The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

We can thank Edison for the 2000-hour work year. The Bodleian Library (Oxford's main library) has never allowed candles, lamps, etc, so given their latitude, it was only open about 6 hours per day in the winter months. Not sure if "huddled together in a freezing stone hut in the Cotswolds really qualifies as "liesure," though...

Explains the 12 births per couple, though.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

We can thank Edison for the 2000-hour work year. The Bodleian Library (Oxford's main library) has never allowed candles, lamps, etc, so given their latitude, it was only open about 6 hours per day in the winter months. Not sure if "huddled together in a freezing stone hut in the Cotswolds really qualifies as "liesure," though...

The Federal Government calculates the work year as 2,087 hours.

Les - I have not forgotten your question.

In the meantime - here's a thought.

FYI - I am not a fan of what happened to the Mass (or the music, especially the music) after the 2nd Vatican Council. While the Council itself was not off the wall, the implementation of the Concilliar documents is what led to a lot of problems.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I think that's a reasonable perspective, though the longer I live the more I tend to resist putting people on boxes, as it generally ends up distorting how people are viewed far too often.

I think that most people (other than a few lawyers and such) who oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc. don't spend most of their time or attention on these issues or think they are the central aspects of their faith. I don't know anyone who thinks this on these issues who spends much time on these issues or focuses on them primarily. It's more a matter that these subjects are focal points and areas in our nation where changes are or potentially are afoot and thus peoples' views on them get attention as compared to peoples' views on parks or some other far less controversial subject. It doesn't take a lot of time and effort necessarily to have a view that you support or oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc. I think that applies to either side of the issue.

this.
No one has mentioned media- social and otherwise- in this. My recollection may be distorted but I don't recall this sort of thing making news headlines when I was younger. The nightly news and various shows flash inflammatory sound bites about controversial topics [abortion, same sex marriage, God in the pledge of allegiance to name a few] usually involving some extremist person. They don't analyse it. They don't even vet the facts. They present it like you are supposed to be enraged/shocked and then move on all in less than 30 seconds to the next thing. FB is saturated with memes and 'factual' blogs that are calculated to get a reaction and in many cases are extremely inflammatory. People scroll thru- are 'appropriately' horrified/justified in a few seconds.

It is pretty easy to form very radical viewpoints, having been exposed to all of the extremist views in little snippets, without ever thinking about something deeply. When you ask someone to defend the position their beliefs it isn't uncommon to have a blank stare as a response. No real thought ever went into it. They just resonated with what they saw.

Example- my Dad, a man I thought was fairly thoughtful when he was younger, sends me stuff about extremist Muslims (Obama is one of them ) taking the country over. The latest one asking me to be outraged because Toronto has banned te Lord's Prayer and instead is teaching something Islamic. I googled the stuff in his email. Pages of Blogs all regurgitating this and inciting people to rebel at this horrible 'insidious trend'. Click on the blogs and comments are filled with people righteously enraged, horrified and stoking the flames of rage at those horrible Muslims. Pages and pages with hundreds of comments going back for years. International blogs. After 25 minutes of searching I found the 'cause'. In 1982 Toronto stopped making everyone in the school recite the prayer or go into the hall during that time. The level of craziness of these nutbags with their righteous outrage was frightening and overwhelming. The level of stupidness involved is really scary.

...I think its shortsighted to consider gay marriage and abortion as the same. In abortion, the stakes are much higher. Thou shall not kill is a commandment...that is prominent in the Word and its a biggie. Having said that, some do debate about what constitutes a person (although this position is weaker in my mind, it does add some complication to positions against abortion). But the golden rule plays a role here also. This is a major consideration for the woman (and man) who in any other situation should have control of such a decision. Taking that decision away from what in most situations is the rightful owner does not really align with the golden rule either. So I'm conflicted on this one...not because its trivial because its a big deal but because both sides of the argument have merit.

In the end, faith is the foundational consideration...but it leads to different conclusions. As we have the same religion, it must by definition be based on a differing world view.

As somewhat of a history buff I read this considering the historical context as I know it. Until the last 30 yrs (somewhere around that) there was not way to tell with certainty a woman was pregnant until at least 8 wks. When I was in school the woman had to wait until about 8 weeks, give a first morning urine and we had to mix it around to see if it clumped- positive, or not- negative. In Biblical times it was closer to 4 months, when quickening (fetal movement) happened. Thru out hx personhood happened at birth or in some cases not until a few months after birth. As we have become more advanced we have been able to identify the science of fetal development. Biblical justification applied to abortion is a conundrum to me. God set the rules out in the context of the time it was written. I don't feel I can know what God intended for the world now, with 'knowing' they should be interpreted a certain way in the modern context.

...
The work itself was obviously a lot harder, as anybody who has ever had the misfortune to do farm labor can attest. But the idea that we are at a pinacle of leisure time may actually be a myth. I found this fascinating, because I would never have thought to doubt the CW.

After spending HOURS of uncompensated time dealing with the continually (and needlessly added) layers of complexity to do a simple task this is a myth to me! When I started it took me 30 seconds to scrawl OK and initial a refill. Now it can take 5 minutes to click and scroll thru what I need to know/ do the task. Who the hell wrote code to so it takes 24 clicks and tons of scrolling to change one dx from ICD9 to ICD10 so I can refill a med?

...
It seems to me that there isn't a lot among the various major denominations (including Catholic's) that goes against teachings in the Gospels. But often church doctrine seems to be somewhere between supportive to extraneous depending on the specific doctrine and one's POV. In the end, the potential disadvantage is that it clouds the true top priorities as listed in the Gospels by adding more considerations.

The times when Gospel teachings seem ignored are when individuals have too much power. Single churches with strong pastors, televangelists or 'Christian' organizations that one might find in CO Springs included. Having said that, individual input is on target with the Gospels could lead strong Christian individuals to improved motivation through living leadership.

It isn't the Gospels that do most of the instructing for the Church but the various letters from Paul saying do or don't so such and so that have so many interpretations. They were written in the context of the time, using examples that would have had different meaning at the time they were written. We view them in the context of now.

Agree with the power thing.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It isn't the Gospels that do most of the instructing for the Church but the various letters from Paul saying do or don't so such and so that have so many interpretations. They were written in the context of the time, using examples that would have had different meaning at the time they were written. We view them in the context of now.

I guess it comes down to where on the spectrum Paul was. As in, was he a human who just philosophized on this stuff or was he literally told by God what every word should be or where was he in between. The risk is if his pov's were at least in part coming from a human...then there is human interpretation. Its kind of like listening to a news source and assuming that everything it says is true. It might or might not be.

So even if Paul's pov was in large part human...the direct impact of his letters on those communities was a serious positive. They didn't know anything better as there was no Bible. And how can you argue with the outcome? The entire Roman Empire ended up Christian. Having said that, the source of his interpretation is right there...side by side with his views on the matter. So why risk whether Paul's pov was truly divine or not? Just put the Gospels first...and use Paul selectively and for context as needed to add to the Gospels. But in the end, Jesus is the trump suit.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I guess it comes down to where on the spectrum Paul was. As in, was he a human who just philosophized on this stuff or was he literally told by God what every word should be or where was he in between. The risk is if his pov's were at least in part coming from a human...then there is human interpretation. Its kind of like listening to a news source and assuming that everything it says is true. It might or might not be.

So even if Paul's pov was in large part human...the direct impact of his letters on those communities was a serious positive. They didn't know anything better as there was no Bible. And how can you argue with the outcome? The entire Roman Empire ended up Christian. Having said that, the source of his interpretation is right there...side by side with his views on the matter. So why risk whether Paul's pov was truly divine or not? Just put the Gospels first...and use Paul selectively and for context as needed to add to the Gospels. But in the end, Jesus is the trump suit.

Prior to Christians going around, spreading their gospel, there was nothing like a testament floating around in the ether of religious philosophies at that time? Quick, someone tell the Jews! And then a little slower, go out and tell everyone in all those other religions that dotted the Roman Empire, like the Hellenists, that their sacred texts failed to instruct them on good vs. bad behavior.

 

[unofan]

I guess it comes down to where on the spectrum Paul was. As in, was he a human who just philosophized on this stuff or was he literally told by God what every word should be or where was he in between. The risk is if his pov's were at least in part coming from a human...then there is human interpretation. Its kind of like listening to a news source and assuming that everything it says is true. It might or might not be.

So even if Paul's pov was in large part human...the direct impact of his letters on those communities was a serious positive. They didn't know anything better as there was no Bible. And how can you argue with the outcome? The entire Roman Empire ended up Christian. Having said that, the source of his interpretation is right there...side by side with his views on the matter. So why risk whether Paul's pov was truly divine or not? Just put the Gospels first...and use Paul selectively and for context as needed to add to the Gospels. But in the end, Jesus is the trump suit.

So you're conceding that Paul may not have talked to God directly, but Gospels recorded 50-100 years after Jesus's death, and perhaps even a couple of decades after Paul's death, are definitely the Word of God? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I guess it comes down to where on the spectrum Paul was. As in, was he a human who just philosophized on this stuff or was he literally told by God what every word should be or where was he in between. The risk is if his pov's were at least in part coming from a human...then there is human interpretation. Its kind of like listening to a news source and assuming that everything it says is true. It might or might not be.

So even if Paul's pov was in large part human...the direct impact of his letters on those communities was a serious positive. They didn't know anything better as there was no Bible. And how can you argue with the outcome? The entire Roman Empire ended up Christian. Having said that, the source of his interpretation is right there...side by side with his views on the matter. So why risk whether Paul's pov was truly divine or not? Just put the Gospels first...and use Paul selectively and for context as needed to add to the Gospels. But in the end, Jesus is the trump suit.

It is worth noting that there is a place in his writings that he basically says he hasn't heard from God on a subject but here is his thoughts on it (don't have time to look it up right now). Given that he did that there, if he didn't do anything similar elsewhere you would logically believe the rest is what God has given him to say (assuming of course that one believes his writings are divinely inspired).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Prior to Christians going around, spreading their gospel, there was nothing like a testament floating around in the ether of religious philosophies at that time? Quick, someone tell the Jews! And then a little slower, go out and tell everyone in all those other religions that dotted the Roman Empire, like the Hellenists, that their sacred texts failed to instruct them on good vs. bad behavior.

I did say there was no Bible. I didn't say there was no Torah. If you're Paul and you're instructing on Christianity, then no, there was no existing text for that. Paul's full message was about the implications of Jesus' ministry which was very different than the old testament or the Jewish Torah.

Per wiki, Hellenist and Roman gods and broader faith was based on aspects of 'daily living' and nature. If there is a dimension of compassion and appropriate behavior of the type Jesus espoused, I have not seen it. Even then, its lost in the broader pantheon messages.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Gave me a glimmer of why Catholicism may be based on Doctrine not Scripture. What I can't figure out and maybe someone here who is Catholic can help me- how does the Church reconcile Doctrine that specifically contradicts the Bible? Example: Timothy instructs the Church leaders should be married. It also goes on to describe the type of wife and children required. What is the basis for contradicting the Bible?

IIRC, it boils down to what we call today "conflict of interest." Church leader's second loyalty should be to Church community (first loyalty to Deity). Can't reconcile that with the marriage vow that says second loyalty (after Deity) should be to spouse.

I could be wrong though. A cynic might say it had more to do with inheritance and property rights.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Per wiki, Hellenist and Roman gods and broader faith was based on aspects of 'daily living' and nature. If there is a dimension of compassion and appropriate behavior of the type Jesus espoused, I have not seen it. Even then, its lost in the broader pantheon messages.

I recommend reading the Greek tragedies, particularly Euripides, to find the same range of compassion, love, devotion and all the virtues you seem to be saying originate with Jesus. Great artists of all ages and all faiths (or no faith) have returned again and again to these, because they are human characteristics. Faiths reflect them, but don't originate them.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

So you're conceding that Paul may not have talked to God directly, but Gospels recorded 50-100 years after Jesus's death, and perhaps even a couple of decades after Paul's death, are definitely the Word of God? How do you come to that conclusion?

You are inferring that because one is false the other must be false. The two points - Paul's writing being divinely inspired and Jesus' teaching being 'exact' due to a time period - are entirely independent. As a result, I'm guessing you really don't care so much about the point on Paul but are rather just looking to initiate a new discussion on the accuracy of the Gospels.

Paul's letters come after Jesus and therefore, we have no earth based testimony as to the divinity of his writings. I would believe its very likely that they are divinely inspired (as most Christians would). And the outcomes of a relatively successful worldwide Christian phenomenon driven in large part by his writings would lead one to see the divine value as a vehicle...if not by the specific teachings themselves. He made the Christianity go.

Jesus. There are many ways that the Jesus story could make it 50 or 100 years. The disciples stayed together and instructed together. Is it impossible that they would have immediately shared notes and compiled the story upon His resurrection? Its actually extremely probably they would document it. They immediately created a church...what would be the basis for that church? If you've ever tried writing a serious book based on a historical event...you know need to do your research. Is it out of the question that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John would not have consulted this information when writing the stories?

I know as a skeptic one tries to defeat an idea by attacking the underpinnings with logic. But while I believe the story is quite accurate, your approach is actually somewhat irrelevant. Christianity about the ideas and concepts that is the foundation of the faith. The Gospels just happens to be a beautiful highway. While some complain about the engineers accreditation, the rest of us are already down the road.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I recommend reading the Greek tragedies, particularly Euripides, to find the same range of compassion, love, devotion and all the virtues you seem to be saying originate with Jesus. Great artists of all ages and all faiths (or no faith) have returned again and again to these, because they are human characteristics. Faiths reflect them, but don't originate them.

It doesn't surprise me. Having said that, I don't know that a young Jesus had access to Greek tragedies. There are a handful of major milestone innovations that appeared in Europe and China independently. So I'm not really following the relevance of Greek tragedies.

But if there was an influential relationship...God was around well before the Greek writers.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

But if there was an influential relationship...God was around well before the Greek writers.

But not before man.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

So you're conceding that Paul may not have talked to God directly, but Gospels recorded 50-100 years after Jesus's death, and perhaps even a couple of decades after Paul's death, are definitely the Word of God? How do you come to that conclusion?

All Scripture is from God....2 Timothy....

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

We have (at least) four pretty devout Christians on this board that post regularly.

Joe the Catholic, Bob the Martyr, 5mn the Philosopher (if I recall correctly, you're the one that takes the more Buddhist approach to Christianity. If I'm mistaken in that and confusing you with another poster, I apologize), and Timothy the Evangelist. All four of you contradict one another's beliefs fairly regularly.

Timothy is a Biblical literalist. I'm pretty sure I recall Bob being mostly that way as well, though it's been awhile since he's provided actual information on such things. 5mn appears to be a literalist when it comes to the Gospels to the exclusion of almost all else including other parts of the Bible, and Joe takes the mixture of Bible readings with Church doctrine like most Papists.

All of which is to say, if the four of you appear to disagree on some fairly foundational tenants of the religion, can you not see why the rest of us throw our hands up and say forget it, this makes no sense?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Timothy the Evangelist

My mental image of Timothy is actually "Simon of the Desert1." As a person unaccountably trapped in a terrible2 time 800 years too late, I find it very comforting to find someone trapped 1800 years too late.

1. Highly recommended
2. Except for dentistry

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I don't know that a young Jesus had access to Greek tragedies.

in the pre-Internet days, I remember reading an article that a young Jesus had traveled to India during the "unreported" years between the Gospel reference when he was around 12 until he then began his public ministry. I think it was a naturalistic attempt to explain how he survived the crucifixion (yogis can suspend breathing so that they appear dead) and walked on water (placed a long piece of bamboo on the water which floated and then walked along the bamboo).

It was entirely speculation, I think, and in the end, not very persuasive either.


I am reminded quite vividly of Roger Zelazny's masterpiece, Lord of Light. A non-believer portrayed all the words and actions of the Buddha so convincingly that he developed a following large enough and devoted enough to overthrow the corrupt overlords who masqueraded as Hindu gods and goddesses. His words and actions were all that strongly aligned with the Divine, whether he personally believed or not. Did it matter to his followers in the slightest as long as he never told them??

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

IIRC, it boils down to what we call today "conflict of interest." Church leader's second loyalty should be to Church community (first loyalty to Deity). Can't reconcile that with the marriage vow that says second loyalty (after Deity) should be to spouse.

I could be wrong though. A cynic might say it had more to do with inheritance and property rights.

If the first loyalty is to God and God has directed they should be married why would you second guess Him?

You are inferring that because one is false the other must be false. The two points - Paul's writing being divinely inspired and Jesus' teaching being 'exact' due to a time period - are entirely independent. As a result, I'm guessing you really don't care so much about the point on Paul but are rather just looking to initiate a new discussion on the accuracy of the Gospels.

Paul's letters come after Jesus and therefore, we have no earth based testimony as to the divinity of his writings. I would believe its very likely that they are divinely inspired (as most Christians would). And the outcomes of a relatively successful worldwide Christian phenomenon driven in large part by his writings would lead one to see the divine value as a vehicle...if not by the specific teachings themselves. He made the Christianity go.

Jesus. There are many ways that the Jesus story could make it 50 or 100 years. The disciples stayed together and instructed together. Is it impossible that they would have immediately shared notes and compiled the story upon His resurrection? Its actually extremely probably they would document it. They immediately created a church...what would be the basis for that church? If you've ever tried writing a serious book based on a historical event...you know need to do your research. Is it out of the question that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John would not have consulted this information when writing the stories?

I know as a skeptic one tries to defeat an idea by attacking the underpinnings with logic. But while I believe the story is quite accurate, your approach is actually somewhat irrelevant. Christianity about the ideas and concepts that is the foundation of the faith. The Gospels just happens to be a beautiful highway. While some complain about the engineers accreditation, the rest of us are already down the road.

Struggle with this. From what I understand The Gospels were written at different times directed at different audiences. If the historians are correct the Disciples most likely were not directly involved in the actual writing.

All Scripture is from God....2 Timothy....

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Devils advocate- If all Scripture is from God- In the Early Churches each church used their own Scripture depending on what was available to them. There were a number of Gospels floating around that were eventually omitted from the Bible or included depending on which Bible you acknowledge as correct. This was decided (I think) at the Nicene Council along with a bunch of other things they hammered out about what the focus of the Church doctrine would be. http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Heresies-Joan-OGrady/dp/1566195608 is extremely dry but interesting reading about this.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Reading above post you would think I am a non-believer. Actually I am the opposite but I have a hard time with literal interpretation. It feels like revisionist history to ignore the history of how things developed in the Church and assume the Church has always been the way it was with the set Liturgy, Bible, beliefs. They have all evolved and been interpreted within the context of the culture at the time.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Struggle with this. From what I understand The Gospels were written at different times directed at different audiences. If the historians are correct the Disciples most likely were not directly involved in the actual writing.

So I was responding to the question of how could the Gospels be the Word of God. Is that your point? True, the Gospels were written at different times and for different authors. But the 'synoptic' Gospels as they are called are believed to all rely on Mark (as well as another source). And most historians believe Mark to be written on or before 70 AD or 37 years after Jesus resurrected. The last apostle passed away about 100 AD. So there were plenty of witness around. Also remember that the apostles focused their collective lives to spreading the Word...doesn't it make sense that they would have done what they could to reassemble it in the time immediately following his resurrection?

Is every word exactly what Jesus said? Who knows. But if one can't buy that these are the pretty specific concepts that Jesus advanced inspite of the disciple focus on the Word immediately after Jesus resurrected...then you're either a skeptic trying to discredit the Word or in a phenomenally skeptical person. And its really not worth discussion.