much more than just grabbing out of a hat whatever is most convenient. Personally I respect people who are always trying to understand more about the big questions as opposed to just saying - here is how it all works, the end.
But it is also widely believed that the Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the Bible until as late as 1647 at the Assembly of Westminster.
Sure, people from time to time in Christian history have questioned it, but that's not the same as the Church as a whole not being able to come to a full agreement. Aside from the aforementioned Apocrypha, there has been almost uniform agreement since the 5th Century. And again, even those faiths who still keep the Apocrypha don't consider it critical to understanding and observing the Scripture.
The Bible has gone through major changes over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution.
Not sure where you're getting that. To my knowledge the Dead Sea Scrolls do differ on occasion from other historical texts but really they agree to an astonishing degree. Some differences in phrasing, spelling, and even perhaps meaning here and there, but what do you expect from the time of oral tradition? To paraphrase you, this kind of thing was happening at late as the 17th Century. With that in mind, it's amazing how similar those ancient texts really are.
And everyone is concentrating on the race factor, but I also mentioned sex (MEN) as well. That is VERY important...the fact that woman were not involved in picking the canon (for any religion) and not mentioned much at all in the Bible (or other popular religious texts). In that respect, I guess I am bringing up the "socio-political agenda" aspect b/c it is most certainly obvious. Woman are treated as property, called whores, sold,...basically treated like poop.
I completely understand why you would feel that way, I do. But I disagree. Women are well-represented in the Bible, as heroes, leaders, intellectual and spiritual pillars, and so on. And then there's Mary, the Mother of God, who in the Orthodox Church is revered higher than any other human, higher than the Apostles or Moses or Isaiah or whoever. I know that's a whole other box of worms, but it should be noted. Women were often treated differently, and as inferior, at that time, and of course still are in some places. But to say that such sentiments are prevalent in the Bible is a different matter entirely, to say nothing of implying that those ideas are still prevalent in the Christian Faith. That is a very, very grave accusation to make. But, being a man, there's probably not much I could say to sway you. If you are interested, I could recommend some writings by female scholars and theologians on this point. PM me if you'd like.
Anyroo, may point in all of this from the get-go was that the Bible was written by people, every day common MAN. Nobody parted any seas or fed a village with one fish.
I understand if you believe that, but please agree with me that there is no evidence of that; it's based on your own faith. Just as my believing it to be true is founded on my own faith.
Only man would think to entice people to believe and follow something by igniting fear in the souls and hearts of those who don't believe.
This last part hurt, mainly because you are misrepresenting the Faith. At least my Orthodox Faith. If you think that's what we believe and teach about God, you are misinformed. Please take another look at the well-known quote from I Corinthians that bamadancer cited... you can't tell me that Christianity is all about scaring people with damnation.
I'm personally not religious. In my teens, I did allot of questioning, but now I just don't even bother myself with it; there are way too many different and strongly held opinions for there to be one right and many wrong ideals.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 9:32:33 GMT -5
I wouldn't call myself religious, but I still investigate religious beliefs, as well as science and how the two work together and complement or contradict each other, because I don't think I'll ever be certain of how, precisely, one ought to live, and that's the big question to me, in a nutshell. How am I to best live, how am I to best handle interactions with others, with myself, with the planet etc. and those are the questions at the root of all religions, ultimately. That and death, but I don't really concern myself too much with the question of what's after death - I figure the questions about right now, today, are more than sufficient to keep me occupied. And I figure the death one can't be answered with certainty anyway till (hopefully!) much later. Another 40 years for me, at least!
YEM - Nowhere in the bible are women called whores. You are probably thinking of the common perception that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute - the bible does not say that and it wasn't interpreted that way till the 8th century ( I think that's the time frame)
you can't tell me that Christianity is all about scaring people with damnation.
this is the greatest thread on inforoo, ever
but steve, it is about scaring people with damnation! perhaps you can select a quote here and there about love - but you can select lots of others about pissing off god and having him turn you into salt or destroying your city. besides, most folks that I know rely on the pastor to give them the word - they dont read the bible. I think this is a catholic thing, but that's my experience.
fire and brimstone has been the bread and butter of many churches for generations... judge not ye - oh, except for the gays, and non believers, and this and that... and don't forget to tithe.
YEM - Nowhere in the bible are women called whores. You are probably thinking of the common perception that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute - the bible does not say that and it wasn't interpreted that way till the 8th century ( I think that's the time frame)
i was just watching a show where it was mentioned the version of her as a whore was popularized in art (at the time) because it allowed the artists to paint a nude. otherwise, the religious art did not allow for quite that much freedom. (maybe a weenis on a fat lil' cherub)
Post by NothingButFlowers on Mar 13, 2009 9:45:55 GMT -5
It can easily start getting really circular. I really like the ideas about Heaven being union with God and Hell being disunion and there being a Hell with nobody in it. But, ultimately, liking the ideas is not really a reason to believe them. Even with a solid, supported argument for it, I would basically just be deciding to believe it because it's what I wanted to believe. There are those out there who can make logical arguments, supported by evidence, for the existence of God, but there are others who make equally logical, supported arguments for the non-existence of God. In the end, a person chooses the argument that makes the most sense to him/her, or that best fits what he/she really wants to believe. I don't know. Maybe there's nothing wrong with that, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I think people who really, truly believe in God, and deny the possibility that there is no God, are in a form of denial. I know that plenty of believers question their belief, rather than just blindly accepting the existence of God. But, in order to keep believing, they have to keep going back to faith, and as far as I can tell, that is not much different than blindly accepting the existence of God.
I guess my fundamental problem is that many people believe in God because they don't want to accept the alternative. I know this is not true of everyone, but I'm basing this mainly on the people I've known, and, in part, myself (or my former self, I suppose). I grew up going to church and believing in God. I had my doubts, but I basically just accepted that God existed, and he was good. The thing is, the time when my faith was the strongest was the first few years after my dad died. During that time, I felt the presence of God in my life, and I saw signs of him everywhere I looked. Some would argue that it was God, but, looking back, I firmly believe that I simply needed to believe in God to get through my days. I needed to believe that my dad wasn't gone forever because, if he was, well, I just didn't want to think about that possibility. And while I'm just one person, I don't think I was unique. I think a lot of people just don't want to think about the possibility that this really is all there is. Even now, when faced with the possibility of infinite oblivion, I would much rather believe in a God and Heaven. But, other than just wanting to, I don't know of any actual reason to believe in those things.
I definitely don't mean to trivialize it. I don't think that a person wakes up one day, and just says, "Screw it, I just decided to believe in God." As I said above, lots of people do struggle with their faith and continually question. And I do have a lot of respect for those folks. But I also believe that there are just as many, if not more, who don't ever question their faith. And even those who do, I still keep coming back to the only solid reason for believing being the desire to believe.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 9:46:47 GMT -5
Fire and brimstone is the bread and butter of many churches, but I don't know that it's even true for most Christian churches - those are just the people who make the most noise, so we all assume they are the most prevalent. The squeeky wheel and all that.
^^^this - but meaning that we are all not wrong either. I think that is what is wonderful about human nature. We can all think, breath, eat and believe what we want - but we are not wrong. If it feels right for you - then it must be right and if more people would just understand that everyone is going to believe in a different thing and just get along - then - well then - we would have peace.
The fact is - if you ask two Baptists sitting next to each other what the sermon was about - you will get two answers because they interpret thing differently - it is the same in any religion or non-religion. We all interpret things differently and once we accept this - I just think that there would not be any religious persecution.
It may be a simplistic way of looking at it but it works for me.
Post by viciouscircle on Mar 13, 2009 9:52:48 GMT -5
Flowers, that the belief is a matter of faith is something many theologians consider to be not a bad thing, but the whole point of the exercise, so to speak. That the accepting by faith rather than by actually seeing is what makes it interesting and valuable.
I have a friend who pointed out once that when I turned on a light in my house, I was acting on just as much faith as a religious person does. I don't know all the details of how electricity works, I don't even know how the wire in the light switch gets to the power source, much less actually seeing how it happens. I just accept that when I flip that switch, the light will go on. She really kind of messed with my head on that one.
And, you're right, even without the variation, one could interpret each individual phrase several different ways. That's what leads to the problem as I see it. People choose what they are and aren't going to believe. If there is a God, none of us knows what he's like or what he wants us to do. Nobody knows if he really disapproves of homosexuality, or he really thinks we should all go to church on Sunday, or he really thinks we should all get naked and run around in the rain. So, people base what they believe on (1) the Bible, (2) what other people say the Bible says, (3) what the church tells them to believe, or (4) whatever they, personally, decide is right. And really, it all comes down to the last one because each person decides how much of the first three they are going to adopt as his/her own. But that's not faith in God, then. That's just developing your own moral code/belief system and attributing it to a higher power.
Which leads me to the idea that you can believe in God and the church, but not believe that you should "push" that belief on other people. The Bible says that we only can be saved through faith in God, repenting for our sins, and accepting Jesus as the son of God (it's been awhile, but that's the way I was taught anyway). By that reasoning, anyone who does not believe in God cannot be saved, and thus, cannot go to Heaven. That leaves Hell or just ceasing to exist, and all the churches I grew up in just taught that Hell was the other option. If I truly believed that everyone I knew who didn't believe in God was going to Hell, shouldn't I feel that it was a moral imperative for me to spend my life trying to help those people avoid eternal suffering? I'm not saying stand on a corner outside of a Marilyn Manson concert telling all the fans that they are going to Hell. I'm talking about making sharing God's word the first priority in everything I do. Wouldn't that be the only possible option? Like in the movie, The Big Kahuna. Shouldn't all believers be like Peter Facinelli's character? Or, not to be irreverant, but the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine finds out that Puddy is Christian, and she's upset because he believes that she's going to Hell, but he doesn't care enough to try to save her? If a person believes that non-believers are going to Hell and doesn't spend his/her life trying to convert those non-believers, does he/she really care about people?
And, if you don't believe that all non-believers are going to Hell, how do you support that conclusion, other than a personal belief that it would be wrong for God to punish good people who just happen to not believe?
Some excellent points, Hilari. If I may, let me convey an alternate view, one held by the Orthodox Church (and, by extension, the early Christians as well). First, salvation is not guaranteed or automatic. It is not acquired simply through "faith alone." Faith is critical, but living a good, loving, spiritual life to the glory of Jesus Christ is just as critical. One can believe in God, but if they do not follow Him and abide by Him, they should have little hope. Personally I never understood where the dogma of "faith alone" came from-- the parable of the Last Judgment with the sheep and goats explicitly contradicts it. Second, since it's a combination of faith and works (I hesitate to say that because it sounds like Catholic thought, which this isn't quite the same as), salvation is something continually developed all life long. One doesn't say, "I accept Jesus!" and is done with it. They live a Christian life, continually struggling to better themselves inside and out, increasing in piety and obedience. Faith is an active engagement. Third, the conclusion of these ideas is that we humans can never truly know what will save us, or if we are saved. God is the only one who can sit in judgment of our souls, and how can we claim to know the mind of God? Therefore we cannot judge others, regardless of who they are. We do still have our Scripture and our tradition of worship as ways of living given to us by God; that is, we have a very good idea of what we need to do to be saved, but that never changes the bottom line that we just simply can't ever know, because we're only human (we also can't ever be sure because we are sinners). So an example of a devout Buddhist in India who has never heard about a Jesus Christ, it very well may be that somehow, somewhere in his heart and soul he is worshiping and following the Christian God, and therefore will be saved by Him. Finally, Heaven and Hell are not actual, physical places. There is still an afterlife, but it is a single place in which we are completely surrounded and permeated and engulfed by the presence of God, without any filter like the physical world that we currently live in. The principle here is that the love of God is so very powerful in this state that it can destroy us if we are unprepared for it. That is essentially what we do in our lives: prepare ourselves to spend eternity in the overwhelming presence of God. So, if we have lived according to Christ and have come to truly love Him, His Love will feel indescribably joyous (that's where the concept of Heaven came from), and likewise if we have rejected God in our lives, His Love will be infinitely painful (Hell). One important difference here is that this means we damn ourselves, not that God is actively sending us into damnation. It also follows that God is pure and infinite Love, and no part of Him is ever evil or hateful. All this we bring with us.
That's not the best description of the Orthodox beliefs of salvation and the afterlife, but hopefully it helps.
Some excellent points, Hilari. If I may, let me convey an alternate view, one held by the Orthodox Church (and, by extension, the early Christians as well). First, salvation is not guaranteed or automatic. It is not acquired simply through "faith alone." Faith is critical, but living a good, loving, spiritual life to the glory of Jesus Christ is just as critical. One can believe in God, but if they do not follow Him and abide by Him, they should have little hope. Personally I never understood where the dogma of "faith alone" came from-- the parable of the Last Judgment with the sheep and goats explicitly contradicts it. Second, since it's a combination of faith and works (I hesitate to say that because it sounds like Catholic thought, which this isn't quite the same as), salvation is something continually developed all life long. One doesn't say, "I accept Jesus!" and is done with it. They live a Christian life, continually struggling to better themselves inside and out, increasing in piety and obedience. Faith is an active engagement. Third, the conclusion of these ideas is that we humans can never truly know what will save us, or if we are saved. God is the only one who can sit in judgment of our souls, and how can we claim to know the mind of God? Therefore we cannot judge others, regardless of who they are. We do still have our Scripture and our tradition of worship as ways of living given to us by God; that is, we have a very good idea of what we need to do to be saved, but that never changes the bottom line that we just simply can't ever know, because we're only human (we also can't ever be sure because we are sinners). So an example of a devout Buddhist in India who has never heard about a Jesus Christ, it very well may be that somehow, somewhere in his heart and soul he is worshiping and following the Christian God, and therefore will be saved by Him. Finally, Heaven and Hell are not actual, physical places. There is still an afterlife, but it is a single place in which we are completely surrounded and permeated and engulfed by the presence of God, without any filter like the physical world that we currently live in. The principle here is that the love of God is so very powerful in this state that it can destroy us if we are unprepared for it. That is essentially what we do in our lives: prepare ourselves to spend eternity in the overwhelming presence of God. So, if we have lived according to Christ and have come to truly love Him, His Love will feel indescribably joyous (that's where the concept of Heaven came from), and likewise if we have rejected God in our lives, His Love will be infinitely painful (Hell). One important difference here is that this means we damn ourselves, not that God is actively sending us into damnation. It also follows that God is pure and infinite Love, and no part of Him is ever evil or hateful. All this we bring with us.
That's not the best description of the Orthodox beliefs of salvation and the afterlife, but hopefully it helps.
I guess a lot of my issues probably stem from the particular belief system in which I was raised. As for the faith alone thing, I think that comes in large part from Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.") and John 3:16-18 ("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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 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."). So, I was taught that faith, ultimately, is the part that truly matters.
I like a lot of the concepts in the view you present (particularly the idea that God doesn't condemn us, we condemn ourselves), but that just brings me back to my difficulty with the fact that we know there are so many different views out there, and we don't know which one is right.
I think I might look at it this way: Once one believes in God, he/she can come to different conclusions about how God wants us to live, etc., and accept that different people will believe differently. But, I'm troubled by the question of where the belief in God originates.
Like with viciouscircle's light switch example: We have faith that the light will come on because we have flipped switches before and rooms have been illuminated. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have faith that the light will come on. In other words, we have evidence to support that particular faith. With God, it's much more pure faith. Certainly, there are those who see certain things as evidence of God. But many of the things can be explained through other explanations. Why do we attribute them to God?
I have a friend who pointed out once that when I turned on a light in my house, I was acting on just as much faith as a religious person does. I don't know all the details of how electricity works, I don't even know how the wire in the light switch gets to the power source, much less actually seeing how it happens. I just accept that when I flip that switch, the light will go on. She really kind of messed with my head on that one.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Because I know how electricity works. And even if I didn't, someone does. And not just people who "think they know" or "have a good idea" or any of that. Electricity isn't magic. No one on Earth definitively knows if there is or isn't a God. But there are millions of people who know exactly how electricity works and can prove that it is real. If I had no faith would that mean that my light doesn't turn on?
By the same token, the only way I could really prove that God did create everything is to die, meet him and come back and tell you. It's something that's either taken as a matter of faith or it isn't.
^ thisthisthisthis!
There is definitely something bigger than us out there. Nature is simply its highest observable form. Whether there's anything beyond that, we can only find out when we die. It's a matter of personal choice (faith?) at that point.
Post by steveternal on Mar 13, 2009 10:45:57 GMT -5
Hilari: I would say it's because our hearts tell us so. I would also say it's how God wants the world to be-- that so much can be viewed as miraculous signs of God if one has faith, or impressive physical coincidences if one does not have faith. Like the birth of a child; it's equally amazing in Divine and scientific terms, both are correct ways of viewing it, but a person's faith dictates which one takes precedence in their thought. In this view, God is still there and available for us to reach out to Him if we choose to.
MrKC: I hesitate to get involved because I think the lightswitch analogy is rather faulty. But still, consider the fact that you are still making the conclusion that based on what you know and have learned about the lightswitch, you are still *trusting* that the next time you flick it, the light will go on. Technically speaking, there's no proof for that. But again that gets into a whole different realm of Descartian philosophy that I would like to avoid here.
But, I'm troubled by the question of where the belief in God originates.
God was created in man's image.
It seems to me that religion/god/superstition/etc were created as ways to explain the unknown.
Problem for me is, as things are explained, those beliefs become "mythology" vs religion. How long before the current religions fall into that category? For me, and some of you, they already have.
But if/when that belief is more mainstream, what, if anything, replaces them? Someone mentioned scientology... that's one. are there other new religions? I suppose satanism (anton levay based) is pretty new...
Also, question for the believers - doesn't it concern you that there are so many conflicting views in the bible? for example, Steve said his church teaches it's more than faith - yet then NBF offers quotes stating all you need is faith...
im sure there are quotes saying you need more - how can both be right?
Last Edit: Mar 13, 2009 11:04:35 GMT -5 by idio - Back to Top
I have a friend who pointed out once that when I turned on a light in my house, I was acting on just as much faith as a religious person does. I don't know all the details of how electricity works, I don't even know how the wire in the light switch gets to the power source, much less actually seeing how it happens. I just accept that when I flip that switch, the light will go on. She really kind of messed with my head on that one.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Because I know how electricity works. And even if I didn't, someone does. And not just people who "think they know" or "have a good idea" or any of that. Electricity isn't magic. No one on Earth definitively knows if there is or isn't a God. But there are millions of people who know exactly how electricity works and can prove that it is real. If I had no faith would that mean that my light doesn't turn on?
Yea Im gonna agree here...I dont have "faith" the light turns on. I know by switching the lightswitch up it closes the circuit thus allowing the current to flow through the wire to the bulb where lots of things happen inside that bulb(not gonna pull my nerdiness out here) instantously. You enter the room everytime with that same "faith" the lightbulb will turn on, but what haapens when the lightbulb is burned out? Thus leading me to why I am not religious...I can prove with concrete proof how the lightbulb works...I cannot prove there is a God