did god breathe the bible?

[formerfundie]

i would like to start this thread as a reference point for those who would put forward a point of view that is backed by, 'the bible said it' or something roughly equivalent.

Is the bible the word of god?
If you say yes, what evidence do you present to make your case?
If you say no, what evidence do you present to make your case?

[OldChurchGuy]

i would like to start this thread as a reference point for those who would put forward a point of view that is backed by, 'the bible said it' or something roughly equivalent.

Is the bible the word of god?
If you say yes, what evidence do you present to make your case?
If you say no, what evidence do you present to make your case?

Interesting question. "The word of god" needs some defining, for me.

If by "the word of god" you mean is the Bible the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God, my belief is that the answer is "no". I base this on personal research and reflection from a variety of sources. For example, there are two genealogies in Matthew and Luke for the lineage of Jesus. The two do not agree. There is much discussion among those in the inerrancy camp that this is explained by the proposal that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. Maybe, but it seems odd that neither author explains their genealogy is about Mary. By adopting the inerrancy view, one is almost obligated to explain by whatever means necessary any possible contradiction in the Bible. I have trouble believing that a God who took the time to bring this collection of writings together after many centuries would have allowed so many editorial challenges for us to interpret.

If by "the word of god" you mean is the Bible divinely inspired, my belief is that the answer is "probably". For me, the Bible is a collection of writings written by many unamed and unknown people over many centuries all trying to explain what it is like to know God. Personally, I believe that God exists but it is a belief that I cannot prove through any scientific means. The belief is subjective based on an interpretation of various events in my life.

If by "the word of god" you mean is the Bible written by people to explain the otherwise unexplainable events in their life, my belief is that the answer is "possibly". I am reading "Why We Believe What We Believe" by Andrew Newberg and finished "Stumbling on Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert. Both seem to offer thought provoking and plausible alternative ideas about how we interpret events other than having faith in the existense of God.

While none of the three views can be proven, I am more than happy to carry on a discussion.

On an eternal quest for information and understanding I remain,

OldChurchGuy

[formerfundie]

If by "the word of god" you mean is the Bible the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God, my belief is that the answer is "no".

To clarify my question, yes this is exactly what i mean by "the word of god". That the Bible is divinely inspired and as such is his inerrant "Word".

thanks.

[formerfundie]

Hey OCG,

Couple of questions about your response.

...For me, the Bible is a collection of writings written by many unamed and unknown people over many centuries all trying to explain what it is like to know God.

I'm curious about what your thoughts are on how good a job they did? Do you feel like the writers of the old testament for example, adequately captured the nature of God as you believe he/she/it to exist? And somewhat related, do you feel the bible is relevant as a guide to living your life (e.g. do you derive your moral code from the Bible)?

If by "the word of god" you mean is the Bible written by people to explain the otherwise unexplainable events in their life, my belief is that the answer is "possibly".

I think this most closely captures my thoughts about the Bible. My feeling is that people were attempting to explain things the best they could given their somewhat primitive understanding of the world, science and such. (e.g. mental illnesses explained as demon possession).

Look forward to hearing from you, and thanks for engaging in this conversation.

FF

[Aspirin99]

My view: There are a few sections of the Bible that are foundational documents. From there, supporting stories are added. At some point (around the 6th century BCE), real history begins to be recorded along with a continued mythology (like the book of Daniel).

The real history has no great ancient history, so a foundational document is invented - The Pentateuch (completely fictional mixed with legends from other cultures like the Sumerians thrown in for historical familiarity). This was invented for the purpose of giving an emerging nation a national identity.

After the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in 70 AD and the diaspora, the Jews no longer had a national identity and the possibility of a military messiah seemed dim. A new foundational document was needed to form a new religion. The new foundational documents would be the Gospels.

Mark was the first Gospel, and it was written anonymously and later attributed to Mark in the 4th century. Then, Matthew was written (also anonymously), and in my opinion, it may not have been purposed as a different Gospel but a corrected and expanded version of Mark. Both Matthew and Luke copy versus from Mark (and the document Q).

When you read early Christian apologist like Justin Martyr (wrote around 160 CE), mentions language from the Gospels in a way that seems to have them all mixed together. He never quotes an author of the Gospel-like quotes, which makes me think the Gospels were not yet redacted.

One glowing fact that shows that the story of Jesus was a growing legend is that Mark has no knowledge of the Virgin Birth, a fact that is added by Matthew as he embellishes the story.

Matthew and Luke create the history and John later steps in to expound the godhead theology of it all.

To say that all of this is "God Breathed" would require a level of naivety that is, unfortunately, all too common.

[OldChurchGuy]

Hey OCG,

Couple of questions about your response.



I'm curious about what your thoughts are on how good a job they did? Do you feel like the writers of the old testament for example, adequately captured the nature of God as you believe he/she/it to exist? And somewhat related, do you feel the bible is relevant as a guide to living your life (e.g. do you derive your moral code from the Bible)?



I think this most closely captures my thoughts about the Bible. My feeling is that people were attempting to explain things the best they could given their somewhat primitive understanding of the world, science and such. (e.g. mental illnesses explained as demon possession).

Look forward to hearing from you, and thanks for engaging in this conversation.

FF

Sorry for the slow response. I was out of town and just got back.

Regarding the first question, (Do you feel like the writers of the old testament for example, adequately captured the nature of God as you believe he/she/it to exist?) at the risk of sounding like a politician, the answer is yes and no. I believe the writers ideas about God's nature and justification by God for their actions were accurate to them at the time.

I suppose I am best characterized as a "cafeteria theist" (i.e. pick and choose aspects I believe and don't believe) because there are aspects of God that I see as timeless such as showing compassion to widows and orphans. Other aspects of God such as sanctioning the complete destruction of Jericho and Ai (presuming such events actually happened as recorded in Joshua) I reject.

Regarding the second question, (do you feel the bible is relevant as a guide to living your life (e.g. do you derive your moral code from the Bible)?), I would say that yes, I do derive my moral code from the Bible. I hadn't really thought about it, but having grown up in the church, it is the only moral code I know of. For me, the moral code is summed up in the two great commandments "Love God" and "Love you neighbor as yourself".

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[Kumbafu]

OldChurchGuy wrote: I suppose I am best characterized as a "cafeteria theist" (i.e. pick and choose aspects I believe and don't believe)

Kind of an "all-you-can-reap" buffet?

For me, the moral code is summed up in the two great commandments "Love God" and "Love you neighbor as yourself".

Isn't this pretty much contradicted in Luke 14:26?

[phrog]

I would say that yes, I do derive my moral code from the Bible. I hadn't really thought about it, but having grown up in the church, it is the only moral code I know of. For me, the moral code is summed up in the two great commandments "Love God" and "Love you neighbor as yourself".

So OldChurchGuy, do you really think you'd lose that moral code if the Bible didn't exist, or you just quit believing? Are those writings the only thing that keeps you from committing acts that would otherwise be unacceptable in your community. From what I've read from you I believe you to be a good moral man in spite of your beliefs, not because of them.

[OldChurchGuy]

OldChurchGuy wrote: I suppose I am best characterized as a "cafeteria theist" (i.e. pick and choose aspects I believe and don't believe)

Kind of an "all-you-can-reap" buffet?

Makes sense to me. :)

For me, the moral code is summed up in the two great commandments "Love God" and "Love you neighbor as yourself".

Isn't this pretty much contradicted in Luke 14:26?


Interesting point and one I cannot directly answer. Here is a link between two people with an explanation that makes sense to me. Is it the correct interpretation? I don't know. Did Jesus actually say the words recorded in Luke? Again, I don't know.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hhate.html

Wish I could give you that "black and white" definitive answer but it will take a much better theist than I to do that.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[OldChurchGuy]

So OldChurchGuy, do you really think you'd lose that moral code if the Bible didn't exist, or you just quit believing? Are those writings the only thing that keeps you from committing acts that would otherwise be unacceptable in your community. From what I've read from you I believe you to be a good moral man in spite of your beliefs, not because of them.

Thank you for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

I agree that I would probably not loose the moral code if I concluded the Bible and God were myths. I am reading a most interesting book entitled "Why We Believe What We Believe" by Dr. Andrew Newberg. I just got started with it but he seems to be making a compelling case that our moral code may be as much or more a product of evolution rather than divine inspiration.

The previous question as I understood it was if my moral code was due to the Bible. Since I have always been in a theistic culture, I would say that yes, my moral code is derived from the Bible. It would be interesting to see if there is any great variance in a moral code in an atheistic society, especially after 3 or 4 generations. My guess is that there would be little difference aside from there being no acknowledgement of God's existense.

Not being very much of an ancient historian, I ask are there any atheistic cultures from the past? If so, when did they exist? Where were they located? Were their laws noticably different from any neighboring theistic countries?

Enjoying the discussion very much I remain,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Thank you for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

I agree that I would probably not loose the moral code if I concluded the Bible and God were myths. I am reading a most interesting book entitled "Why We Believe What We Believe" by Dr. Andrew Newberg. I just got started with it but he seems to be making a compelling case that our moral code may be as much or more a product of evolution rather than divine inspiration.

The previous question as I understood it was if my moral code was due to the Bible. Since I have always been in a theistic culture, I would say that yes, my moral code is derived from the Bible. It would be interesting to see if there is any great variance in a moral code in an atheistic society, especially after 3 or 4 generations. My guess is that there would be little difference aside from there being no acknowledgement of God's existense.

Not being very much of an ancient historian, I ask are there any atheistic cultures from the past? If so, when did they exist? Where were they located? Were their laws noticably different from any neighboring theistic countries?

Enjoying the discussion very much I remain,

OldChurchGuy

Hi OCG,

You and I had a brief conversation about this over a month ago. I was, in effect trying to tease this information from you without overstepping. Here's our discussion then:

Hey OCG!

Thanks for responding! Given your experiential path to God, do you think that you would be a believer today if you'd been raised by non-believers or Buddhist if raised by such?

I was raised in a Seventh-day Adventist home. I always wonder how my life would be different if raised by atheists.

Best,
S2R

I have no idea. The only speculation I can offer is that I am a firm believer that we are "wired at birth" with a certain temperment and outlook on life. Our environment has a big influence on that temperment but the basics cannot be changed.

Part of my temperment (as I understand it anyway) is a desire to keep learning. I suspect that I would have probably have ventured into other ideas regardless of the parents but it might have been much more painful for me and for them. I am reading a book right now entitled "Leaving the Fold" by Babinski. It is a collection of testimonies by Fundamentalists who left it for various reasons. None of the stories I have read so far has a happy ending. Either family or friends or both have rejected them since they left the "black and white" world of faith and are now in "the gray".

As to whether I would be a Christian if I had grown up among Bhuddists, I can say with absolute certainty, "I don't know".

There are just too many variables to give you a definitive answer.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Sadly, I chose not to dig any deeper back then but perhaps now. It seems we might be able to assume that you'd have similar moral code even if raised in a different faith or by atheists. The evolutionary origins of morality are a juicy area of study and I think support that you'd still be the really nice Old Church Guy without belief in God.

So, it begs the question, why believe? Is it for the reward promised by scriptures? How do we know that eternal reward/punishment are any more valid than the parts of the bible we choose to downplay in favor of those that fit with our modern view of morality. Is it for the personal experiences? Some say that they lived through an experience that convinced them that "there is a God." Since every religion on earth shares these aha moments it hardly seems reason to believe in this particular God over another.

The questions you ask and the answers you give on this forum consistently show the kind of reasoned thinking that led many of us, during our own journeys, to conclude that while we'd like there to be a God, there just isn't one.

Do you really believe--deep down?

Gingerly stan2reason steps away and waits for what might come next.

[stan2reason]

I forgot to mention that studies indicate that Swedes are largely non-believers. The data ranges from 64-85% stating that they do not believe in God*. I'm going to have to buck my Canadian upbringing here--given how good their hockey team has gotten over the years some might argue a pact with the devil. I doubt it.

While in college, I took a course called "Biblical ethics in the Modern World." The professor said something that I'll not forget. He had recently returned from a trip to Sweden where he visited the Swedish High Court building. He told us about their "Lady Justice" who rather than being blindfolded, looked down into her cupped hands which held a little chick. I'm no expert on Swedish law but I think that philosophy's not bad for a bunch of atheists.

For any Swedes browsing the site, please don't tell me his story was apocryphal. It would rock the foundations of my world and I'm not ready for that. I'm still getting over the end of the Harry Potter series.

*Norris and Inglehart (2004)

[formerfundie]

...I suppose I am best characterized as a "cafeteria theist" (i.e. pick and choose aspects I believe and don't believe) because there are aspects of God that I see as timeless such as showing compassion to widows and orphans. Other aspects of God such as sanctioning the complete destruction of Jericho and Ai (presuming such events actually happened as recorded in Joshua) I reject.

Hey OLC,

I'm curious about this. I kinda see where you're coming from. It sounds like you're saying you accept the things revealed about God that kind of jive with your own internal sense (common sense?) of right and wrong, and just assume the rest can't be right/correct... But, do you ever worry that you're accepting/rejecting the wrong things? Do you worry that God will say at judgment time, hey why did you reject that?

The reason i don't worry about such things is that I don't believe that a benevolent deity would have revealed him/her self to humanity via a flawed collection of books. To me the credibility of the bible is so severely compromised, I don't believe the Bible tells us anything about a divine being, only some ancient ideas of what one might be like (assumed to exist by it's authors). I think we agree, that they couldn't even all agree on what he was like.

Anyway, it seems to me, this is where our thought processes diverge. You pick the parts that are meaningful to you. I see the entire book as a work of man, and therefore reject that it is any sort of revelation from God.

BTW, If i mis-characterized or misinterpreted anything you said, please set me straight :)

Also enjoying the discussion,

FF

[Kumbafu]

Interesting point and one I cannot directly answer. Here is a link between two people with an explanation that makes sense to me. Is it the correct interpretation? I don't know. Did Jesus actually say the words recorded in Luke? Again, I don't know.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hhate.html

Wish I could give you that "black and white" definitive answer but it will take a much better theist than I to do that.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Wow.. my head is spinning.

Why would god write [or cause to have written] text that is so confusing and easily misinterpreted?

The multitudes of bible versions and religions that exist tell me that "the word of god" is extremely inefficient, to say the least. By making the assumption that one of the religions and/or one of the bible translations is right, then god has sent everyone else on the wrong path. Perhaps they are all wrong and god is waiting to see who wins the contest. Boring, if you ask me, that the all-knowing would involve himself with something so boring as to wait to see what happens when he is supposed to know the outcome before it happens.

It's like god thought, "I'm going to send the world a message. But I'm going to make it so confusing that it's going to be really hard to figure out. Only the smart [but more than likely... lucky] ones will win. Everyone else be damned."

But, after what happened to every living thing that didn't make it on Noah's ark, this isn't so far-fetched.

[OldChurchGuy]

Hi OCG,

You and I had a brief conversation about this over a month ago. I was, in effect trying to tease this information from you without overstepping. Here's our discussion then:





Sadly, I chose not to dig any deeper back then but perhaps now. It seems we might be able to assume that you'd have similar moral code even if raised in a different faith or by atheists. The evolutionary origins of morality are a juicy area of study and I think support that you'd still be the really nice Old Church Guy without belief in God.

So, it begs the question, why believe? Is it for the reward promised by scriptures? How do we know that eternal reward/punishment are any more valid than the parts of the bible we choose to downplay in favor of those that fit with our modern view of morality. Is it for the personal experiences? Some say that they lived through an experience that convinced them that "there is a God." Since every religion on earth shares these aha moments it hardly seems reason to believe in this particular God over another.

The questions you ask and the answers you give on this forum consistently show the kind of reasoned thinking that led many of us, during our own journeys, to conclude that while we'd like there to be a God, there just isn't one.

Do you really believe--deep down?

Gingerly stan2reason steps away and waits for what might come next.

Very good questions. I will do my best to give solid answers. [Answers are in backets and underlined]

So, it begs the question, why believe? Is it for the reward promised by scriptures? [No. It's more like a friendship or relationship with God]. How do we know that eternal reward/punishment are any more valid than the parts of the bible we choose to downplay in favor of those that fit with our modern view of morality. [I don't] Is it for the personal experiences? [For me, the answer is "yes". I agreee my faith and belief are very subjective and are based on my interpretation and understanding of various events that have happened in my life. Having read "Stumbling on Happiness" by Gilbert (I think that is his name), there is the possibility that my life is a series of events influenced by random chance and perception.] Some say that they lived through an experience that convinced them that "there is a God." Since every religion on earth shares these aha moments it hardly seems reason to believe in this particular God over another.[Agreed. And I admit to having evolved (that dreaded "e" word to various fundamentalists) from a belief that Christianity is an exclusive theology to a belief that practically all religions are trying to describe the same God]
The questions you ask and the answers you give on this forum consistently show the kind of reasoned thinking that led many of us, during our own journeys, to conclude that while we'd like there to be a God, there just isn't one. [Frankly, your conclusion may turn out to be right. I can't prove it one way or the other.]
Do you really believe--deep down? [There have been times when I concluded my faith was an illusion and saw myself at a crossroads of theism or atheism. Yet, each time, an event occurred which I interpreted to reinforce the notion that there is a God. Granted, the event and interpretation are purely subjective on my part with no emperical evidence whatsoever. Perhaps it was random chance. Perhaps it was that I wanted the event to be evidence of God. And perhaps the interpretation was correct. So, after all is said and done, I would say that, yes, deep down, I believe, but not so blindly that I completely reject all other possibilities. For me, the jury is still out on the final absolute proof of God's existense or nonexistense. Until that final proof comes, I choose to believe.]One of the reasons I enjoy this forum is because atheists are so willing to ask these hard questions whereas most theists don't. That has helped me greatly in shedding some ideas/beliefs and refining others over time.

Enough preaching.

OldChurchGuy

[OldChurchGuy]

Hey OLC,

I'm curious about this. I kinda see where you're coming from. It sounds like you're saying you accept the things revealed about God that kind of jive with your own internal sense (common sense?) of right and wrong, and just assume the rest can't be right/correct... But, do you ever worry that you're accepting/rejecting the wrong things? Do you worry that God will say at judgment time, hey why did you reject that?

The reason i don't worry about such things is that I don't believe that a benevolent deity would have revealed him/her self to humanity via a flawed collection of books. To me the credibility of the bible is so severely compromised, I don't believe the Bible tells us anything about a divine being, only some ancient ideas of what one might be like (assumed to exist by it's authors). I think we agree, that they couldn't even all agree on what he was like.

Anyway, it seems to me, this is where our thought processes diverge. You pick the parts that are meaningful to you. I see the entire book as a work of man, and therefore reject that it is any sort of revelation from God.

BTW, If i mis-characterized or misinterpreted anything you said, please set me straight :)

Also enjoying the discussion,

FF

Sorry for the delay. I was trying to figure out who "OLC" was.

I used to worry about God condeming me for accepting/rejecting the wrong things, but concluded that a God of grace is willing to forgive a screw up no matter how ill informed.

I don't think you have mis-characterized or misinterpreted anything. As opposed to being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God, I see the Bible as a "guide book". Like any guide book, it describes a reality but it is not the reality. For instance, I can read all kinds of literature about Chicago or Mount Rushmore or any other favorite place you have visited. The material is helpful but it doesn't really substitute for seeing and experiencing the place yourself. And different guide books emphasize different things about a given place.

I think I will quit while I'm behind. :)

OldChurchGuy

[OldChurchGuy]

Wow.. my head is spinning.

Why would god write [or cause to have written] text that is so confusing and easily misinterpreted?

The multitudes of bible versions and religions that exist tell me that "the word of god" is extremely inefficient, to say the least. By making the assumption that one of the religions and/or one of the bible translations is right, then god has sent everyone else on the wrong path. Perhaps they are all wrong and god is waiting to see who wins the contest. Boring, if you ask me, that the all-knowing would involve himself with something so boring as to wait to see what happens when he is supposed to know the outcome before it happens.

It's like god thought, "I'm going to send the world a message. But I'm going to make it so confusing that it's going to be really hard to figure out. Only the smart [but more than likely... lucky] ones will win. Everyone else be damned."

But, after what happened to every living thing that didn't make it on Noah's ark, this isn't so far-fetched.

Don't know why it is so confusing and misinterpreted, either. If eveyone would just agree with me, we would have a better world. :)

Part of the problem is interpreting the verses through a 21st century environment heavily influenced by Greek, Roman, and European thinking.

I have often wondered if our theology would change dramatically if we could find the original manuscripts. Of course, there would be raging debates on the authenticity of the documents if there was information that ran counter to various literalist beliefs.

I don't think I have really addressed your issues, though. For me, the multitude of religions and Bibles says that people experiencing God have such a wealth of unique experiences (at least, unique to them) that they have a need to share them orally or in print. For me, a single theology would be very boring even if it is more efficient.

OldChurchGuy

[Kumbafu]

OCG wrote:
Don't know why it is so confusing and misinterpreted, either. If eveyone would just agree with me, we would have a better world. :)

LOL... I feel the same... with the exception everyone should think like me.

Part of the problem is interpreting the verses through a 21st century environment heavily influenced by Greek, Roman, and European thinking.

Absolutely. Combine that with translating from one language to another. Some things just don't translate well. I always compare the translations to kids playing the telephone game. Same language used and only a handfull of kids, yet the message at the end is far from the original.

I think Aspirin pointed out that the first writings in the NT are mild compared to the later writings. Not only were things expained using primitive knowlege of the world around them, everytime someone else told the story, they had to embelish. They had heard the stories and were more numb to them, so they felt they had to embelish in order to ilicit a reaction from the people they were speaking to.

I don't think I have really addressed your issues, though. For me, the multitude of religions and Bibles says that people experiencing God have such a wealth of unique experiences (at least, unique to them) that they have a need to share them orally or in print. For me, a single theology would be very boring even if it is more efficient.

Evidence shows that god enjoys things that are boring. Like putting people to the test when he already knows the outcome.

The problem [as you mentioned tounge-in-cheek at the begining of the post] is that people think that their experiences are the right ones.

Yes, variety is the spice of life, but when we're talking about something as serious as "salvation" there should be but one answer. I mean, it might be fun to answer a math problem with different answers just to be different, but in the end there is only one correct answer.

Maybe the bible is like the puzzle of the three men who go to a hotel...

Three guys enter a hotel for to stay for a night. The desk clerk tells them that one room is $30 per night. This is perfect as there are three men -- they each decide to pay $10 a piece.

They each pay the money and head to their rooms. A few minutes later, the clerk realizes his mistake as there is a special on rooms that week and they are only $25 a night. He gathers the five dollars and gives it to the bellboy to return to the men.

As the bellboy is riding the elevator, he thinks "There's three men and five dollars, they'll never be able to split it equally. I'll just keep two and they can have three to split equally." He keeps two dollars for himself and gives each of the men $1 dollar in return.

So... You have three men who paid 10 dollars a piece and received one dollar back....this means they each paid nine dollars. The bellboy kept two dollars for himself. So, nine x 3 equals 27 plus the 2 dollars the bellboy kept equals 29 dollars --- where's the missing dollar?

It appears that there is a missing dollar. But it's not. The answer is there... you just have to figure it out for yourself.

But the bible contains multiple contradictions as well, making it impossible to get the right answer [if, indeed the correct answer is contained in the bible].

[stan2reason]

[No. It's more like a friendship or relationship with God].

Hi OCG,
I'm always afraid to ask those kinds of questions--they are, after all, highly personal. Given that you make no habit of cramming your beliefs down anyone's throat I've no right to really challenge you on any of it so thanks for taking the time/interest in answering anyway.

BTW, I'll be your friend! I'll even answer back--frequently and with words! ;)

Thanks again,
S2R

[OldChurchGuy]

Hi OCG,
I'm always afraid to ask those kinds of questions--they are, after all, highly personal. Given that you make no habit of cramming your beliefs down anyone's throat I've no right to really challenge you on any of it so thanks for taking the time/interest in answering anyway.

BTW, I'll be your friend! I'll even answer back--frequently and with words! ;)

Thanks again,
S2R

First of all, I don't interpret the questions as challenging me as much as a chance to exchange ideas and information. I think too often theists try to ram their theology down someone's throat, particularly if the other person has views / ideas running counter to the theist. I was that way once, some decades ago. But, I like to think I have grown up enough to realize I have very few hard and fast answers to anything much less hard and fast answers to something a "gray" as a philosophy of life.

Thanks for agreeing to be my friend and even answer back -- frequently and with words!! What more could a person ask for?

With deepest respect,

OldChurchGuy

[formerfundie]

Sorry for the delay. I was trying to figure out who "OLC" was....

Hey OCG :)

I sincerely apologize for the utter disservice of addressing you as OLC. Proof positive that my mind is getting old and rusty :(....

I used to worry about God condeming me for accepting/rejecting the wrong things, but concluded that a God of grace is willing to forgive a screw up no matter how ill informed.

Honestly, when I was a believer (and i was one of the more unfortunate fundamentalist litereralist types), i spent alot of time fretting and worrying about such things. I couldn't process the contradictions, but i was sure there was an answer... but i was never quite satisfied with my own interpretation of different doctrines (the salvation doctrine being the biggie). I'm glad to hear you're not burdened the way i was.

....But, I like to think I have grown up enough to realize I have very few hard and fast answers to anything much less hard and fast answers to something a "gray" as a philosophy of life.

Running the risk of totally insulting you again, you seem to think the way I do in so many ways :) I would be proud to call you my friend.

- FF

[OldChurchGuy]

Hey OCG :)

I sincerely apologize for the utter disservice of addressing you as OLC. Proof positive that my mind is getting old and rusty :(....



Honestly, when I was a believer (and i was one of the more unfortunate fundamentalist litereralist types), i spent alot of time fretting and worrying about such things. I couldn't process the contradictions, but i was sure there was an answer... but i was never quite satisfied with my own interpretation of different doctrines (the salvation doctrine being the biggie). I'm glad to hear you're not burdened the way i was.



Running the risk of totally insulting you again, you seem to think the way I do in so many ways :) I would be proud to call you my friend.

- FF
No insult taken, believe me. Thank you for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

I am honored you are proud to call me a friend. The fact we seem to think so much alike shows you are a very bright person with discerning taste. :)

I truly do enjoy this web site and the exchange of opinions and views.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Sorry for the delay. I was trying to figure out who "OLC" was.

I used to worry about God condeming me for accepting/rejecting the wrong things, but concluded that a God of grace is willing to forgive a screw up no matter how ill informed.

I don't think you have mis-characterized or misinterpreted anything. As opposed to being the divinely inspired inerrant word of God, I see the Bible as a "guide book". Like any guide book, it describes a reality but it is not the reality. For instance, I can read all kinds of literature about Chicago or Mount Rushmore or any other favorite place you have visited. The material is helpful but it doesn't really substitute for seeing and experiencing the place yourself. And different guide books emphasize different things about a given place.

I think I will quit while I'm behind. :)

OldChurchGuy

Given that you see the Bible as more of a guide book than the inerrant word, is it possible that the God you worship is not the Judeo-Christian God? Is it possible that another faith more accurately grasped the concept of God?

It seems that the only basis for a concept of one-true-God comes from the various sacred texts. If you don't accept the texts as the inspired word of God then perhaps what you worship is not the Judeo-Christian God; rather, you worship the truth that some supernatural being exists. In effect, you're all worshiping "GOD" but culture, era, geography altered the way God was described in each of the various sacred texts. If this is the case, it seems possible that one of the other books may actually have a better description of the actual God. When you accept the Bible as a guide rather than a hard truth are you not opening yourself to that possibility? What would it take for you to change your mind and accept one of the other books and begin to worship a different God? I know that you study other faiths and likely find appealing aspects to various non-Christian religions. If you were to delve deep enough and find enough appeal in a different faith would you switch? Or, looking at it from a different perspective, if all of these different faiths have truths within, why even ally yourself with the Judeo-Christian God? Why not simply believe that there's a God and that he/she is described by EVERY sacred text--make your own faith that includes concepts of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Indigenous American theology...the list goes on and on. This may be what you're already doing, not sure. It sounds, though, that you have the greatest affinity for the Bible.

WAAAY too many questions in there.

Best,
S2R

[phrog]

Do you really believe--deep down? [There have been times when I concluded my faith was an illusion and saw myself at a crossroads of theism or atheism. Yet, each time, an event occurred which I interpreted to reinforce the notion that there is a God. Granted, the event and interpretation are purely subjective on my part with no emperical evidence whatsoever. Perhaps it was random chance. Perhaps it was that I wanted the event to be evidence of God. And perhaps the interpretation was correct. So, after all is said and done, I would say that, yes, deep down, I believe, but not so blindly that I completely reject all other possibilities. For me, the jury is still out on the final absolute proof of God's existense or nonexistense. Until that final proof comes, I choose to believe.]
Hey there OldChurchGuy, First of all let me say I'm glad you are among us. You truly want to discuss without the proselytizing, I like that in a person. Of course you are a believer so we're going to disagree on many issues. In the above the main thing that hits me is that I don't see that we choose to believe. One weighs the evidence, applies logic and reason, and draws conclusions. It hardly seems a choice. Religious beliefs to me come too much from the heart and not from our old friend Sarah Bellum. If you're waiting for incontrovertible proof for god or the contrary, it's not likely you're going to find it short of dying but it would seem that there's mountains of evidence that points elsewhere. To me that evidence seems pretty conclusive. But ANY evidence to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural appears rather wanting.

[OldChurchGuy]

Given that you see the Bible as more of a guide book than the inerrant word, is it possible that the God you worship is not the Judeo-Christian God? Is it possible that another faith more accurately grasped the concept of God?

It seems that the only basis for a concept of one-true-God comes from the various sacred texts. If you don't accept the texts as the inspired word of God then perhaps what you worship is not the Judeo-Christian God; rather, you worship the truth that some supernatural being exists. In effect, you're all worshiping "GOD" but culture, era, geography altered the way God was described in each of the various sacred texts. If this is the case, it seems possible that one of the other books may actually have a better description of the actual God. When you accept the Bible as a guide rather than a hard truth are you not opening yourself to that possibility? What would it take for you to change your mind and accept one of the other books and begin to worship a different God? I know that you study other faiths and likely find appealing aspects to various non-Christian religions. If you were to delve deep enough and find enough appeal in a different faith would you switch? Or, looking at it from a different perspective, if all of these different faiths have truths within, why even ally yourself with the Judeo-Christian God? Why not simply believe that there's a God and that he/she is described by EVERY sacred text--make your own faith that includes concepts of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Indigenous American theology...the list goes on and on. This may be what you're already doing, not sure. It sounds, though, that you have the greatest affinity for the Bible.

WAAAY too many questions in there.

Best,
S2R

Not sure these are waaay too many questions. How else can one learn without a quest for understanding? Regardless:


It seems that the only basis for a concept of one-true-God comes from the various sacred texts. If you don't accept the texts as the inspired word of God then perhaps what you worship is not the Judeo-Christian God; rather, you worship the truth that some supernatural being exists. In effect, you're all worshiping "GOD" but culture, era, geography altered the way God was described in each of the various sacred texts. If this is the case, it seems possible that one of the other books may actually have a better description of the actual God. When you accept the Bible as a guide rather than a hard truth are you not opening yourself to that possibility?Yes. In fact, I led an Adult Sunday School class on a study of different religions around the world. (The topic was decided upon by the class so I bought a book on the world's religions then supplemented the research with various internet sites. My favorite religious site is out of Canada. It is www.religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org) . These people are the closest to an unbiased source on religion I have ever seen. I am certain they are unbiased as various fundamentalists who have gone to the site at my recommendation have declared it a "liberal website".) Many in the class seemed surprised by the common threads in many religions and philosophies.

What would it take for you to change your mind and accept one of the other books and begin to worship a different God? I don't claim to have studied the religions of the world in depth, but am at least a little bit aware of many. I really can't think of a scenario that would cause me to abandon Christianity for another religion. If God is proven to be a myth, for example, then all religions are myths.

Or, looking at it from a different perspective, if all of these different faiths have truths within, why even ally yourself with the Judeo-Christian God? Why not simply believe that there's a God and that he/she is described by EVERY sacred text--make your own faith that includes concepts of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Indigenous American theology...the list goes on and on. This may be what you're already doing, not sure. It sounds, though, that you have the greatest affinity for the Bible.I have grown up in the Christian faith. While it is less than perfect, so are all faiths. My alliance with the Judeo-Christian God goes back about 25 years ago when I was teaching a high school Sunday School class. The class had decided they wanted to study Revelation. So, I found about 5 or 6 commentaries from the church library and checked them out. In my naievete, I honestly thought there would be little difference between them. I was quickly jolted into a reality of WIDELY divergent views each one presenting compelling evidence and logic why their view was more correct than any other. The class and I survived looking at a variety of views about Revelation and I came to realize that understanding the Bible was going to be a life long experience of questions. To date, I have not grown tired of the quest so feel no need to abandon Christianity. But, yes, I agree that practically every sacred text describes God.
As always,

OldChurchGuy

[OldChurchGuy]

Hey there OldChurchGuy, First of all let me say I'm glad you are among us. You truly want to discuss without the proselytizing, I like that in a person. Of course you are a believer so we're going to disagree on many issues. In the above the main thing that hits me is that I don't see that we choose to believe. One weighs the evidence, applies logic and reason, and draws conclusions. It hardly seems a choice. Religious beliefs to me come too much from the heart and not from our old friend Sarah Bellum. If you're waiting for incontrovertible proof for god or the contrary, it's not likely you're going to find it short of dying but it would seem that there's mountains of evidence that points elsewhere. To me that evidence seems pretty conclusive. But ANY evidence to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural appears rather wanting.

Thank you for the kind words. They are truly appreciated.


In the above the main thing that hits me is that I don't see that we choose to believe. One weighs the evidence, applies logic and reason, and draws conclusions. It hardly seems a choice. Religious beliefs to me come too much from the heart and not from our old friend Sarah Bellum.

You may very well be right. What is the difference between a choice and a conclusion? I have reached the conclusion / choice my faith is subjective based on my understanding / interpretation of various events in my life. For me it is real and a part of me.
If you're waiting for incontrovertible proof for god or the contrary, it's not likely you're going to find it short of dying but it would seem that there's mountains of evidence that points elsewhere.

No, I am not looking or waiting for incontrovertible proof of God. Religion by it's very nature is based on faith.

To me that evidence seems pretty conclusive. But ANY evidence to the existence of ANYTHING supernatural appears rather wanting.I agree that evidence of anything supernatural appears to be wanting, but so what? Perhaps I am clinging to a myth. I don't think so, but that brings us back to a subjective interpretation of various personal events. Bottom line is that I am comfortable being a theist and plan to be for the forseeable future. (sorry if I come across as "testy". That is not my intent.)
Enough preaching.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[phrog]

OK, perhaps you do come across a bit testy, no worries. Did I hit a nerve? It is not my intention to change your views but rather to understand how you come by them. Actually you've proven me wrong in my supposition that one doesn't choose what they believe. It is clear that many believers choose to believe contrary to evidence or lack thereof. But your proverbial bottom line here says volumes. It is not likely you'll hear statements from Atheists that they intend to remain Atheist. I certainly wouldn't make such a broad statement witch includes such finality. I do expect to remain Atheist but I am open to any argument that can hold up to the Atheists holy trinity: Evidence, logic, and reason.

You're comfortable being a theist. Do you think you'd be any less comfortable believing otherwise? Do you think you are comfortable BECAUSE you are theist? Do you believe Atheists to be any less content with their lives? And I gotta ask, if you indeed "plan on being theist for the foreseeable future" , why are you here? I don't mean that to sound flippant, but if you are so set in you chosen belief, what do you hope to accomplish? If it's just curiosity, that's ok too. If it's to enlighten we heathens as to the hows and whys believers believe, then all the better, carry on!

[OldChurchGuy]

OK, perhaps you do come across a bit testy, no worries. Did I hit a nerve? It is not my intention to change your views but rather to understand how you come by them. Actually you've proven me wrong in my supposition that one doesn't choose what they believe. It is clear that many believers choose to believe contrary to evidence or lack thereof. But your proverbial bottom line here says volumes. It is not likely you'll hear statements from Atheists that they intend to remain Atheist. I certainly wouldn't make such a broad statement witch includes such finality. I do expect to remain Atheist but I am open to any argument that can hold up to the Atheists holy trinity: Evidence, logic, and reason.

You're comfortable being a theist. Do you think you'd be any less comfortable believing otherwise? Do you think you are comfortable BECAUSE you are theist? Do you believe Atheists to be any less content with their lives? And I gotta ask, if you indeed "plan on being theist for the foreseeable future" , why are you here? I don't mean that to sound flippant, but if you are so set in you chosen belief, what do you hope to accomplish? If it's just curiosity, that's ok too. If it's to enlighten we heathens as to the hows and whys believers believe, then all the better, carry on!

Sorry to take so long in responding. Labor Day weekend is our wedding anniversary so we were out of town plus the question about why I am involved with this website got me to thinking long and hard.

" It is not my intention to change your views but rather to understand how you come by them. Actually you've proven me wrong in my supposition that one doesn't choose what they believe. It is clear that many believers choose to believe contrary to evidence or lack thereof. " Apparently my density level is higher than I imagined it to be. Would you give an example of the second and third sentences of the above quote? I am not seeing the difference between the two.

"But your proverbial bottom line here says volumes. It is not likely you'll hear statements from Atheists that they intend to remain Atheist. I certainly wouldn't make such a broad statement witch includes such finality. I do expect to remain Atheist but I am open to any argument that can hold up to the Atheists holy trinity: Evidence, logic, and reason." I believe my proverbial bottom line stated I intended to be a theist for the forseeable future. For me, that means that I do not completely reject atheism. Again, my density level is high as I see intent and expectation as synonymous. How do they differ in the contxt of this exchange?

"Do you think you'd be any less comfortable believing otherwise? Do you think you are comfortable BECAUSE you are theist?" I see myself as an evolving theist. The ideas and views I had 20 years ago are very different than what I believe today. Having grown up a theist, it appears I am currently comfortable being a theist. I don't know if an alternate belief would make me any more or less comfortable.

"Do you believe Atheists to be any less content with their lives?" One of my first revelations was realizing that atheists cannot be painted with a broad brush just as theists cannot. Therefore, I now understand there are atheists who are content with their lives as there are theists who are content with their lives.

And I gotta ask, if you indeed "plan on being theist for the foreseeable future" , why are you here? I don't mean that to sound flippant, but if you are so set in you chosen belief, what do you hope to accomplish? If it's just curiosity, that's ok too. If it's to enlighten we heathens as to the hows and whys believers believe, then all the better, carry on! " I participate in this website because I truly enjoy the exchange of ideas and views. After much thought and pondering I hope to accomplish the following:
1) to show atheists and theists can have an exchange of ideas without condeming each other;
2) to better understand my theism by understanding the arguments against theism;
3) all too often it is my understanding that atheists have been assailed by "Christian literalists" who have a very rigid theology and a belief system which says basically: "I'm right. You are wrong. The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it. And, by the way, God loves you." I believe there are far more "Christian non-literalists" than "Christian literalists" but they are not nearly as vocal. My intent is to be a vocal "Christian non-literalist" on this website and some of the Christian websites. NOT with the intent of changing anyone's mind.

Thanks for the tough questions.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[phrog]

" It is not my intention to change your views but rather to understand how you come by them. Actually you've proven me wrong in my supposition that one doesn't choose what they believe. It is clear that many believers choose to believe contrary to evidence or lack thereof. " Apparently my density level is higher than I imagined it to be. Would you give an example of the second and third sentences of the above quote? I am not seeing the difference between the two.

What I'm saying is that believers tend to choose to stick with their faith in spite of a complete lack of evidence or in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Surely that's what anyone would cleave form your "so what" comment from an earlier post. With that in mind I say the faithful are choosing what they believe. Often they have that choice made for them by church leaders and they follow faithfully, like the proverbial sheep. Think of the Pope's statement to the flock in 1954 that from that point forward they will follow the contention of the ascension of Mary to heaven.


I believe my proverbial bottom line stated I intended to be a theist for the foreseeable future. For me, that means that I do not completely reject atheism. Again, my density level is high as I see intent and expectation as synonymous. How do they differ in the context of this exchange?

I see intent and expect as very different expressions. With the statement that you intend to remain Theist comes across much more of a stubborn streak. While you may find some Thesaurus that exchanges expect with intend, in context of your statements I'd have to say they definitely vary. It certainly sounds like you're setting up your choices for future thought. But then maybe that's just me.


expect
verb expected, expecting


1. To think of something as likely to happen or come.
Thesaurus: anticipate, await, wait for, hope for, look for, look forward to, envisage.2. colloq

To suppose.
Example: I expect you're tired
Thesaurus: assume, presume, suppose, think, trust, count on, bank on.


intend
verb intended, intending


1. To plan or have in mind as one's purpose or aim.
Thesaurus: propose, plan, aim, purpose, be resolved, be determined, aspire to, have in mind, hope to, resolve to, contemplate.2. To set it aside or destine it to some specified person or thing.

Form: intend something for someone
Form: intend something for something3. To mean.

Thesaurus: mean, indicate, signify, denote.

[formerfundie]

....After much thought and pondering I hope to accomplish the following:
1) to show atheists and theists can have an exchange of ideas without condeming each other;
2) to better understand my theism by understanding the arguments against theism;
3) all too often it is my understanding that atheists have been assailed by "Christian literalists" who have a very rigid theology and a belief system which says basically: "I'm right. You are wrong. The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it. And, by the way, God loves you." I believe there are far more "Christian non-literalists" than "Christian literalists" but they are not nearly as vocal. My intent is to be a vocal "Christian non-literalist" on this website and some of the Christian websites. NOT with the intent of changing anyone's mind....

I think we've clearly seen that #1 has been successful.
On point #2, i'd be interested to hear your thoughts, at some point when you feel comfortable sharing them.
On point #3, i'm not sure i agree that there are more non-literalists than literalists in the christian community. I'm also not sure how you could ever know. But, i appreciate your position. I would like to take this opportunity to invite any literalist lurkers out there to join the conversation and bring OCG to task on his position. But please back your ideas/arguments with reason/logic. Preaching will make us all sleepy.

Cheers,

FF

[OldChurchGuy]

What I'm saying is that believers tend to choose to stick with their faith in spite of a complete lack of evidence or in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Surely that's what anyone would cleave form your "so what" comment from an earlier post. With that in mind I say the faithful are choosing what they believe. Often they have that choice made for them by church leaders and they follow faithfully, like the proverbial sheep. Think of the Pope's statement to the flock in 1954 that from that point forward they will follow the contention of the ascension of Mary to heaven.



I see intent and expect as very different expressions. With the statement that you intend to remain Theist comes across much more of a stubborn streak. While you may find some Thesaurus that exchanges expect with intend, in context of your statements I'd have to say they definitely vary. It certainly sounds like you're setting up your choices for future thought. But then maybe that's just me.


expect
verb expected, expecting

1. To think of something as likely to happen or come.
Thesaurus: anticipate, await, wait for, hope for, look for, look forward to, envisage.2. colloq

To suppose.
Example: I expect you're tired
Thesaurus: assume, presume, suppose, think, trust, count on, bank on.


intend
verb intended, intending

1. To plan or have in mind as one's purpose or aim.
Thesaurus: propose, plan, aim, purpose, be resolved, be determined, aspire to, have in mind, hope to, resolve to, contemplate.2. To set it aside or destine it to some specified person or thing.

Form: intend something for someone
Form: intend something for something3. To mean.

Thesaurus: mean, indicate, signify, denote.




What I'm saying is that believers tend to choose to stick with their faith in spite of a complete lack of evidence or in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Surely that's what anyone would cleave form your "so what" comment from an earlier post. With that in mind I say the faithful are choosing what they believe. Often they have that choice made for them by church leaders and they follow faithfully, like the proverbial sheep. Think of the Pope's statement to the flock in 1954 that from that point forward they will follow the contention of the ascension of Mary to heaven.There are theists who are comfortable in their faith without thinking about it. And there are theists who will blindly follow the teachings of a pastor or lay leader. I like to think I am part of that group of theists that likes to explore and learn. Since I grew up in a Protestant environment, a pronouncement by the Pope has no meaning for me. On the other hand, pronouncements by my denomination may have no meaning for me either.

You are right that theists (myself included) have no emperical evidence to justify belief in the existense of God. Perhaps I am ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. Time will tell.



I see intent and expect as very different expressions. With the statement that you intend to remain Theist comes across much more of a stubborn streak. While you may find some Thesaurus that exchanges expect with intend, in context of your statements I'd have to say they definitely vary. It certainly sounds like you're setting up your choices for future thought. But then maybe that's just me.I see your point and, yes, maybe I was being more stubborn than I realized. I have no problem with exchanging "intend" for "expect" regarding my theism. It seems to be a matter of degree that both words allow for the possibility of change.
As always,

OldChurchGuy

[OldChurchGuy]

I think we've clearly seen that #1 has been successful.
On point #2, i'd be interested to hear your thoughts, at some point when you feel comfortable sharing them.
On point #3, i'm not sure i agree that there are more non-literalists than literalists in the christian community. I'm also not sure how you could ever know. But, i appreciate your position. I would like to take this opportunity to invite any literalist lurkers out there to join the conversation and bring OCG to task on his position. But please back your ideas/arguments with reason/logic. Preaching will make us all sleepy.

Cheers,

FF

Regarding point #2 (refining my theism by listening to arguments / ideas against theism), the first few times I read Austin Cline's e-mail from About.com/atheism, I was amazed that anyone could deny the existense of God. Yet, as I read on, I had to agree there really is no emperical evidence to prove the existense of God. That got me to thinking about what do I really believe and why. My conclusion is what I have stated in previous posts: My belief in God stems from an interpretation of various personal experiences. The experiences may very well turn out to be random chance working in my favor. (There is a most interesting book by Gilbert titled "Stumbling on Happiness" which explores how we interpret events) I can't prove the reality of the events one way or the other. For now, staying affiliated with theism is more appealing for me than affiliating with atheism.

Point 3 is based on my understanding that the "Bible literalists" aka "fundamentalists" make up about 20% to 30% of the Christians. But, they tend to be united in their beliefs and ideas so are seen as being more formidable than their true numbers.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[phrog]

You are right that theists (myself included) have no empirical evidence to justify belief in the existence of God. Perhaps I am ignoring mountains of evidence to the contrary. Time will tell.
Well, I'd have to say more likely death will tell. Pisser is, should the theists be correct, I gotta hear about it for some damned eternity, but if I'm correct, you'll die, you'll rot, and you'll never know. Doesn't seem fair.



I can't prove the reality of the events one way or the other. For now, staying affiliated with theism is more appealing for me than affiliating with atheism. Now maybe it's just me, but I'd bet I'd have those that would agree with me here on this board, but I'd never be content affiliating with any organization that insists on telling me what to think. I'll stick with Atheists that help me know how to think, much more appealing.

[OldChurchGuy]

Well, I'd have to say more likely death will tell. Pisser is, should the theists be correct, I gotta hear about it for some damned eternity, but if I'm correct, you'll die, you'll rot, and you'll never know. Doesn't seem fair.


Now maybe it's just me, but I'd bet I'd have those that would agree with me here on this board, but I'd never be content affiliating with any organization that insists on telling me what to think. I'll stick with Atheists that help me know how to think, much more appealing.



Apparently I have been very fortunate because I do not recall ever being told what to think regarding theology. The churches I have been with have all allowed me great freedom to read and inquire. Which may explain why I have never felt comfortable visiting churches with a rigid God-in-a-box theology.

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

Apparently I have been very fortunate because I do not recall ever being told what to think regarding theology.

OldChurchGuy

At the risk of sounding "duh" -- I guess we reason folk would say that they do indeed tell you to think that God exists. That part seems non-negotiable. Would any of the churches continue to welcome you if you became convinced that God does not exist? Mine doesn't--It's grounds for disfellowship. Maybe the Unitarians would take me?

It seems you're allowed to think about things within a certain defined parameter. That parameter is the part that most disturbs me and I think most of us. I'm not sure you're as free to think as you think.

Wait for it....

What do you think?

Best,
S2R

[phrog]

I have to concur with S2R here CurchGuy I know you've mentioned some personal experiences that have influenced your "choice" of belief and I don't expect you to expand on that, but surely your weekly church preaching's had some influence on how you interpreted the experience. So however indirectly, isn't that a way of telling you what to think? Do you really think you make life choices that aren't first and foremost in line with your religious convictions? Sir, I think you need to examine very closely all the variables in your thought process and just how you come by them before you make such bold statements. While I never belonged to any churches, I did attend many in my youth. It occurred to me then as it does now, those that claimed not to have their thinking molded by their religion were in the end duped or living in denial.

[minorwork]

But surely, Phrog, personal experience guides us from babyhood to adulthood. Experience is the basis of self. While young, many archetypes are seated that help the individual struggle to form some kind of self. Religious influence and others are incorporated. Then when the questioning occurs hopefully in the over 20 age group the self struggles for freedom from the knowledge of certain death. The power of the now forgotten personal influences is immense. Development of a new self/view must somehow incorporate the old.

Though loaded with problems the quest for a personal transcendant experience, mushroom induced or not, with some kind of structure basis, be it Christian mysticism, or other is the founding cause for the Bible and other works. The failure of a 100% participation of the populace to have those experiences requires a "dumbing down" of the literature. Parables, etc. The mystic path is not for all.

Old Church Guy, hang in there. Live with experience, adjust. Make a nest.

[OldChurchGuy]

At the risk of sounding "duh" -- I guess we reason folk would say that they do indeed tell you to think that God exists. That part seems non-negotiable. Would any of the churches continue to welcome you if you became convinced that God does not exist? Mine doesn't--It's grounds for disfellowship. Maybe the Unitarians would take me?

It seems you're allowed to think about things within a certain defined parameter. That parameter is the part that most disturbs me and I think most of us. I'm not sure you're as free to think as you think.

Wait for it....

What do you think?

Best,
S2R

Another good point (you guys are so good at that! :) ).

Yes, I would say that for me, the existense of some sort of supreme being that throught the filter of Christianity I call God is a given. However, I can neither prove nor disprove the existense of God outside of my personal experiences. Does that mean my belief is the only correct one? No. Does it mean that my belief can change? Yes. Could that belief change to the point of deciding / concluding there is no God? Yes, I suppose it could.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

[OldChurchGuy]

But surely, Phrog, personal experience guides us from babyhood to adulthood. Experience is the basis of self. While young, many archetypes are seated that help the individual struggle to form some kind of self. Religious influence and others are incorporated. Then when the questioning occurs hopefully in the over 20 age group the self struggles for freedom from the knowledge of certain death. The power of the now forgotten personal influences is immense. Development of a new self/view must somehow incorporate the old.

Though loaded with problems the quest for a personal transcendant experience, mushroom induced or not, with some kind of structure basis, be it Christian mysticism, or other is the founding cause for the Bible and other works. The failure of a 100% participation of the populace to have those experiences requires a "dumbing down" of the literature. Parables, etc. The mystic path is not for all.

Old Church Guy, hang in there. Live with experience, adjust. Make a nest.

Working on it; believe me.

OldChurchGuy

[stan2reason]

I'd like to make a comment on something Minorwork said. This may seem a small point but I don't believe that personal experience is the basis of self, I believe it's more accurate to say that self is defined by how we interpret our experiences. There's no question that we learn by experience--every animal does. Experience, in my mind, is simply the raw data input. Understanding the data is everything.

Perhaps an example from my youth can best illustrate this important difference. As a boy, I was convinced beyond all shadow of doubt that Santa Claus existed. I formed this belief from my experiences. At some point I had the experience of being told about Santa; I learned of his home, his Reindeer, his list of good and bad kids and his annual visit to my home. I remember one Christmas Eve in particular. I was convinced that night that I heard Santa slide down the chimney of my home. The feelings were so real that my belief became thoroughly entrenched.

These experiences were real but my interpretation of them was flawed. Rather than investigate the noise I heard that night (my mom sliding her leg up and down her sleeping bag) I fit the experiences into my dogma. I committed the cardinal sin of using the experience to prove an assumption. Kris Kringle existed because I'd heard him with my own ears. When the cookies and milk I left him were gone the next morning--fuggetaboutit. To this day I can't prove or disprove the existence of Sinter Klaas. Some might even say that it's in my best interest to believe in him--he does, after all, have a list of good and bad boys. He's kind, loving and he cares enough about me to come back each year with gifts. Simply stated, though, he doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There's no evidence that he exists save my own experiences which were flawed.

So it begs the question, what if I never let go of my belief and even now continued to believe in Santa? What if the experiences trumped the lack of evidence? Would I have a valid philosophy for life? I'd likely be a good person and largely harmless since I'd want to stay off the bad-boy list. But would I have the best tools for life? Would others see this as a paradigm worth reproducing? Problems might arise since I hear Phrog is certain he saw the Tooth Fairy in his window the other night and he's convinced Santa sucks.

Our experiences can guide us or they can lead us astray if we let them. Our job is to create a reproducible and valid method for sifting through the experiences of our lives. It's the brain that makes the (hu)man.

[minorwork]

Absolutely right Stan. We do experience ourselves creating/perceiving a reproducible and valid method for sifting through the experiences of our lives. Self is the experiencer. Biblical known as Soul.

[chasm]

This is a great thread - I can't believe that I missed it until now.

Just two throw in my own paltry two cents - I believe that we have no direct experience of objective reality. Everything is perception. All of our experience gets filtered through our sensory apparatus, and then processed by the big lump of gray matter at the top of our spinal column. That being the case, all reality is subjective, and what we think of as objective reality is the agreement between individuals regarding those subjective experiences. That's not to say that an ultimate objective reality doesn't exist - there must be something out there producing all of those bumps in the night. But our experience of that reality is removed by the interposition of a layer of neurons.
Since faith and belief are subjective (even more so than our "objective" reality), if you believe that god exists, then he does - for you. If you do not have that faith, then god does not - but again, just for you. Religions are clusters of individuals who find agreement in the subjective reality of the existence of their version of god. Whether god actually exists is almost a moot point, since in our subjective realities, he exists (or not). And if the classically described god really does exist in that ultimate objective reality, we have no way of knowing anyway. He exists outside of and independent from time and space, and so leaves us physically bounded and limited beings no way of measuring his existence.

[minorwork]

Agreement on what words refer to continues to be such a hassle.

"My God is better than yours." Heard all the time. No reference to see, touch, smell, taste, or feel. Any wonder for the confusion?

Einstein translates the laws of physics from one reference frame to another. Primary is that the laws are the same from one frame to the other. The equations of relativity translate measures from one frame in constant motion to another in constant motion at a different speed(special relativity) and from a frame varying in motion (acceleration/gravity), general relativity.

But the fundamentalists? Translate? Oh no. Without separation of church and state they have no impetus to CHANGE. Stan changes from Santa Claus to whatever easily(?). But what a shock to know a whole lifetime has been wasted in subservience to an idea compared to Santa. Stan may translate the idea of Santa to ....what? Parents? A guy in the sky that sees all, knows all? Maybe a big brother government that is here to help you. Or maybe ????????????

Enoch did not die but was translated.
Elijah did not die but was translated. WTF?

[stan2reason]

This is a great thread - I can't believe that I missed it until now.

Just two throw in my own paltry two cents - I believe that we have no direct experience of objective reality. Everything is perception. All of our experience gets filtered through our sensory apparatus, and then processed by the big lump of gray matter at the top of our spinal column. That being the case, all reality is subjective, and what we think of as objective reality is the agreement between individuals regarding those subjective experiences. That's not to say that an ultimate objective reality doesn't exist - there must be something out there producing all of those bumps in the night. But our experience of that reality is removed by the interposition of a layer of neurons.
Since faith and belief are subjective (even more so than our "objective" reality), if you believe that god exists, then he does - for you. If you do not have that faith, then god does not - but again, just for you. Religions are clusters of individuals who find agreement in the subjective reality of the existence of their version of god. Whether god actually exists is almost a moot point, since in our subjective realities, he exists (or not). And if the classically described god really does exist in that ultimate objective reality, we have no way of knowing anyway. He exists outside of and independent from time and space, and so leaves us physically bounded and limited beings no way of measuring his existence.

Hey Chasm,

We enter wondrous realms when we ask ourselves, "what is the nature of reality?" It's been a long time since college philosophy but I believe you ascribe to the Idealism school of thought? It seems you leave yourself open, however, to the concept of an ultimate objective reality that exists without (or outside of) your perception. Please correct away if I've erred.

I joke with my friends that I'm so left-brained that I walk with a tilt. I seldom gave thought to these tantalizing questions in my youth and find myself playing catch-up. The concepts expressed by Idealism have always seemed a bit solipsistic to me but then again I've got nothing better to replace it with. As I read philosophical arguments of varying bent I find myself frequently saying, "yeah, that sounds good."

Hee hee, I'm a man without a philosophy or rather a man with every philosophy. I've never met a philosophy I didn't like. :)

Anyway, thanks for sharing. Good stuff.
S2R

[minorwork]

Go Noumena. Go Logos. Way to go. Way to fight. Let's win one tonight!

[phrog]

Problems might arise since I hear Phrog is certain he saw the Tooth Fairy in his window the other night and he's convinced Santa sucks.


Indeed the Tooth Fairy's for real! I have a sock full of quarters as genuine proof! Who's gunna question the evidence?

[phrog]

S2R is making some good points as does minorwork and chasm. Many are reflective of their own approach to thinking and what leads us to the thinking path we take. In that sense, so does OldChurchGuy. Ths essence that is phrog began to take form at my first breath and will extinguish when I take my last. The pathways in my toddler years were many and varied and concepts like Santa and Tooth Fairies were taken on trust of the word of my elders. Then I entered the world of formal education. Soon into those years the "truth" of said elders were already in question as the fairy tales began to take their proper place, and the Jesus myth fit right in among them. We certainly do take on personal experiences to add to what we become but more importantly is what we cleave from our exposure. Taught HOW to believe we hopefully learn the best way to interpret what we learn and what we experience. Fuck me, am I making sense?

Anyway, I have to reiterate what I mentioned earlier. I could never attend regularly, let alone belong to any organization that bans any reading, even if it's just a strong suggestion as to what NOT to read, with whom I should or should not associate, what movies to see or avoid, what music to listen to and most importantly, where exactly my ass should be parked every Sunday so that my brain can be inundated with all the afore mentioned rules.

[minorwork]

Phrog said,
..... am I making sense?



On the floor. Tears. Empathy. Cut it out, I need to breath. Lucky to be here alone.

[OldChurchGuy]

S2R is making some good points as does minorwork and chasm. Many are reflective of their own approach to thinking and what leads us to the thinking path we take. In that sense, so does OldChurchGuy. Ths essence that is phrog began to take form at my first breath and will extinguish when I take my last. The pathways in my toddler years were many and varied and concepts like Santa and Tooth Fairies were taken on trust of the word of my elders. Then I entered the world of formal education. Soon into those years the "truth" of said elders were already in question as the fairy tales began to take their proper place, and the Jesus myth fit right in among them. We certainly do take on personal experiences to add to what we become but more importantly is what we cleave from our exposure. Taught HOW to believe we hopefully learn the best way to interpret what we learn and what we experience. Fuck me, am I making sense?

Anyway, I have to reiterate what I mentioned earlier. I could never attend regularly, let alone belong to any organization that bans any reading, even if it's just a strong suggestion as to what NOT to read, with whom I should or should not associate, what movies to see or avoid, what music to listen to and most importantly, where exactly my ass should be parked every Sunday so that my brain can be inundated with all the afore mentioned rules.

Have any of you heard about or read a book by Dr. Anthony Newberg titled "Why We Believe What We Believe"? It is a most interesting study on current understandings and theories on how the brain works with an emphasis on how beliefs come about.

He seems to be even handed in his presentation of the information. By that I mean the information doesn't seem to pro-atheist or pro-theist.

Regarding the last paragraph of the above post, I agree that belonging to such an organization is unappealing. Other than accepting the existense of God as a given, I have been very fortunate to have been involved with churches that allowed me a free hand to learn on my own without the threat of a being banned for reading certain books or seeing certain movies or listening to certain music.

OldChurchGuy

[phrog]

Still seems like a mighty big proviso. "You must accept yada yada yada as a given. You are then free to read and hear all other evidence, but always apply yada yada yada first and foremost as fact." Isn't that telling you WHAT to think? You are "free" to take on all learning but first you must contort the evidence in ways that fit the parameters of the afore said given.

I will check out Newberg but I must say the stack of books I intend to read is getting larger. To you I suggest Michael Shermer's How We Believe or his Why People Believe Weird Things Both are an excellent approach to the rational thought process.

[OldChurchGuy]

Still seems like a mighty big proviso. "You must accept yada yada yada as a given. You are then free to read and hear all other evidence, but always apply yada yada yada first and foremost as fact." Isn't that telling you WHAT to think? You are "free" to take on all learning but first you must contort the evidence in ways that fit the parameters of the afore said given.

I will check out Newberg but I must say the stack of books I intend to read is getting larger. To you I suggest Michael Shermer's How We Believe or his Why People Believe Weird Things Both are an excellent approach to the rational thought process.

Like you, I will add these to my ever growing list of books to read.

I misquoted the author's name. His name is Andrew Newberg instead of Anthony.

Couple of quotes from his book I thought the participants might find interesting:

"Another level of belief formation involves the way we relate to people and the values we place on these intereactions. As children learn which behaviors work best in different social situations, they begin to learn the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong, and fairness and unfairness, and assemble them in a rudimentary system of moral beliefs. They slow begin to distinguish between actions that foster a sense of well-being in others and actions that cause harm. This distinction is essential if they are to develop so that they can coooperate with other individuals and groups in society. This moral development is actually embedded in our genes." (page 114-115)

"Many young childen cannot tell if they will be punished or praised for their behavior by an unseen, ominipotent God. Some parents intuitively recognize this power and thus may be inclined to invoke a fear of God's wrath as they try to encourage their children to behave in specific ways. However, there may be a price to pay for taking this approach. According to extensive research carried out by two psychology professors - Bob Altemeyer and Burce Hunsberger - children who grow up in fundamentalist families do tend to obey the authorities and follow the rules, but they also tend to be self-rightous, prejudicial, and condemnatory toward people outside their groups. They have an 'us versus them' mentality that many will carry throughout their lives. On the other hand, fundamentalist congregations experience a 50 percent dropout rate among their members." (page 121)
OldChurchGuy

[phrog]

Well the first passage certainly parallels much of what Dawkins talks about in several of his books. He points out the genetic codes of morality and discusses a Darwinian evolution of communities. Those that accepted or even tolerated poor moral behavior like theft, murder, rape and what have you, were destined to fail so from that the more moral of communities thrived and took over.

Newberg's ideas in the second paragraph is not surprising. But certainly one could substitute any fictitious creation in place of god. Santa Clause has every bit of an influence on the behavior of the young. As far as growing up to obey authorities, sometimes that can be to a fault. Utah Mormons are so conditioned to do what their prophet tells them it is not surprising that Utah still has one of the largest percentages of Bush supporters of the 50 states. They blindly follow the leader, just because he is the leader.

[minorwork]

from Phrog

Well, I'd have to say more likely death will tell. Pisser is, should the theists be correct, I gotta hear about it for some damned eternity, but if I'm correct, you'll die, you'll rot, and you'll never know. Doesn't seem fair.



There are other theories. Reincarnation. Computer simulation. ????????.

I am amazed at those who stop at heaven and hell or drop and rot. I search for what is now. And after 31 years preparing a place to do so, I can finally play with my mental blocks.

The physics experiments are getting real interesting. At the small end; the fusion ignition projects ITER in France, the Large Hadron Collider twixt France and Switzerland, the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Labs in California, etc.

Space probes on the big end. Hale telescope has just achieved double the resolution of Hubble space 'scope. And that thru the atmosphere! CHANDRA, HINODE, SOHO, STEREO, etc. and the old ones Voyagers and Pioneer just now making it to the edge of the heliosphere shock wave and about to see what its like not "under the sun," as Ecclesiastes likes to say.

But all the science explanations are translations that relate to our human view and experience. Dawkins talked of the view from the Burka slit widening. Yes, but things must be translated to the human experience. The temptation seems to be a translation to imaginary actions, particles, and forces. I believe this necessary within limits to enable the technical scientists, the engineers, to build and improve(?) the human condition. but reality really does baffle them. There will always be a next step. So to with consciousness.

This trend to explain data by a given paradigm, to the exclusion of other possible paradigms, breeds arrogance, total obedience, confining of resources, etc., mirrors the theistic crowd that has us in such a quandary.

Understanding the translation of the cell will yield much in the way of understanding group psychology.

How interesting to hear the other day that somewhere Roger Penrose considers the idea that perhaps consciousness is related to the micro-tubules in the cell wall's membrane(s).

OK. The rants done.