• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

Simply, a religious experience to me is anything that causes anyone to become more compassionate, tolerant, patient, humble, and light hearted (not being dragged down by the various vissicitudes if life). Dogmatic religions also have systems within them that work very well in getting some people to realize these truths, but more often these 'shifts in paradigms' get lost within the differing interpretations of holy texts than within a less dogmatic religion.

Somehow what I wrote doesn't get across clearly what I would like to say, but branding birthdays as unChristian based on a few verses seems in some ways to miss the point of the religion. It seems more to me that the birthdays were just a part of the background in the stories.
 
Yes, sabro san, and it's funny because I had the opportunity to know a family who had known the Jackson's and use what had happened in Michel's life as proof of what happens when one leaves the society. Funny.

I think I can understand what you had had in mind Revenant san. It could be that the word 'dogmatic' could be exchanged for a better word. Besides the emotion which comes with the religious experience, there will usually be the 'code of conduct' and it had been this point, taken from the word behave as given in that context, that I had focused on.

What a Christian leader in the year 120 would have said about celebrating ones birthday is unknown. What a Jewish Christian in the year 70 would have said about it as opposed to what a Greek Christian would have could possibly have given us two different views. Each would quite likely have had their own tool.

It does seem to me, however, that it depends on what I would call this 'tool'. And as pointed out, for us today, that is most often a holy text and depending on how one sees the source and purpose of that text, can make the difference in that ones 'code of conduct'. To that extent, I have been saying that testing even the text is necessary.

As another specific example:
The author of the work According to Matthew claims that the resurrected Jeshua had explicitly commanded his disciples to go out and teach people in all nations to observe the things that he had commanded them, and to make disciples. Does one see this claim as being equal to a direct command from "God"? Does one see this as embellishment reflecting the atmosphere of the community in which it had been written, but not any historical event in the life of Jeshua? In what ways can each and every understanding be shown the more correct one?

This much for now...
 
Seem fair to me that a commandment is a commandment. But Christianity is not about keeping the law. It is not a collection of rules and lists of right and wrong. The call is to serve God, to love and worship God, although you can't actually keep the law and it is foolish to try. It was never about perfection, ability, or our goodness, but rather about our imperfection, inability and our inherent sinfullness: Why else would we need a savior or a Lord?
 
A quicky here. Yes, I understand what you're saying there sabro san, yet would say that that concept should be looked at and thought about some; because it is in imperative form, and it does command that the new disciples observe (keep, obey) the commands given--a command to obey that same command if you will.

However, I would reason, after having looked into it some, that the chances that Jeshua (Jesus) had actually said such a thing are next to none--it reflects the leaders of the community from which that written document desire for those within the community more likely. For that reason WS, for example, especially, has put too much weight on proselyting. More later.

Edit I had forgotten to mention that that was at Mt 28:18~20.
 
Last edited:
So, going back to my #367 post on page 15, I'd like to look at the idea of 'error' that I have been pointing to from some time since late last August.

Now sabro san had provided (I think it was him, I copied it, and would have to look it up to find if it had actually been him) a link with some information on the idea of 'inspiration' of the Bible. This ties in with the whole "Word of God" terminology as well as the idea of enerrency.

The strictest view is that what had been written down by those who penned the first of the chain of copies of any document, had come as dictation from that god--YHWH--and thus was true to fact. (to the letter, by the strictest of Jewish religious teachers) In that view, the very words that were said to have been spoken by YHWH, were taken as actually haven been spoken, verbatim, per letter, as had been written down.

In this concept, the information--literal and or figurative--is inspired to the degree that "God" had caused it to be in the minds of the human writers, and that it was not of their own witness necessarily; although the individual style of prose that each writer had had is said to have been allowed. (though no one can show, extrabiblically, how that is known)

To uphold this position, one has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the information included among the several documents which make up the Bible represents one mind--center of intelligence. At the same time, as Strongvoicesforward san had pointed out in a couple of places, this camp would have to show that the information concurs with natural history/nature--since those same writers claim that "God" is responsible for all of nature--which automatically includes natural history as we see it.

I reason and argue that this camp cannot do that, and so their conception is flawed. It is for this very reason that there are other ways of conceptionalizing what the term 'inspired' may mean. I have and am still in the process of showing that understanding of 'being inspired' produces errors, and thus cannot be true.
 
Yeah, but if you believe that this incredible being could speak matter into existence, writing a book through human authors and delivering it through time to modern humans is not really all that impressive.
 
I agree with the sentiment, but would only wonder, then, that how is it that any human living or having lived at any point in time in the most-likely some one million years (and let me stress the word 'ANY') could have known, and opposingly, NOT known of the incredible being and that being's having spoke matter into existence?

If we were to acquiese that the concept that anyone living today could only claim to know that an incredible being could speak matter into existence due to some human having claimed to know that in the very distant past, then how are we to evaluate the validity of that claim?

However, I understand your point, sabro san, and I know that you know too, as you have said before...and I will quote from that Wikipedia.org page here, because it is so true: " Since it is the Bible itself which asserts the infallibility of God, the principle of biblical inerrancy runs the risk of resting on circular reasoning.

So, in answer, I reply--yes. What you have stated I can only see as being true. If one BELIEVES the former predicate, the secondary would be no feat at all. ONLY, how can one demonstrate to a neutral third party that that belief is a fact of natural cosmic history?
 
The reasoning is definitely circular. Proof or disproof outside this circle in any objective fasion requires certain logical steps that are difficult, if not impossible to semantically follow. Terms must be defined, God must be shown to exist and this Word must be connected to God in a certain and causal way. Similarly the disproof falls into the same pitfall. For a neutral third party-- I have to agree that I am at a loss to demonstrate proof of the existence of God, or that this Bible is the word of God.
 
On the matter of creation. If God spoke the universe into existance, as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe surely the same must be true for the Shinto belief of the creation of the world. It is an active religion and therefore must have the same credability as the Judeo-Christian belief system of creation. Or do Conservative Christians only follow logic when it fits into their own agenda?
 
Mycernius said:
On the matter of creation. If God spoke the universe into existance, as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe surely the same must be true for the Shinto belief of the creation of the world. It is an active religion and therefore must have the same credability as the Judeo-Christian belief system of creation.
Click to expand...

Actually, the construct of this statement is not logical at all: Since case A (One assertion by a set of religious sources) is true, Case B (a different assertion by a different religious source) must also be true... Conservative Christians would argue that logic dictates an exclusive monopoly on the truth. The proof and reasoning behind this logic however is a matter of faith and dogma...and cannot as pointed out earlier be proven to a third party. Faith is not science.
 
But isn't creation science trying to pass itself off as a true science rather than a faith inspired idea? They are trying to get it taught in some schools as a valid scientific view. They seem to see faith as truth. (I have a feeling this might go OffTopic somewhere down the line)
 
Creation science in my opinion is crap. Although there are some brilliant and sincere people indulging the practice, you cannot call it scientific. You don't begin with your conclusion and work backwards to interpret the evidence and try to call it science. It is cute. It makes some people feel better, but in the scientific community it has zero validity.

I see faith as truth. I also see faith as a way of interpreting the universe and as such it is as valid as science... It is not however a substitution for science, scientific method or reasoning. Although purposes may slightly overlap, the function and therefore the methods and standards are different.
 
Mycernius said:
On the matter of creation. If God spoke the universe into existance, as Christians, Jews and Muslims believe surely the same must be true for the Shinto belief of the creation of the world.
Click to expand...

If I may, it would probably be found that the Hebrew scriptures started the idea of 'spoken into creation' where as the Shinto idea may be from a tear drop--if my memory serves me right.

At any rate, the speaking and then becoming is definitely from the Torah.
 
I understand the scientific-biological basis of my conception and I also believe that God created me. It is not a conflict. I can also reconcile the scientific explanation of our origin with the creative act of God...
 
I've gotta go hit the hay now, but would hope to get an explanation of that please. I'll check it out later. A rather detailed one would be good, I do believe. Catch you all later !!
 
Correct me if I'm wrong sabro, but in reply to Mars Man inquiry. I think that he might be refering to his parents are responsible for his biological existance, but his soul is from God. (smack me, abuse me, whip me:-p if I am wrong:p )
 
You are quite correct and the analogy is sound. You can't separate the two in this life.... equally a spiritual and natural explanation for the creation of the universe need not conflict.
 
Thanks for the reply Mycernius san; sabro san. I would yet present the challenge that the concept is not as simple as that. However, I would only go into the detail that relates to conceptions within the bounds of Christianity.

One large problem outside of Christianity would be labeling, as closely as possible, just what 'me' is.

Another thought, basically outside of Christianity, is the idea of spiritual. Is it actually not something that is as physical as gravity or relativity of time?

However, regarding that portion of the idea that is relative to the thread, is that of the concept of soul and the concept of spirit. The overall general concepts are not originally Jewish in origin; as best as can be determined. It is true that they appear in especially the post-exilic, 2nd temple period however, but not in the earliest thought.

I would still hope for a detailed explanation, the full hypothesis, if you will, of the idea of the reconciliation of the scientific theory of our being and the idea of a creative act of "God", although I realize that the scientific end would not fit this thread, and that we may run into problems when trying to pull logical analysis on extra-biblical and textual matters from outside into the inside of a loop-reasoning pattern--it might not work. I, for one, will attempt to work at it however, if you all are into it. :cool: :-) :wave:
 
Einstein said something to the effect that the closer scientists get to the secrets of the universe, the more they will see the fingerprints of God.
 
Yes, that is correct. Einstein did say that and I have heard and seen it used before, but never in the emotion of the moment from which the quote was taken. It does not appear as though this was any statement of observation from particle physics or theoretical physics, as to state what appears to be the case learned from studies, but simply a passing comment to a show the depth to which science will be able to reach in nanology (if that term is correct).

However, while understanding what you are saying, would like to see an outline--if you will--of the development your conclusion (the statement) and so am thinking of opening a new thread just for that. I would like to make it right, and have it in the right place, so I'm still thinking. I would appreciate any comments from you, sabro san, and also Mycernius and Tsuyoiko sans.

Thanks !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top