tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post6560497412944824672..comments2023-06-12T08:18:03.994-04:00Comments on The Psychological/Philosophical Theology Of God: Complication SimplifiedLA Sunsethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00445498119590721449noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-24882383692303196282007-07-02T23:37:00.000-04:002007-07-02T23:37:00.000-04:00MsM,//well, before i present my point of view, i'l...MsM,<BR/><BR/><EM>//well, before i present my point of view, i'll just begin with we'll have to agree to disagree.//</EM><BR/><BR/>That's new? (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, I do not know what I can say that will persuade you to believe. More importantly, that's not my goal, anyway.<BR/><BR/>But if it's scientific proof (and only scientific proof) that would persuade you to consider any of this, I cannot offer any. Nor can I offer any signs like many in the time of early church, sought after. Only by faith can you come to believe anything theological, be it Christian or whatever. <BR/><BR/>That's one of the many beauties of this. <BR/><BR/>But faith, in some cases, is somewhat diametrically opposed to science. I cannot prove faith, I can only attest to it based on my own experiences. That may not be proof in the scientific world, but it's proof enough for me.<BR/><BR/>In Hebrews 11:1 this is how faith is described: <BR/><BR/><EM>Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.</EM><BR/><BR/>What would take me a multitude of word to say, this pretty much says it all.LA Sunsethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445498119590721449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-3199185257191634992007-07-02T14:00:00.000-04:002007-07-02T14:00:00.000-04:00p.s.- i'll just reiterate previous arguments on th...p.s.- i'll just reiterate previous arguments on the role of islam within violent muslim extremist movements.<BR/><BR/>i think that the role of religious doctrine is just as minimal in these cases as it was in the protestant/catholic irish conflict. <BR/><BR/>although religious doctrine marks group affinity and gets used as substantiation for violent acts, it's just a struggle between group a and group b over power and money.<BR/><BR/>unfortunately, the current case of muslim extremism gets very complicated since group a can be either "the west" or "sunnis" or "shia" depending on who group b is.<BR/><BR/>btw- fareed zakaria had a great article in newsweek last week (or perhaps the week before) on the status of muslim extremism from a larger perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-42992476620931882442007-07-02T13:43:00.000-04:002007-07-02T13:43:00.000-04:00las- well, before i present my point of view, i'll...las- well, before i present my point of view, i'll just begin with <I>we'll have to agree to disagree</I>.<BR/><BR/>1) regarding adam & eve and the tower of babel stories, i personally don't see these stories as falling outside the rubric of:<BR/><BR/>//When attempting to answer questions about why it rained and other natural elements which man could not control, it was easy to assign some kind of supernatural explanation to them//<BR/><BR/>adam & eve is a nice catch-all for explaining why life is hard and unfair, why bad things happen, and why some higher power isn't stopping bad things from happening. the tower of babel is pretty self-explanatory.<BR/><BR/>2) regarding the portrayal of jesus in the gospels, if we move beyond the factual or logistical inconsistencies, i see a much larger discrepency. the synoptic gospels pretty much present jesus as a rough-around-the-edges, sometimes unstable and unpredictable, and confusing person whom they love. john, on the other hand, presents a pretty polished, erudite and focused guy.<BR/><BR/>it's possible that each writer sincerely perceived jesus in these different ways. however, i don't see it as possible for both versions to be true. the historical jesus lies somewhere underneath these writings.<BR/><BR/>(sidenote- i think that we have to acknowledge a certain artistic licence on their part. for example, there is no historical evidence for a census in that part of the roman empire at the time of jesus' birth, yet it was advantageous from a old testament prophecy perspective to place his birth in bethlehem.)<BR/><BR/>3) i agree with mustang that if one bases one's belief on faith in the veracity of certain texts that one must also acknowledge that other belief systems based on faith must be equally plausible.<BR/><BR/>personally, i'm content in accepting that we just can't know everything and i choose not to adopt any particular storyline as a <I>greater truth</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-61690640094175535542007-07-01T21:05:00.000-04:002007-07-01T21:05:00.000-04:00PR,Oops, hit the publish button to soon.//Thank yo...PR,<BR/><BR/>Oops, hit the publish button to soon.<BR/><BR/><EM>//Thank you for stopping by Praesidium Respublicae, and for linking to us in this post.//</EM><BR/><BR/>You are most welcome, but I have to say that the pleasure was mine. <BR/><BR/>Rest assured, I think you make some extremely valid points in your argument. I didn't want to open, what could turn out to be, a can of worms on your site with a long comment, so I did it here. Plus, I have been overly deficient about posting here on this blog for awhile. (Your post stirred the gray matter upstairs)<BR/><BR/>Thank you againLA Sunsethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445498119590721449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-79529427860052207032007-07-01T20:58:00.000-04:002007-07-01T20:58:00.000-04:00PR,Thanks for your visit and comments. They are mo...PR,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your visit and comments. They are most welcome here, anytime.<BR/><BR/><EM>//The first is that it didn’t work, primarily I suppose because it is impossible to save mankind.//</EM><BR/><BR/>Not yet.<BR/><BR/><EM>//the failures of the institutions of religion have done more to cause people to turn away from it than it ever has to draw people into it//</EM><BR/><BR/>This is because man has felt the need to institutionalize religion. When Christ sent out the twelve, the real message was purer. But as time passed, those that understood this event and what it meant died off and the next thing they all knew was that man had corrupted the faith, with charters, laws & bylaws, rules and regulations. In short politics crept into the entire thing.<BR/><BR/>Here's something to think about.<BR/><BR/>How far can you run into the woods?<BR/><BR/>The answer is halfway, because then you'd be running out. Right?<BR/><BR/>I say this because, the Church that was built by Christ went into the wilderness and has yet to surface again. But what I think is, what goes into the wilderness will be coming out after it reaches the halfway point. It is my belief that the Church is more than halfway through. This is discussed in metaphoric form in Rev. 12. Pay particular attention to the woman.LA Sunsethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445498119590721449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-24558743060526323842007-07-01T19:45:00.000-04:002007-07-01T19:45:00.000-04:00Religion has had an undeniably important influence...Religion has had an undeniably important influence on individuals, and to the societies to which they belong. If one believes that Christ was sent to earth to save mankind, there are two additional suppositions: The first is that it didn’t work, primarily I suppose because it is impossible to save mankind. Second, the failures of the institutions of religion have done more to cause people to turn away from it than it ever has to draw people into it. Not much has changed in the past twenty thousand or so years. People are capable of believing incredible things, not the least of which is that God will love us if we murder innocent people in His name. But I am struck by how similar attitudes are between modern religionists, and those who lived thousands of years ago. Islamacists continue to make human sacrifices to their god, and Jewish, Christian, and Muslim societies continue to practice ancient rites that make absolutely no sense.<BR/><BR/>I do believe that more harm has been done in the name of (pick any deity), than has any good come from it. When people were little more than rock apes, they warred with one another over whose god was the strongest. In spite of the evolution of human beings in the past ten thousand years, we still have one group of people trying to conquer others in the name of their god. For those who believe in God, it is enough to make them really quite angry that religion has been (historically) such a miserable failure. It is amazing that anyone should believe in a higher being – forget the other tenets, such as life after death. And by the way – isn’t it interesting that man’s only motivation for following the word of (pick any deity) is that it may benefit us, personally? I suggest that man would not be acting any differently if it were suddenly proved that there was no heaven, and there was no gods.<BR/><BR/>But LA, if it is true what you say about God reaching out to man, wouldn’t you say that it has been a while since any man felt the warmness of His hand upon us? I don’t suggest that this is God’s fault, but Mustang did make a good point: are we likely to follow an actively engaged deity, or one with whom no one alive has ever heard directly? Religion loses something when the leaders of the world’s great religions fail to sit down together, with a common purpose, and work toward solving what has become an intolerable conflict. Rather than giving us comfort, or showing us how we can live together peacefully, these so-called men of God drive mankind even further apart. If it is true that the God of Abraham is also the God of Christians and Muslims, what is the conflict about? Why do truly good people have to be murdered, as was Gandhi, simply because he worships God differently? I remain disgusted by “religious conflict.” We are no more enlightened today than those who lived ten thousand years ago; we just have better beer.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for stopping by Praesidium Respublicae, and for linking to us in this post.Sam Huntingtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14780557316548397352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-20331950375798167992007-07-01T19:38:00.000-04:002007-07-01T19:38:00.000-04:00Mustang,//I would be interested in your opinion ab...Mustang,<BR/><BR/><EM>//I would be interested in your opinion about the apparent inconsistencies in the gospels about the ressurection of the Christ.//</EM><BR/><BR/>When a crime occurs and it is determined there are witnesses, the cops always interview them separately. Usually there are varying accounts, because the event was seen from different angles. What the cops are looking for is something that is consistent between them all. <BR/><BR/>If the crime is particularly traumatic, there is some element of shock that may cause some difference in the accounts, Was he wearing a blue shirt or aqua? You know--things like that.<BR/><BR/>This could be the case with the Apostles immediately after Christ's death. They most certainly were in shock for a number of reasons. Here was a man they revered and thought would set up a kingdom in Israel, as was foretold by many of the OT prophets and here He was just killed, mercilessly. Then, they receive another shock when they discover He is alive and walks among them from time to time. That's a lot to digest in a short span of time.<BR/><BR/>When you put that with the fact that the Gospels were written quite a while after the events, then you have some room to make some errors, especially in the specific details. The Apostles, being human, were not able to recall every last detail after so much time had passed. In short, they'd slept since then.<BR/><BR/>What I have focused on in my studies is not necessarily the differences of some minor detail that makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. But, I have looked closely at the consistencies that are found in the varying accounts.<BR/><BR/>Also, we have to take into account the backgrounds of the four writers. Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was physician, John was a fisherman. Of the four writers the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are pretty close in their accounts, albeit all three written from different places and times (no cell phones or e-mail). The thing that makes this so important is, of the three, only Matthew was a disciple. Mark probably got his account from Peter (one of the twelve) and Luke probably got his account from Paul, who got his from Peter, as well. Yet they parallel each other in many areas.<BR/><BR/>John was one in Christ's inner circle (John, Peter, and James)and had direct knowledge of Christ's teachings, as did Matthew. His perspective was more intimate in the details than the other three. Because of this, he was probably more affected by all of this trauma, than Matthew and certainly more than the other two that got their accounts second hand.LA Sunsethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445498119590721449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-19767382218947861952007-07-01T19:03:00.000-04:002007-07-01T19:03:00.000-04:00It is possible, LA, that I am just getting too old...It is possible, LA, that I am just getting too old to keep up with you youngsters. On the other hand, maybe I get confused because we had a recent pope named after two saints, rather than just one. Having done the mea culpa, I would be interested in your opinion about the apparent inconsistencies in the gospels about the ressurection of the Christ. Specifically, would a modern court give their testimony any credibility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-75202255631777068502007-07-01T18:27:00.000-04:002007-07-01T18:27:00.000-04:00Hi Mustang,//John, whom you’ve cited, never knew J...Hi Mustang,<BR/><BR/><EM>//John, whom you’ve cited, never knew Jesus, and so while we credit John with spreading Christianity, we have to ask, “Based on what?”//</EM><BR/><BR/>John was one of the original 12 disciples. Are you thinking of Paul? <BR/><BR/><EM>//That man should love God with all his heart, and that he should love others as he loves himself.//</EM><BR/><BR/>This is another point in my case of how God simplified (or fulfilled)the Law, with the coming of Christ. All 10 Commandments fall under these two. <BR/><BR/>If we truly love our neighbors as we love ourselves, we will not steal, commit adultery, kill, covet, or any other such thing. Likewise, if we truly love God, we will not have any other Gods before Him. At the time of Christ's walk on this earth, the Israelites had perverted the Law by their corruption. He exposed that corruption while here, which is why they eventually had Him killed.<BR/><BR/>As far as death is concerned, the Bible is clear that death is the penalty for our sins. Paul wrote to the Romans and made this statement: <BR/><BR/><EM>For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.</EM><BR/><BR/>And while it's true that many different writers had very different perspectives in their accounts, this statement by Paul lines up with what John said. Sin (and its penalty, death) was brought into the world by Adam, and yet, through God's grace in sending His Son to the earth to die for us all, it paved the way for death to someday be totally eradicated. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for stopping by.LA Sunsethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445498119590721449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38439093.post-70260753058632432832007-07-01T17:50:00.000-04:002007-07-01T17:50:00.000-04:00This could turn out to be one hell of a discussion...This could turn out to be one hell of a discussion, LA (pun intended). Sam draws similarities between prehistoric man, ancient civilizations, and modern societies. He cites animal and human sacrifice, which seems to be a common denominator throughout the ancient world, and certain religious rites that demand genital mutilation. We can say that most societies no longer make sacrifices, except for certain Voodoo rites and in radical Islam. Sam seems to be saying that many aspects of ancient and modern religious beliefs remain constant – and from his illustrations, it would appear that he is right. As to “life after death,” the question really does defy logic because there is absolutely no proof of another dimension or place. If someone told you that he expects his soul to be drawn to the sun or moon when he dies, and that he would thereafter live in harmony with a god, you would conclude that this person is a nut case. With that as a given, why is a belief in heaven or hell plausible?<BR/><BR/>Have you ever noticed how we share “knowing looks” whenever someone speaks about his or her belief in reincarnation? Why is reincarnation any more difficult to believe than the idea of heaven, or flying away to the sun? Stretching this idea even further, how arrogant we are to assume that there is no other life (like us) anywhere in the entire Universe.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the plausibility of any belief system must begin with philosophical or theological texts. For those who profess Judeo-Christian beliefs, there is an overwhelming reliance on the scriptures. Personally, I enjoy reading them as historical texts, many of which may be simply metaphorical stories designed to show man how he should live his life and relate to others in his community. It would be near impossible to have a harmonious community if everyone was engaging in adultery, or if they demonstrated little regard for property rights. The problem with the scriptures, however, is that we don’t know who wrote them. More than likely, the Old Testament is a collection of stores that began in an oral tradition. As tribal scribes wrote them down, and re-wrote them later when the papyrus wore out, how do we know that the stories weren’t changed to suit the writer’s sense of propositional appropriateness? Even more recently, we note a tremendous difference in the telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – with reference to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John, whom you’ve cited, never knew Jesus, and so while we credit John with spreading Christianity, we have to ask, “Based on what?”<BR/><BR/>I agree with your statement that “man messed it back up as he does everything he touches.” Isn’t that what Sam is saying? If God exists, and my faith tells me he does, it would be better if he weren’t a “dead-beat dad.” If we are His children, it would be really great to hear more directly from him from time to time because God must realize how difficult it is to maintain one’s faith when he never reveals himself to us – which would be about all the proof we’d ever need about his presence, and his expectations of us. You know – as a father should be engaged with his children. Jesus lived two-thousand years ago; if he sits at the right hand of God, it would be nice to hear from him, too – other than our consciences that tell us when we’ve messed up.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I would like to note that the word of Christ evolved over many years, based on two essential principals: That man should love God with all his heart, and that he should love others as he loves himself. This contrasts significantly with the teachings of Islam, which came to the world through force of arms. Apparently, the Arab race never quite got over the fact that Abraham expelled Hagar and Ishmael into the desert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com