Discussion about Religious Beliefs

[OnlyAnEgg]

I believe the gospel authors were writing theological allegory, not history.

There's a lot of times I feel this is true. I don't think it necessarily detracts from the lessons the writers are trying to impart, though.

*shrug* Who am I to say? Certainly there's much scholarly evidence pointing to the crafted nature of spiritual texts; but, I don't think that's the important point. It seems to me that, if a text guides one to a better spiritual understanding of themselves, it has done a good thing.

As Shepherd Book said to Mal, 'It doesn't matter what you believe. Just believe'.

 

[heretic888]

There's a lot of times I feel this is true. I don't think it necessarily detracts from the lessons the writers are trying to impart, though.

No, of course not.

Allegory was described in the following way during the Middle Ages: "This story never happened, but it is true." That's the whole point of allegory.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Understood.
arigato :asian:

 

[Last Fearner]

heretic888, I started this thread with one simple request:

This thread is intended to be a "discussion" rather than a "heated debate!"

Please be polite, and avoid insulting or demeaning comments which label other beliefs as "ridiculous," "absurd," "foolish," or "flat out lies!" No one should be so arrogant as to think that it is impossible for them, the evidence they offer, the experts they quote, or the conclusions they have drawn to be wrong. Simply present your argument, and what personal reason or scientific support you have for believing it.

the Jewish Sanhedrin are the ones that accuse Jesus of his "crimes", spirit him away during the middle of Passover night (which by itself is historically ridiculous),

This is dangerously close to violating the rules that asked everyone to honor here. I started this thread for the purpose of "discussion." If you believe something is not historically credible, then state the reasons to support that position. Please do not simply attack the religious belief that is based upon those alleged incidents. Simply saying it does not stand to reason, is not offering proof or evidence in support of your position. Please do not call biblical accounts "historically ridiculous!" If you can prove these events did not occur, then do so.

I intend to address each of your comments about Pilate, and the "politics" of the times, but I will do so in my next post. This post is to remind you, and everyone else, to be cautious of how you phrase your arguments.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[Last Fearner]

It is difficult to perceive what was said and done by people two thousand years ago. How can we identify their "character" and "personality?" People in modern times surprise us by acting "out of character." What motivates people to do what they do at any given time? Could someone have an off day? Could someone of usually mean character have a "good moment" when they feel benevolent or philosophical. How is it for us, thousands of years later, to characterize an individual like Pontius Pilate to the extent that we can determine what he would or would not have said or done. "Out of character??" Perhaps, but not that unlikely.

If Jesus was not the Christ, then this would have been an ordinary man brought before Pilate. If your argument is, "the story of the Son of God being treated by a ruthless Pilate in such a manner could not be true because it would have been out of character for Pilate" does not hold weight because if Pilate was indeed faced with the Messiah, his demeanor may very well have changed. By those of faith, if the story is true, God can cause people to do and say things they might not ordinarily. Jesus certainly could have had a profound effect on Pilate upon their meeting.

Mark 15:4 And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
Mark 15:5 But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marveled.

I have been around many modern day Judges, and even those with the most ill disposition will occasionally see a defendant that intrigues them. They hear the same cases, the same arguments, and the same excuses over and over, case after case. Once in awhile, they marvel at a new approach, or unique defense.

It is not beyond reason to believe that Pilate was tired from his journeys, and had pressures from Rome, and was fed up with the Sanhedrin attempting to use him to do their dirty work. Pilate would have expected Jesus, were he an ordinary prisoner, to argue, plead for his life, or deny the charges.

It would not have been inconceivable that Pilate would have marveled when Jesus stood calm, quiet, and refused to answer. For all we know, Pilate may have had a moment of doubt that this could be the Messiah. His faith may have been shaken, and his spirit stirred in the presence of Jesus.

Pontius Pilate is depicted in the gospels is thoroughly un-historical. He is painted as calm, reasonable, conciliatory, and genuinely benevolent; he doesn't want to be involved with this whole let's-crucify-Jesus business at all. In reality, of course, Pilate had a reputation as a bloodthirsty and viscious ruler, widely despised by the Jewish people.

Where does this "reputation" of Pilate's come from, and how accurate can we be sure it is? Could it be that he had multiple sides to his personality depending on the day, who he was dealing with, and what his mood was? The bible does not "paint him as calm, reasonable, conciliatory, or genuinely benevolent." There is no fact in that assessment. Reading the scriptures you get words, which are not much different than reading words posted in these internet threads. How often do people reading other's posts get the wrong impression of tone, or intention. Pilate may very well have been angry, and speaking in a loud, authoritarian voice when he questioned Jesus. However, he might have been just as angry at the Sanhedrin for bothering him with their petty problems.

You speak of politics of the day? I see Pilate's actions as being very consistent with his job, his reputation, and the politics of the time. For those who have never seen the movie, I suggest watching "Jesus of Nazareth" staring Robert Powell as Jesus, Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, James Earl Jones, James Mason, Sir Laurence Olivier, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quinn, Michael York, and many other famous movie stars. It is one of the best depictions which present scenes like the ones with Pilate as being reasonable for the motives of each character.

Pilate had a job to do. He had to answer to Rome if there was unrest in these regions. Kings, like Herod, had limited power, because they too had to answer to Rome. However, for the zealots, and other mobs that opposed Rome, and the presence of Roman soldiers and Roman authority in their villages, Pilate knew that an unwise decision would likely cause an uprising. Any kind of violence could cause Pilate problems when reporting to Caesar.

Pilate would not have wanted to take this case of Jesus, who proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, because it was a religious matter, and we all know how much those issues can get out of control. Pilate would have been persuaded to at least hear the case on the charge that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews," which would have violated Roman Law. The Sanhedrin attempted to present Jesus as the leader of a rebellious group that could cause an uprising.

When Pilate met Jesus, he saw that he was a peaceful man and posed no threat to Rome, thus he told them to deal with him themselves. However, the Sanhedrin convinced Pilate that they themselves would not be happy, and much unrest would occur if Jesus were left to preach his gospel. They reminded Pilate that they would execute Jesus under their own laws of Blasphemy, but Rome forbade them to execute anyone.

Pilate knew that if he released Jesus, he would have rebellion by those who wanted him dead, and if he executed him, he would have rioting by those who were his followers. The only safe, political thing to do, was to use the excuse of an ancient custom of the local people to have one prisoner released during passover. If he made the decision to release Jesus, Rome would be resented more, and he would be blamed for any uprisings. There would be bloodshed, and Caesar would likely not be happy. However, if he presented two accused criminals to a crowd of people, in an open public square, and they decided who was to be released, then he could wash his hands of the whole incident.

Now, of course, the reason for this is to cast 100% of the blame on the Jews (which becomes far more evident in the later pro-Rome Gospel of Luke). That simply points to the fact that the gospel authors were writing at a time when "Jew" and "Christian" were two clearly delineated groups (i.e., Christians had been expelled from the synagogues), placing them no early than 90 CE.

The two delineated groups were well established during the times of John the Baptist, before Jesus arrived. When the Pharisees questioned John, he clearly drew a line between the Jewish religious leaders who believed they were righteous, and those who were to believe in the one who would later follow him (Jesus).

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And Jesus certainly established himself (being the founder of the Christian Church) to be on the opposite side of the scribes, Pharisees, and Jewish religious leaders.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Matthew 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Matthew 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Matthew 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Matthew 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Matthew 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Matthew 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
Matthew 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
Matthew 23:22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Matthew 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Matthew 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Matthew 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Matthew 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Matthew 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Matthew 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Matthew 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Anyone who thinks the gospel stories aren't neck-deep in the politics of the day are, quite frankly, deluding themselves.

You are right! Although the gospel was about the Jesus and his message to the world, the people of his time were "neck-deep" in politics. Not just in 90CE and later, but during the life of Jesus. The Gospel reflects the fact that the Pharisees and Leaders of the Sanhedrin rejected John the Baptist, and did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the Jewish religious leaders turned him over to Pilate.

Last Fearner

 

[Carol]

James Fowler's Faith Development Theory

Absolutely fascinating. I want to learn more. THanks! :asian:

 

[oxy]

I watched a few documentaries on TV. I was on the fast track to becoming a believer.

But then, one day, I decided to take a Pilates class.

I never got the results by the end of the month. I was never able to nail people to wood without their body weight tearing them off the nail. Never understood what moving my leg up and down had to do with human-timber carpentry.

That's when I lost my faith...

Footnote: Nail guns don't help at all.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

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).

Why wouldn't accupressure count as healing by touch?

As to the thread, it is getting a little heated.

And, as long as we're using movies for reference materials, I rather thought David Bowie made a much more believable and reasonable Pilate.

 

[Last Fearner]

Why wouldn't accupressure count as healing by touch?

In general terms, it would be. However, as an analogy, I could start my car by "touch" if I turn the key in the ignition. Yet, if I were to simply place my hand on the hood of the car, and it started, that would be an incident worthy of further investigation into "spiritual" or "mental" abilities beyond the mechanics of ordinary touch to make things work. A chiropractor touches the body, and (sometimes) "heals" by manipulating the flesh and bones. This type of physical adjustment is not the category that I would classify as "spiritual healing" by touch or laying of the hands. Acupressure works through the natural mechanics of the body, like pushing the right buttons on your keyboard to make your computer do certain things. Now, if your computer gets a virus, and you lay your hands on the sides of the hard-drive, and all viruses disappear, then you might have something special.

I happen to believe that all healing of our bodies comes from God. The fact that when we cut ourselves, yet the wound does not just stay open forever, get infected, and we die. If cleaned and cared for, I think it is a miracle of God the way that an open wound grows back together and repairs itself. Even the use of herbs, medicine, and other modern technology is drawing upon God's creation (according to my belief).

I believe that our spirits, our soul, are connected to God's spirit, and we can heal anything within our own bodies through God's power. Unexplained recoveries when modern medical options fail, occur all the time. If a person were to appear to be directly responsible for bringing about such a recovery, I would be interested in medical documentation, video recording of the process, or anything else that offers compelling evidence to such an alleged spiritual healing. We see these on religious television shows quite frequently. I believe some are real, and some are not (there will always be frauds among the true prophets). Perhaps someone knows of a website that has compiled physical evidence to support these claims.

If necessary, a separate thread could be started dedicated specifically to following up on this subject. If such power and abilities are possible, Martial Artists should become aware of them. I know I would like to be aware of any such abilities. It's a big universe out there, and I don't believe we have all the answers yet!

____________________
Last Fearner

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I happen to believe that all healing of our bodies comes from God. The fact that when we cut ourselves, yet the wound does not just stay open forever, get infected, and we die. If cleaned and cared for, I think it is a miracle of God the way that an open wound grows back together and repairs itself. Even the use of herbs, medicine, and other modern technology is drawing upon God's creation (according to my belief).

And cleanliness and aseptic technique is not modern?

I attend a pentecostal church and I have witnessed Pastor laying his hands on the afflicted aspect of a congregant in the process of miraculous healing. Accupressure may use some contemporary techniques; but, it is deeply rooted in the spiritual concepts. I still fail to see a functional difference.

 

[Carol]

And cleanliness and aseptic technique is not modern?

I attend a pentecostal church and I have witnessed Pastor laying his hands on the afflicted aspect of a congregant in the process of miraculous healing. Accupressure may use some contemporary techniques; but, it is deeply rooted in the spiritual concepts. I still fail to see a functional difference.

I don't see a functional difference either. If all healing comes from God, then God's healing can come in any form, whether it be naturopathic, pharmaceutical, surgical, spiritual...or even preventive. All represent different types of healing, just different vehicles of bringing healing power to the body.

 

[Makalakumu]

And cleanliness and aseptic technique is not modern?

I attend a pentecostal church and I have witnessed Pastor laying his hands on the afflicted aspect of a congregant in the process of miraculous healing. Accupressure may use some contemporary techniques; but, it is deeply rooted in the spiritual concepts. I still fail to see a functional difference.

As a non-beleiver, I am entirely skeptical of faith healing and I am wary of accupressure. The latter seems to have a higher rate of success when actually measured in experiment, however.

Anyway, regarding the difference between the two, I must say that it all comes down to methodology. Accupressure is based off of a body of knowledge that is very in depth, if not somewhat scientific. Faith healing, on the other hand, is entirely the product of belief...meaning that if one doesn't believe, there will be no placebo effect benefit. As far as accupressure is concerned, I don't have to believe to recieve positive effects from it.

With that being said, I don't think it's entirely accurate to label them both as spiritual practices. They do have deep philosophical differences.

 

[heretic888]

I can't address the majority of your post, Last Fearner, as it is largely a set of faith assumptions and speculations devoid of any historical substance. However, a few comments stood out...

Where does this "reputation" of Pilate's come from, and how accurate can we be sure it is?

In 36 CE, Pilate arrested and executed a large number of Samaritans for dubious reasons. The public outrage in Judea was so great that he was recalled to Rome a short time later.

The only safe, political thing to do, was to use the excuse of an ancient custom of the local people to have one prisoner released during passover.

Here's the problem. This supposed "ancient custom of the local people" didn't exist. The Jews didn't have a custom of releasing criminals on Passover. This is sheer fiction.

Furthermore, it isn't neutral fiction. Its fiction with an agenda. The whole point of this incident is to condemn "the Jews" for allowing a murderer to go free while calling for the blood of Jesus. Its anti-Semitic apologetic.

The two delineated groups were well established during the times of John the Baptist, before Jesus arrived.

Only if you uncritically accept the Gospel account as "history".

As I stated before, the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the gospels and he's writing no earlier than 90 CE. The Gospel of Matthew that you quote from is derivative of Mark, copying him word-for-word in several pericopes. Neither of these authors knew John the Baptist (he probably died before they were even born), so it is naive to assume they had special knowledge of his teachings that we don't find in any other sources.

Heck, Mark wasn't even from Judea!

Literary criticism tells us the evangelists are writing at a time when "Christians" and "Jews" were two clearly divided groups no longer on speaking terms with one another. This places the text toward the end of the first century, when Christians had been forcibly and publicly expelled from the synagogues. That is why characters like John the Baptist use the rhetoric they do, not because of some retroactive historical insight from writers who had probably never even been to Jerusalem.

You are right! Although the gospel was about the Jesus and his message to the world, the people of his time were "neck-deep" in politics. Not just in 90CE and later, but during the life of Jesus.

I don't believe "Jesus" even lived in the first place, so this is a moot point.

The gospels aren't just concerned with condemning the Jews with their anti-Semitic fictions, however, but with condemning other Christians, as well. The Markan evangelist was undoubtedly a Pauline Christian and he goes out of his way to rip apart Peter (who Paul opposed in his letters), portraying him as a dunce, a nitwit, a guy who just doesn't "get it". The Matthean evangelist, while copying Mark word-for-word in some sections, then turns around and goes out of his way to redeem Peter and portray him as the true heir to the Word. Then we have the Johannine evangelist who, for some reason or another, really doesn't like that Thomas fellow.

What the gospels show us with their chronological development is the bickering that went on among the various pre-Catholic Christian communities (who undoubtedly claimed to have been "founded" by different apostolic authorities like Paul, Peter, John, and so on). Each gospel was essentially a work of propaganda attacking the purported "founders" of other Christian communities.

Of course, that's the kind of thing you don't learn in Sunday School.

 

[Makalakumu]

I've been reading this conversation and this link really summed up what I think...

Seriously, how can anyone think that the creator of the ENTIRE universe sent his only son, Jebus, to this tiny little world with its insignificant little nothings scrambling over this little peice of dust mote hanging in a photon stream?

Think about how arrogant and provincial all of this is when you really consider all of the potential that this universe has to offer. Discussing the veracity of this myth seems almost rediculous when this is taken to account.

It's not that this isn't interesting material, its just that the perspective of all this is really narrow.

 

[Last Fearner]

I've been reading this conversation and this link really summed up what I think...

Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot."

Sounds like the Matrix diatribe where agent Smith tries to tell Morphius that humans are nothing more than a virus.

Earth is only a "pale blue dot" from a distance. Christianity is a belief that God is not removed from the Earth.

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

While God's presence is known everywhere in the universe, God created Earth for a specific purpose. This notion that it is a "convenient coincidence" that God looks exactly like man" is an ignorant misunderstanding.

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

No one knows exactly what God looks like, what color his eyes are, or his hair, or even if He has eyes or hair as we know it. Nothing in the Bible says that God looks "exactly" like man. Created in his "image" means that there are similarities. We, the creation, reflect in our being, the image of the Creator.

Think about how arrogant and provincial all of this is when you really consider all of the potential that this universe has to offer.

Of all the vastness of all the galaxies in all the universe, Earth may very well be the most spectacular of all creation. It does not have to be in the physical center of space to be the most special place in God's creation.

A belief in God is neither arrogant, nor provincial. In fact, Christianity is quite the opposite. Arrogance is defined as "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others: an arrogant contempt for the weak."

Luke 7:6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Co 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

No one knows for sure where we came from, how we got here, or how the entire universe came to be. An accident? A force of natural chain of events? Perhaps. A supreme intelligence which created and directs the universe - one which we do not fully understand? Perhaps. Chose your belief, but understand this. A religious belief in a Creator as one plausible explanation is not arrogant - - it is either right, or wrong. We should all open our minds and our hearts to proof on either side, but do not condemn those who hold such beliefs as though they are the ignorant, hicks of the countryside that don't know any better because of their limited perspective.

Seriously, how can anyone think that the creator of the ENTIRE universe sent his only son, Jebus, to this tiny little world with its insignificant little nothings scrambling over this little peice of dust mote hanging in a photon stream?

Example: Suppose I looked over the entire planet Earth, and decided that North America was the place I wanted to live. Then, I chose a particular state, and within that state I found one little remote spot that I considered to be paradise to raise a family. I get married, have a son - he gets married and has children of his own.

A couple of generations later, my job is taking me all over the world, and my son travels with me. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren still live in the town where I selected to raise my family, and they never get to see me. Then, I receive word that they are in financial trouble and need help. Would it be so strange that I would send my only son to help them? Would they be arrogant if they would believe that I, the father of their father and their father's father would think that they are significant, and important enough for my son to go to their little spot on Earth? Is it arrogant to think that I care for them, and although I can not be with them at this time, I know where they are since I selected the special place for them to dwell?

If, in fact, there is a Heavenly Father, there is no reason to doubt that we are significant enough, or that this planet is special. We are not being arrogant - - just true to our beliefs. If we are wrong, then so be it. Viewpoints, such as Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" are more arrogant than anything because such people place their alleged intellectual insight above other people's beliefs as if they can not be wrong. I would hate to be in their shoes if they are wrong!

Last Fearner

 

[Makalakumu]

LF - Many people believe many things and lots of other people think those things are somewhat rediculous. I'm not out to insult or convert anyone with my comments in this thread. I'm only trying to express my opinion on the subject matter...and that is that I prefer a naturalistic/scientific/rationalist approach to interpretting our world rather then a religious one. Also, I want you make this clear before I address the rest of this post, I have no problem with anyone who holds religious beliefs. Heck, I still go to church even though I'm an Athiest.

It makes for provacative conversation...

Earth is only a "pale blue dot" from a distance. Christianity is a belief that God is not removed from the Earth.

Lets think about this for a moment. If Christianity is NOT removed from the Earth, then it is limited to our tiny little corner of this universe. And this presents a problem, how can our God matter at all to intelligent beings on the other side of the universe? Isn't it presumptuous to believe that an Iron Age deity from a tiny tribe of clever simian beings is responsible for them too?

While God's presence is known everywhere in the universe, God created Earth for a specific purpose.

Both of these statements are just assumptions. How do you KNOW this? Again, I ask, isn't it presumptuous to assume that every intelligent being in this entire universe shares the same god? Much less even has a god?

I think that if we look at our own home as an example, we can see that this absolutely CANNOT be the case. We have a manifold diversity of religions on THIS planet that hold all manner of beliefs, from no gods at all to thousands and thousands.

Thus, I would posit, using the above as my yardstick, that these assumptions are not measuring up to reality very well.

This notion that it is a "convenient coincidence" that God looks exactly like man" is an ignorant misunderstanding.

Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;

No one knows exactly what God looks like, what color his eyes are, or his hair, or even if He has eyes or hair as we know it. Nothing in the Bible says that God looks "exactly" like man. Created in his "image" means that there are similarities. We, the creation, reflect in our being, the image of the Creator.

Or maybe the people who wrote the Bible meant what they said? I think that it is pretty clear that they think that God looks like us. And if you think about what these people actually knew about the universe around them, it makes sense that they would think that.

We know A LOT more now.

Of all the vastness of all the galaxies in all the universe, Earth may very well be the most spectacular of all creation. It does not have to be in the physical center of space to be the most special place in God's creation.

Think about the concept of a lightyear for a moment. Think about the actual distance involved in 1 lightyear. The universe is BILLIONS of lightyears across. If the tiny little area in Eurasia that gave birth to Christianity is the most special place in God's creation, then doesn't the rest of this vastness seem like an aweful waste of space?

A belief in God is neither arrogant, nor provincial. In fact, Christianity is quite the opposite. Arrogance is defined as "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others: an arrogant contempt for the weak."

I would still argue that it is arrogant. The sheer presumptuousness of all this indicates an underlying sense of priviledge. The designation that "we are special" and the rest of the universe is not so is indicative of the superiority inherit in arrogance.

No one knows for sure where we came from, how we got here, or how the entire universe came to be. An accident? A force of natural chain of events? Perhaps. A supreme intelligence which created and directs the universe - one which we do not fully understand? Perhaps. Chose your belief, but understand this. A religious belief in a Creator as one plausible explanation is not arrogant - - it is either right, or wrong. We should all open our minds and our hearts to proof on either side, but do not condemn those who hold such beliefs as though they are the ignorant, hicks of the countryside that don't know any better because of their limited perspective.

A new particle accelerator was built in Switzerland and it just came online recently. One of the purposes of this machine is to test many of the various naturalistic "creation" theories that physicists have formulated. Think about that for a moment. We are literally on the verge of pulling one of the last things that God might have done out of his proverbial hands.

The process that started during the Enlightenment is reaching a proverbial peak. Does this mean that all of our questions will be answered? Absolutely not. It just means that we no longer will have any reason to invoke a GOD to explain anything in our universe.

A belief in a Creator is not plausible and will soon become indefensible. The God hypothesis is fast approaching null and the "provincial ignorance" that Carl Sagan spoke of is one of the reasons that keeps people clinging to it.

Imagine if a hyperintelligent race of beings visited us tomorrow? What would they think of the unwashed masses of Christians (and others) who reject the basic knowledge of our universe in favor of this or that tribal myth?

If, in fact, there is a Heavenly Father, there is no reason to doubt that we are significant enough, or that this planet is special. We are not being arrogant - - just true to our beliefs. If we are wrong, then so be it. Viewpoints, such as Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" are more arrogant than anything because such people place their alleged intellectual insight above other people's beliefs as if they can not be wrong. I would hate to be in their shoes if they are wrong!

There are plenty of reasons to doubt. Lightyears of reasons. And our alleged intellectual insight is the only method we have of truly knowing any of them. There will not be this miracle of "Reverse Enlightenment" that suddenly proves all Christian myths correct if one of these theories happen to be wrong. All that will matter is the details and, as of this moment, NONE of those details will ever encompass a god or even resemble anything written in the Bible or whatever holy book you wish to follow.

 

[Ray]

I'm only trying to express my opinion on the subject matter...and that is that I prefer a naturalistic/scientific/rationalist approach to interpretting our world rather then a religious one. Also, I want you make this clear before I address the rest of this post, I have no problem with anyone who holds religious beliefs. Heck, I still go to church even though I'm an Athiest.

Although I am a Christian, I too prefer to use the same [scientific] approach at understanding the universe around me. It only makes sense....Most everything that happens can be explained by natural means and the scientific method excludes the supernatural as an explanation.

For things that can't be explained by natural, normal means science uses randomness or chaos or some other strange attractor.

Lets think about this for a moment. If Christianity is NOT removed from the Earth, then it is limited to our tiny little corner of this universe. And this presents a problem, how can our God matter at all to intelligent beings on the other side of the universe? Isn't it presumptuous to believe that an Iron Age deity from a tiny tribe of clever simian beings is responsible for them too?

That's good logic. Now we need to establish that there IS intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. I believe that it is only logical that intelligent life exists elsewhere, but I have no evidence that would allow me to make it a scientific fact. I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere based upon scientist's odds calculations as well as scripture.

Or maybe the people who wrote the Bible meant what they said? I think that it is pretty clear that they think that God looks like us. And if you think about what these people actually knew about the universe around them, it makes sense that they would think that.

I believe that we were created in the express image of God. Especially since Genesis uses the same language in Hebrew comparing the images of Man & God and Adam & Seth. [I think it was Seth].

If the tiny little area in Eurasia that gave birth to Christianity is the most special place in God's creation, then doesn't the rest of this vastness seem like an aweful waste of space?

I believe that golf courses are an aweful waste of space...but I'm not a golfer....

A new particle accelerator was built in Switzerland and it just came online recently. One of the purposes of this machine is to test many of the various naturalistic "creation" theories that physicists have formulated. Think about that for a moment. We are literally on the verge of pulling one of the last things that God might have done out of his proverbial hands.

We will come to understand these things but we will not be able to replicate them on such a scale as a God. We will each die out into nothingness; and our race and our world will vanish. We will be nothing, never known to have existed.

Or we are Eternal.

A belief in a Creator is not plausible and will soon become indefensible. The God hypothesis is fast approaching null and the "provincial ignorance" that Carl Sagan spoke of is one of the reasons that keeps people clinging to it.

Perhaps in your life this is true. As a former athiest, it is no longer true in mine.

Imagine if a hyperintelligent race of beings visited us tomorrow? What would they think of the unwashed masses of Christians (and others) who reject the basic knowledge of our universe in favor of this or that tribal myth?

Not all of us Christians have the same tribal myths. And not all Christians are unwashed [unwashed meaning ignorant]. We can imagine a race of hyperintelligent beings...we can imagine anything but it's just imagination until we have some evidence. We can "what if" endlessly.

There are plenty of reasons to doubt. Lightyears of reasons. And our alleged intellectual insight is the only method we have of truly knowing any of them.

God gives me a thousand reasons to believe and a few reasons to doubt. The reasons to doubt cause me the most trouble.

 

[Makalakumu]

Good rebuttle, Ray. I don't have time to post a lot about this right now, but, at the very least, I think we have clarified all of the assumptions. My question is this...which is more valid, assumptions based on science or assumptions based on faith?

 

[Ray]

My question is this...which is more valid, assumptions based on science or assumptions based on faith?

Mongo say "assumptions bad."

In all aspects of my life, I strive to not assume. I have been taught to "experiment upon the word." I also seek out different ideas in my martial arts, test and try new things as well as challenge my current understanding. And, although not a scientist, I still cannot let assumptions rule my work life.

 

[heretic888]

My question is this...which is more valid, assumptions based on science or assumptions based on faith?

I would say that naive realism is no better than supernaturalism. Both are ontological blackholes, in my opinion.