Discussion about Religious Beliefs

[Last Fearner]

Ok, Folks! Since I started this thread for a specific purpose, I am going to request that it gets back on track to what I mentioned earlier. I don't want to have to wade through a bunch of wordy debates over personal feelings about faith. Please contribute brief statements, questions or evidence pertaining to items in my earlier post. For debates over religion and faith in general terms, please start another thread!

Thank You!
Last Fearner

 

[Makalakumu]

LF - I'm an Athiest and I've been trying to turn a new leaf. I truly do appreciate the fact that people have faith in a higher power and I AM NOT ON A CRUSADE to change anyone's belief. It's part of their own personal journey. With that being said, for me, I would say that I trust my reason over my (non-existent) feelings in this matter. I think that science shows that the concept of an external GOD is highly unlikely and that all of the stories that we associate with this or that various GOD are informative fairytails. As my first salvo to support this position, I offer this...

The universe is far bigger then any GOD that humans can contrive...

 

[terryl965]

Last Fearner this is how I see it religion is self base on practical use for each individual, thus the meaning of religion will have more than one self contain purpose here. As far as history goes religion is it own worst enemy, we have over the time have made changes based on what those wanted to believe or interpit while reading the Bible. I whole heartily believe in God but does that mean God is here with us for me Yes for others no. What is so dramitic about religion no-matter who you are most of the time you are wrong based on other people interpetation of what religion is.

I think this is a great topic but could it be norrow down to which history you would like to discuss.
Thank you
Terry

 

[Makalakumu]

As my second salvo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3X1toPT-E&mode=related&search=

 

[Makalakumu]

How can we, on this pale blue dot, floating in the photon beam of this all-to-common star, in this po-dunk corner of the galaxy, and this indifferent place in the universe, how can we, with all of the potential that is out there, claim that one person, or even one religion knows the truth of this existence? Are we so special that we transcend the lightyears so that our thoughts regarding our origins are miraculously shared with the countless other intelligent organisms that inhabit this universe? Are we so arrogant as to believe that the creator of this entire universe sent his only son to this pale blue dot...to redeem us all from the sins of our evolution?

If you were to coat a baseball with a watered down coat of varnish, you may equal the scale of the Earth's atmosphere around this planet.

We are such a fragile and isolated species, lost amongst a sea of stars and our own thoughts. And we build ever bigger Moai, looking for an answer that never comes. The only thing that will ever make a difference is the destiny we will for ourselves.

We will choose our path and the gods will prove themselves worthless, as always.

The "Secret of Steel" is in my hand...

 

[Steel Tiger]

I am not going to step into faith beyond saying it is a personally developed entity which spawned the worlds religions. Personally, I ascribe to the Daoist philosophical concepts.

Religion has grown over the centuries until it is now something very different to what it was originally. Why do religions exist? It is a good question, and I think the fundamental answer is death. There is a vast and great fear of death in humanity. This is to be expected because beyond death there is a great unknown and what is unknown and not understood is frightening. The various religions gives their adherents a way to cope with this unknown by putting forward theories as to what they can expect to find in the great beyond. Be it heaven, paradise, nirvana, samsara, or hell it is the basic grounding of religion.

Since the founding much has been added to religions and now the fundamental founding concept is lost inside a mire of power games and conceptual amendments designed to keep those in power in power.

 

[heretic888]

Like upnorthkyosa, I feel each of the sub-topics raised could be a discussion thread in their own right, and as such, this thread is probably going to be spread too thin to be very coherent. That being said....

I. Either there is a "God" (supreme diety) or there is not?

I consider myself a panentheist.

I don't believe in a personal deity per se, but I do believe in something akin to Paul Tillich's Ground of Being, Johannes Eckhart's Godhead, John of the Cross's Cloud of Unknowing, or Gregory of Nyssa's Luminous Night. I consider these descriptions as more or less analogous to similar concepts in the Eastern traditions, such as Buddhist shunyata, the Tao, or the Atman-Brahman.

In addition to cross-cultural religious literature, I also believe there are empirical findings that support such conceptions in the research studies of transpersonal psychology and related fields. Of course, their normative explanation for this phenomena is "unitive consciousness state".

II. If there is a God, is there one and only one, or multiple Gods?

"God" is non-dual. All dualities, including singularity versus multiplicity, need not even apply.

III. If there are multiple Gods (or such spiritual entities), is one more powerful than all the others, or are there two or more that have the same power and abilities?

See answer to II.

IV. Have any living figures been direct descendants of God(s) such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, Jesus of Nazareth, or any other person?

I personally don't believe "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed in history.

As to the issue of "sons of God", as I said before the Godhead spoken of here is non-dual. "Child" versus "parent" implies a duality, of which there is none.

V. Has God, or any Gods, or spiritual entities ever communicated directly with any living human beings?

This, again, implies duality.

VI. Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to heal people through means other than conventional methods?

Define "conventional methods". I've seen acupressurists and acupuncturists do some pretty interesting things.

VII. Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to predict the future?

This assumes "the future" actually exists. Independently of perception, that is.

VIII. Is there any credible, verifiable records in history, outside of religious sources, that confirm, support, or otherwise corroborate any stories in the Holy Bible (Old Testament or New Testament).

This could be a rather extensive topic in and of itself, but the short answer is: No.

IX. What is your viewpoint on the "time-line" of Earth's history, and how it relates to the theory or belief in creation or pure evolution?

I believe the planet Earth is between 4 to 5 billion years old and that all organisms found therein arrived here via evolutionary common descent. In the words of Meister Eckhart, I believe the Creation is "outside of time" and has absolutely no bearing or relevance to "history" whatsoever.

For the evolution theory, what evidence (if any) exists to show fossils, or skeletal remains of creatures that existed for whatever period of time it took humans to evolve from each step prior to bipedal, or any figures resembling modern man before Neandertal, or "Lucy" or others?

Much of the data concerning evolutionary theory is explained in great detail at talkorigins.org. Concerning the genus Homo, we actually have a very robust picture of the fossil record, including a number of "transitional forms" such as Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.

If humans did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic Era), yet we find their bones and fossils, what exists of the "links" between modern man and each previous stage of evolution?

Human beings didn't exist during the Mesozoic Era nor is there any "fossils" (that haven't been revealed as hoaxes) to indicate they did, so I'm not sure how to answer that question.

 

[Kacey]

Reform Judaism - at least the way it was taught to me as a child - revolves around a single central tenet: "The Lord is thy God, the Lord is One." No other details are given, and other than the monotheistic nature of God, it's pretty much left up to the person. I realize that this may be different for people raised in different synagogues, in different variants of Judaism, and so on. Nonetheless, it is the way I was taught as a child.

For a long time, this was enough for me. Then I got to college, and started taking comparative religion classes... and I had the great good fortune to take a class called Understanding The Old Testament from a Reform rabbi who gave no answers - he had us read the Old Testament in sections, and discuss our personal interpretations; then he told us which Biblical scholars' opinions we had unknowingly adopted. He taught us that there is no one "right" interpretation, and that it was not his job to provide the "right" interpretation - it was his job to give us the tools that allowed us to reach our own conclusions.

I began to read more - different versions of the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha, books on religion... and I came to believe that religion is a framework that allows people to express their faith - but that even people who share a religion may have very different personal faiths. I don't know that I can express my faith in words... it's somewhere between the monotheistic God of Judaism that I was raised with, and the Buddhist belief in a life force that permeates the planet - almost like the force of the Star Wars Jedi, or an extension of the collective unconscious of Jung, but expanded beyond humanity into the entire ecosphere, possibly the entire universe. The best I can do to explain it is this quote from the movie Keeping the Faith, by Father Brian Finn, speaking to his congregation (especially the bolded portion):

The truth is, I don't really learn that much about your faith by asking questions like that... because those aren't really questions about faith, those are questions about religion. And it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith. Because faith is not about having the right answers. Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really. It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. And that feeling, that hunch, is God.

 

[Last Fearner]

I thank everyone for contributing thus far. I know I will grow and develop in my understanding of religions as I continue to read comments and learn what others know and believe.

It will take me some time to view each of the links before I can comment, but others should continue to add their input. If the specific direction of the thread is still not clear, let me suggest that you take any statement about any religion that you feel is important and perhaps controversial, and offer some specific resources as to research already done, and expert opinions which address those issues.

"God" is non-dual. All dualities, including singularity versus multiplicity, need not even apply.

This is a good example of a conclusion drawn, now perhaps you have some logical rationale as to why you believe "God" is "non-dual." I happen to believe that God is one diety (however I do believe in the trinity of God). The other perspective of this question is for those who believe in multiple Gods and what supports their position or belief?

I personally don't believe "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed in history.

This one I find troubling. I have heard people make statements like this, but yet to find specific reasoning other than they don't believe it happened. Believing stories were made up because they sound unbelievable, or because similar stories existed in other cultures or religions is not enough evidence to counter a fairly well established claim. I can cite many stories that have been proven true, yet they sound incredible, or might resemble other earlier stories.

An example off the top of my head would be space travel to the moon. To many, this sounds incredible, and they don't believe it is possible (a century ago, not many would have believed it). It also resembles stories of "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers in the 21st century" which was science-fiction told before space travel actually occurred.

From Encarta Encyclopedia:
"Jules Verne
Considered one of the first writers of science fiction, French novelist Jules Verne wrote highly popular adventure stories that have also turned out to be prophetic. In his 19th-century works, Verne's fertile imagination accurately predicted some of the technology seen in the world today, including spacecraft, guided missiles, aircraft, and submarines. In Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870), one of his most famous books, Verne told the story of a crazed submarine commander, Captain Nemo, who piloted his vessel beneath the world's seas. In other works, Verne guided his readers to space and the far reaches of earth, as in Phileas Fogg's journey around the world to win a bet in Around the World in Eighty Days (1873). Culver Pictures, Inc."

"Jules Verne," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 96 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Whether you believe Jesus was the "Messiah" is another issue, which some here might want to offer evidence on either side, but there seems to me to be eye-witness accounts, and significant events that strongly suggest, if not prove he was a real person. Even if events are transcribed later, they are as legitimate as if my Great-Great Grandparents said they knew a Native American Indian named Geronimo. Even if no written record was made of Geronimo, people knew him and his life shaped many events. Geronimo has a burial tomb at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, but I can guarantee you (99.9% certain) that Geronimo's body is not buried there.

It may take me a little time to gather the proper references that I believe support my position that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, but in the mean time, this one source is from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia:

“The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century as the generation that had known Jesus firsthand began to die. The Epistles of Saint Paul and the Acts of the Apostles also contain information about Jesus. The scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature of biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt his historical existence. Others, interpreting the available sources in a variety of ways, produced biographies of Jesus in which his life was purged of all supernatural elements. Today, scholars generally agree that Jesus was a historical figure whose existence is authenticated both by Christian writers and by several Roman and Jewish historians.”

("Jesus Christ," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 96 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (c) Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.)

V. Has God, or any Gods, or spiritual entities ever communicated directly with any living human beings?

This, again, implies duality.

You might have misunderstood my question. Whether you believe in One God or more Gods, the question pertains to communication with God. Anyone may supply specific instances they believe their God (or Gods) spoke to a living human and what supports this belief.

Define "conventional methods".

Not acupuncture, or acupressure. I am talking about healing by word, prayer, or touch. Many believe these occur, and we pray for healings, but I am looking for specific claims, and medical confirmation of such (names, dates, and illnesses would be ideal - please cite the source).

This assumes "the future" actually exists. Independently of perception, that is.

regardless of what it assumes, let's see if anyone has any claims and what they believe supports it.

VIII. Is there any credible, verifiable records in history, outside of religious sources, that confirm, support, or otherwise corroborate any stories in the Holy Bible (Old Testament or New Testament).

This could be a rather extensive topic in and of itself, but the short answer is: No.

Short answer too short. Looking for specifics and reasons. This might be an extensive topic, but this is just what I am looking to get into here. If there are many examples in the Bible, then pick one and prove or disprove its connection to actual, confirmed historical events.

However, as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction.

So you are saying, “from beginning to end” every bit of the following is fiction - - no truth whatsoever?
The Gospel according to Matthew
- - Was Matthew a real person? Did any of the events of Matthew's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to Mark
- - Was Mark a real person? Did any of the events of Mark's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to Luke
- - Was Luke a real person? Did any of the events of Luke's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to John
- - Was John a real person? Did any of the events of John's life in this Gospel occur?
Acts of the Apostles (chapters 1 through 28)

- - Were any of the 12 Apostles real people?
(Peter, Andrew, James the Great, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the Less, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. Also, Matthias who was chosen in place of Judas (Acts 1:26)).

If any information, or actual lives of real people contained in the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles existed in history, then it is not “complete fiction.”

Was the Apostle Paul a real person? Did Paul write any of the letters listed below?
Was any of the information in Paul's letters actual historical events?
Paul's letter to the Romans
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians
Paul's second letter to the Corinthians
Paul's letter to the Galatians
Paul's letter to the Ephesians
Paul's letter to the Philippians
Paul's letter to the Colosians
Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians
Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians
Paul's first letter to Timothy
Paul's second letter to Timothy
Paul's letter to Titus
Paul's letter to Philemon
Paul's letter to the Hebrews
Letter from James
First letter from Peter
Second letter from Peter
First letter of John
Second letter of John
Letter from Jude
Revelation of John

All of the above never happened? Not any of it?

Was Jesus a real person? Was his mother, the Virgin Mary a real person? Was her husband, Joseph, a real person? Jesus was said to have been born during the reign of King Herod - was Herod a real person? Jesus was said to have been executed by order of Pontius Pilate - was Pilate a real person?

Much of the data concerning evolutionary theory is explained in great detail at talkorigins.org. Concerning the genus Homo, we actually have a very robust picture of the fossil record, including a number of "transitional forms" such as Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.

Thanks for sharing this! I am going to spend some time reading, then I'll get back to you.


If humans did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic Era), yet we find their bones and fossils, what exists of the "links" between modern man and each previous stage of evolution?

Human beings didn't exist during the Mesozoic Era nor is there any "fossils" (that haven't been revealed as hoaxes) to indicate they did, so I'm not sure how to answer that question.

I think you misunderstood my question. I know that research shows humans did not exist in the Mesozoic Era. That was not up for question. My point is that dinosaurs existed millions of years before anything that resembles modern humans, yet we can find dinosaur remains from the Mesozoic Era (65 million to 210 million years ago).

I have yet to see evidence of stage-by-stage transformations of humans from the so-called evolutionary link to its earliest ancestors. There should be many examples of creatures which looked like humans (skulls, spines, elbows, knees, and feet), but that walked on all fours. How many thousands of years did it take humans (allegedly) to go from crawling, to walking, and what did their bodies and heads look like during the transformation periods? There seems to be missing links, and perhaps no coherent chain at all. Other species may have evolved to modern day examples, including Neandertal, but what if modern, intelligent man was created separately by God during that evolutionary process?

If the answer is in the links you provided, I'll check it out!

Last Fearner

 

[heretic888]

This is a good example of a conclusion drawn, now perhaps you have some logical rationale as to why you believe "God" is "non-dual."

I thought I explained my reasoning sufficiently in my last post. To summarize, because this is what we find in the cross-cultural literature of the mystics (from Gregory of Nyssa to John of the Cross to Shankara to Plotinus to Nagarjuna) and because this is what we find in the research studies of transpersonal psychology.

Of course, this is solely from a phenomenological perspective and there are inherent problems from that approach.

This one I find troubling. I have heard people make statements like this, but yet to find specific reasoning other than they don't believe it happened.

I would suggest the works of G. A. Wells, Robert Price, and Earl Doherty for a good summarization of most of the pertinent arguments.

Whether you believe Jesus was the "Messiah" is another issue, which some here might want to offer evidence on either side, but there seems to me to be eye-witness accounts, and significant events that strongly suggest, if not prove he was a real person.

That's just it, there are no "eye-witness accounts".

Prior to the middle of the second century, all four of the gospels were anonymous. Their authorship was never ascribed to anyone before this time. Furthermore, at least two of the gospels (Matthew and Luke) are dependent upon an earlier gospel (Mark), copying it word-for-word in some pericopes. Eyewitnesses don't copy. For more on Markan Priority, please see the following.

Then, of course, there's the issue of the glaring errors that "Mark" makes in terms of Judean geography and law, to the point that very few mainstream scholars hold that he had ever been to Israel.

It may take me a little time to gather the proper references that I believe support my position that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, but in the mean time, this one source is from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia...

With all due respect, its an encylopedia entry. It makes assertions, not arguments.

Short answer too short. Looking for specifics and reasons. This might be an extensive topic, but this is just what I am looking to get into here. If there are many examples in the Bible, then pick one and prove or disprove its connection to actual, confirmed historical events.

For the Old Testament, I would suggest Silberman and Finkelstein's work, particularly The Bible Unearthed. Here is a good summarization from one Amazon.com reviewer:

In "The Bible Unearthed," Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman display a rare talent among scholars--the ability to make specialized research accessible to a general audience. In this book the authors reveal how recent archaeological research forces us to reconsider the historical account woven into the Hebrew Bible. Among the conclusions they draw are:

1) The tales of patriarchs such as Abraham are largely legends composed long after the time in which they supposedly took place. This is seen in anachronisms such as the use of camels, not domesticated in the Near East until nearly 1000 years after Abraham's time, in many of the stories.

2) There is good reason to believe that the Exodus never happened. Had migrants to the number of even a small fraction of the 600,000 claimed in the Bible truly sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are no traces of any signifant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus.

3) The Israelite "conquest" of Canaan, such as there was, was far from the military invasion of the books of Joshua and Judges. Many of the cities described as being conquered and destroyed did not even exist at the time, while those that did were small, unfortified villages, with no walls to be brought down, by blowing trumpets or otherwise.

4) While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt: Jerusalem, portrayed as the great capital of a prosperous nation, was during the time of David little more than a village.

5) Neither Israel nor Judah emerged as organized kingdoms until significantly after the supposed period of the united monarchy. Israel does not appear as a recognizable kingdom until the time of the Omrides of the 9th century BCE, while Judah does not appear as such until the late 8th century BCE, at the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah.

Along with their revision of the biblical account of history, Finkelstein and Silberman attempt to explain the origins of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the composition of much of the Bible can be tied to the religious agenda of King Josiah of Judah during the late 7th century BCE. While the origins of the Bible will never be known with certainty--there simply isn't enough evidence--Finkelstein and Silberman definitely provide a plausible interpretation.​

So you are saying, “from beginning to end” every bit of the following is fiction - - no truth whatsoever?

Not as history, no. The New Testament has much value as religious literature, though.

The Gospel according to Matthew
- - Was Matthew a real person? Did any of the events of Matthew's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to Mark
- - Was Mark a real person? Did any of the events of Mark's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to Luke
- - Was Luke a real person? Did any of the events of Luke's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to John
- - Was John a real person? Did any of the events of John's life in this Gospel occur?

Once again, all of the gospels were anonymous works until the middle of the second century. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 140 CE, couldn't cite them by name.

As for your question, Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) coped from Mark to construct their gospel. Mark took his gospel largely from Old Testament stories to create a Pauline storyboard. For more information on this, please see Michael Turton's analysis of the Markan gospel.

Acts of the Apostles (chapters 1 through 28)
- - Were any of the 12 Apostles real people?
(Peter, Andrew, James the Great, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the Less, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. Also, Matthias who was chosen in place of Judas (Acts 1:26)).

The "12 Apostles" change from gospel to gospel. The ones mentioned by Paul's letters were probably real, the others being literary conventions. I suspect the number was more important than the actual people.

If any information, or actual lives of real people contained in the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles existed in history, then it is not “complete fiction.”

Acts of the Apostles is second century proto-Catholic propaganda, it is virtually worthless as history. The whole point was to paint Paul as conciliatory with Cephas and James and to invent an "apostolic origin" for the newly forming church.

Was the Apostle Paul a real person? Did Paul write any of the letters listed below?
Was any of the information in Paul's letters actual historical events?

I believe Paul was a real person. However, he only wrote seven of the thirteen letters ascribed to him. The other six being second century forgeries that co-opted Paul's name for authority (most of the psuedo-Paulines are anti-heresy diatribes, such as the Pastorals).

As for "actual historical events", Paul isn't writing history. He's writing theology. Any "historical events" he describes are incidental.

Was Jesus a real person? Was his mother, the Virgin Mary a real person? Was her husband, Joseph, a real person?

That neither Joseph nor Mary are mentioned by either Paul or by the earliest gospel (Mark) speaks volumes.

Jesus was said to have been born during the reign of King Herod - was Herod a real person? Jesus was said to have been executed by order of Pontius Pilate - was Pilate a real person?

Herod and Pilate were quite real.

I have yet to see evidence of stage-by-stage transformations of humans from the so-called evolutionary link to its earliest ancestors. There should be many examples of creatures which looked like humans (skulls, spines, elbows, knees, and feet), but that walked on all fours. How many thousands of years did it take humans (allegedly) to go from crawling, to walking, and what did their bodies and heads look like during the transformation periods? There seems to be missing links, and perhaps no coherent chain at all. Other species may have evolved to modern day examples, including Neandertal, but what if modern, intelligent man was created separately by God during that evolutionary process?

If the answer is in the links you provided, I'll check it out!

The website I linked does have the information you asked for, but a previous post I made gives visual representations of some of the fossil changes we observe in the genus Homo.

As for the idea that "intelligent man was created separately by God", this is just anthropocentrism. We're just not that special.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Though I align myself with Christianity, I do not accept it's doctrines wholesale. Simply stated, any diety sufficient to the task of creating and maintaining a universe, such as the one we find ourselves in, is certainly beyond the comprehension of the mere human mind (which is finite). It follows that any attempt to define such a diety will, invariably, fall short.

Consequently, I feel that no religion has the corner on God. What I feel, however, is different. I have a connection to something greater than I and I am comforted and strengthened by that connection. The group of people that I share the expression of that connection (my church) is a matter of preference. If I were a quieter type, I might pursue a membership in quieter church. If I were more rigid, personally, I might consider a more legalistic congregation.

As a matter of faith, I commune daily with my God, try to discern what it is I am to do as a result of that communion, and strive to let it guide me. Beyond that, I try not to **** with things too much.

 

[Last Fearner]

Depends on which creation theory you are talking about. I did a google search on creation stories once and found dozens of them.

Hi Carol,

Thanks for mentioning this. I have decided to turn what little spare time I can create into a personal quest for more accurate and thorough knowledge of religion (particularly my Christian beliefs - but also to research others for facts as well). If you happen to come across any interesting facts, or would like to post links to any of the "creation stories" that you find out there, it might help to share what each of us find pertinent.

Last Fearner

 

[Last Fearner]

LF - Each one of your points would be a wonderful thread in its own right!

Hi upnorth,
You are probably right, but I am going to try to collect as many questions and answers to various "hot topics" on religion in this one thread and pursue each of them individually (as time allows). If any of them get to be to involved in and of themselves, then we can split that one off to a new thread, and put a link to it here in this thread.

Last Fearner

 

[Carol]

Hi Carol,

Thanks for mentioning this. I have decided to turn what little spare time I can create into a personal quest for more accurate and thorough knowledge of religion (particularly my Christian beliefs - but also to research others for facts as well). If you happen to come across any interesting facts, or would like to post links to any of the "creation stories" that you find out there, it might help to share what each of us find pertinent.

Last Fearner

Sure, although that's prolly something I'd start on another thread sometime. But I'd be happy to open up a friendly discussion in the near future, absolutely.

 

[Last Fearner]

Of course, this is solely from a phenomenological perspective and there are inherent problems from that approach.

Huh!?! What'd he say? (ok, getting out my dictionary!) :lol:

I would suggest the works of G. A. Wells, Robert Price, and Earl Doherty for a good summarization of most of the pertinent arguments.

Yes, I will look into this and get back to you....

That's just it, there are no "eye-witness accounts".

I'm gonna have to get back with you on this one....

Then, of course, there's the issue of the glaring errors that "Mark" makes in terms of Judean geography and law, to the point that very few mainstream scholars hold that he had ever been to Israel.

I'll get back to you on this too!

For the Old Testament, I would suggest Silberman and Finkelstein's work, particularly The Bible Unearthed.

I will definitely review their work thoroughly, and we will discuss their conclusions in the future!

The ones mentioned by Paul's letters were probably real,

I believe Paul was a real person.

Herod and Pilate were quite real.

I agree with you...... and there are more.

So, I think you need to revise your statement that "as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction."

I believe you have confirmed that some people, places, and events mentioned in the New Testament are verifiably real, thus it is not "complete fiction." Now, I intend to follow up on which ones are accepted as real, and which ones are questioned or claimed to be fiction, and seek out the truth based on facts and evidence. I hope everyone here will contribute what they have on either side, because it is by challenging these beliefs that we can solidify the evidence that supports them.

The website I linked does have the information you asked for, but a previous post I made gives visual representations of some of the fossil changes we observe in the genus Homo.

Thanks, I will be looking into these links you have provided (you're gonna keep me busy!)

As for the idea that "intelligent man was created separately by God", this is just anthropocentrism. We're just not that special.

I happen to think we are! :ultracool

Last Fearner

 

[Carol]

Simply present your argument, and what personal reason or scientific support you have for believing it.

And now for something completely different.

I don't have an argument. Never needed one. I don't require that anyone else believes what I do, therefore I don't feel the need to prove what I believe to anyone.

 

[pstarr]

Well said, Carol!

 

[Makalakumu]

And now for something completely different.

I don't have an argument. Never needed one. I don't require that anyone else believes what I do, therefore I don't feel the need to prove what I believe to anyone.

Carol, does this implies that all questions are answered for you? Does this mean that you are completely convinced of the veracity of your beliefs?

 

[heretic888]

Huh!?! What'd he say? (ok, getting out my dictionary!) :lol:

Heh.

Well, without putting too fine a point on it, phenomenology is a methodological approach found in both philosophy and certain schools of psychology that examines information primarily from a first-person point of view (i.e., subjective experiences). When a person gives their recollection of events or describes their thought processes to you, that's phenomenology.

I should amend my original statement, though, in that a good deal of the data from transpersonal psychology also comes from a second-person structuralist view. Meaning, the researchers collect the subjective experiences and observations of a number of different subjects, make note of any patterns or correlations that seem to underly them (i.e., background structures), and then construct a theoretical explanation to account for these. These background structures are not directly observable from within a person's own mind (i.e., nobody can directly "see" the formal-operational stage of cognitive development subjectively), because they are intersubjective constructs that are almost entirely unconscious to the individual.

What one finds in some of the literature is that there are appear to be developmental structures that are genuinely "spiritual" or "transpersonal" in nature. A concrete example of this would be Susanne Cook-Grueter's expansion of Jane Loevinger's work on ego development.

So, I think you need to revise your statement that "as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction."

I believe you have confirmed that some people, places, and events mentioned in the New Testament are verifiably real, thus it is not "complete fiction."

People and places, yes. Events, no.

Herod Agripas, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist were all real historical persons. However, Herod never ordered a wholesale murder of firstborns in Judea, Pilate never had any "Jesus of Nazareth" relucantly crucified (and, in fact, the rather benevolent way Pilate is depicted in the gospels is completely un-historical), and John the Baptist never baptized any "Jesus of Nazareth" to be his successor.

The key here is historical context. A thoroughly fictitious story can take place within an appropriate historical context and even include real historical figures in the story, but that doesn't change the fact that the events described therein remains thoroughly fictitious. As an example, I could write a story set in London during World War II and one my characters could be Winston Churchill, but that doesn't change the fact that the events of my story never actually happened.

So, yes, I would maintain the New Testament stories are fiction. Fiction set within a historical context, but fiction nonetheless. Also, please be aware that "fiction" is not the same thing as "lies" (as some people seem to believe). I believe the gospel authors were writing theological allegory, not history.

I happen to think we are! :ultracool

Well, the issue here is why believe humans are so special?? What basis is there for this notion??

The fact of the matter is that the purported "missing links" we observe in hominid evolution are pretty much typical of the fossil record as a whole. There are no more "missing links" for humans than there are for any line of evolutionary descent. In fact, what we know of hominid evolution is actually far more robust than other evolutionary lines. We can observe hominid evolution with a fair degree of consistency for at least 1 million years back.

If some extraterrestrial deity intervened in human evolution at some point in the distant past, there just isn't any physical evidence of it. Nor is there any evidence that humans are intrinsically "special" or "different" compared to other natural organisms. The traits we praise among humans --- cephalization and socialization --- are a trend observed among all paleo-mammalian species for at least the past 300 million years (i.e., ALL mammals' brains have been getting larger, not just humans'). If its bipedalism you prize as being distinctively human, Homo erectus was bipedal thousands of years before us.

There is just no basis for noting humans are "special" among creation other than a desire for us to be so. Anthropocentrism, pure and simple.

 

[Carol]

Wow...I've been tossing those questions about in my head all morning, John, they are very insteresting.

To me, faith isn't static. Its something where I always want to be learning and exploring. I don't find contentment in having the answers, I find contentment in being able to explore a question, if that makes sense.

Faith to me is about a personal relationship with God. I don't feel that I am improving that relationship by requiring another person to believe as I do. Do I feel that I have absolute veracity in my beliefs...well...it would be a rather boring journey if I was absolutely sure about everything. To me a relationship with God is more about harmony and consonance than it is deciding on one absolute truth. If anything I believe that I need to keep learning and keep growing.

Does that make sense?