Of another world

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Formendacil, I think you are taking this too persionally.

It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal.

Similarly you have to be aware that the one is objective, the second at least 2/3 historically almost certain, the third is subjective. I have no problem with you believing this.

Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed....

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

As for the next bit well, I no longer believe in an afterlife so .... whatever.. I will carry on trying to live as good a live as I can in this one.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

" It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. " And yet the fundamentalist expect a very much not modern collection of tects to be applied to modern day lives without the interpretation and rationalisation that you have applied to the story of Abraham and Isaac....

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account.

Originally Posted by SPM

This is just to say that, in response to Formy that, by what I have said, I meant no offence to anyone. I was simply "laying my cards on the table". There is much in Christianity (and other faiths) that troubles me and, as some of these issues were, I thought, relevant to the ongoing discussion, I thought it necessary to identify them. There is intransigence on both "sides" yes (although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes) but everyone has to have a starting point in a discussion. I am certainly willing to adapt, and even change, my opinions if I am persuaded as to the merits of a particular approach or argument. Of course, in this, I am guided by rationality, rather than faith, as you will probably have picked up, and in this regard there will always be something of an "unbridgeable gap" between those who are "of faith" and those who are not.

I think Mormegil may have very well been right in saying, in Werewolf, that I like to live on the edge... I've roused up a good deal more debate/noise than I needed to by posting as I did on this thread...

Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue...

Anyway, I found that ironically amusing, coming at the time that it did...

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation.

I think you're falling into a trap of your own making here - trying to force all other mythologies to fit within the limitations of the Biblical account. Minotaurs, Hippogriffs, Unicorns & the like do not belong in the Biblical world, anymore than Hobbits or Elves do. This is the problem with seeing the Biblical account as the Archetype from which all other mythologies 'devolved'. The main problem with the Judeo-Christian approach is its division of all things/beings into good or evil. In the myths from which these creatures came they are not all 'evil' - most are 'neutral', or even 'Good'. But if you try & force them into a Judeo-Christian model you will find it very hard to place them on the side of the Angels & inevitably end up 'demonising' them - which is in fact what happened with the Old Gods & Goddesses, the old scared places, the old tales - as I pointed out.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

That doesn't cause me a problem, actually. The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'. Anyway, worrying about what happens after death is about the best guarantee of not living a fulfilling life as I can think of. Of course, Christianity is by no means the only religion that offers a promise of an after-life, & I think I actually prefer some of the Pagan visions of an afterdeath state - the Wiccan idea of the Summerlands is very appealing for instance. Whatever, I have always had a deep sense of trust in God, or the Universe, or whatever label you want to stick on it, & whether I continue in some way after death or not has no effect on that.

Hell actually makes sense.

No it doesn't. It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children. Meister Eckhart posited that Hell is non-existence - God can only know the Good, & to the extent that he is aware of any Good in anything He will hold it in existence (or in Eckhart's theology He will 'continue to create it's existence') - therefore it is not in Hell. If, however, an individual were, through its own choices, to cease to have any good in it, God would cease to be aware of them & of their need to be constantly 'created' & they would simply cease to be. This would not involve 'punishment' or rejection by God, or damnation, etc, it would simply happen.

Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is.

I'm sure the followers of all religions could show how 'rational' their belief is - it just depends on how you define 'rational'.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

No it doesn't. It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children.

At some point the Father must say, enough, you've made your choice, and though I love you, I will abide by your wishes, self-destructive as they may be. Does God hold us captive if we choose not to be with Him?

Meister Eckhart posited that Hell is non-existence - God can only know the Good, & to the extent that he is aware of any Good in anything He will hold it in existence (or in Eckhart's theology He will 'continue to create it's existence') - therefore it is not in Hell.

But God knows the Devil (they talk at times), and as the creator of all things, must have created this Hell as well. As you and Eckhart say, maybe Hell is non-existance, but what does that exactly mean to a being that is not limited by time or space? You once existed, and so must still exist somewhere in God's view. Maybe that what Hell is, being trapped in God's RAM.

Or does God dump you down the memory hole, and this begs the question: can an omniscient omnipresent god will itself to forget something? Sorry, but don't have enough coffee for that one.

If, however, an individual were, through its own choices, to cease to have any good in it, God would cease to be aware of them & of their need to be constantly 'created' & they would simply cease to be. This would not involve 'punishment' or rejection by God, or damnation, etc, it would simply happen.

The assumption is that God is absolutely Good, and so cannot fathom one degree of unGood? All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

I'm sure the followers of all religions could show how 'rational' their belief is - it just depends on how you define 'rational'.

Agreed. Great thing about this forum is that I've learned that people are so different. Why, some even think that Balrogs have wings.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal.

Hope that you've taken all that I've posted as a 'questioning,' not an attack.

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get. Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

After a time you figure that this is all we have, and so you better get it done now, and that when you're dead, you're dead. Now, I understand grace and works and all, but consider: I choose to live a moral and honorable life (hopefully as an example for my children, and note that I preemptively and unequivocally state here and now that I have my flaws as well, like not loving PJ's films 100% ) not for any future reward, and despite thinking that this four score is all we get. Some who believe likewise may choose hedonism, and many think that without God or a god or an afterlife that that's where we'd all be, but knowing that one day I will be stardust or worm food or whathaveyou still doesn't make me deviate from the straight and narrow way. To me it's just a simpler way to live - I'm lazy - and those who've had some science may understand it as the lowest energy state.

Compare that to some who believe in a reward.

Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue...

I enjoy the rationality of Christianity, until, that is, we come to the 'faith boundary,' then there is where we part company. Not that science is completely free of bias and hubris and opinion and argument from authority - it has its warts too. I just am bothered when a completely logical and fact-based argument makes some pretzel twist to hit the only permissible target in the end.

I too welcome PM discussion if anyone so desires (or if I'm beating dead equine or steering the thread into a boring corner).

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Formendacil]It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal

Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed....

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.

Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.

Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account.

QUOTE]

Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut.

Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience.

This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't he Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut.

Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience.

You know... I'm almost disappointed. I was hoping for some amusingly clever theory/equation for Catholics being 2/3 Christian...

Also, interestingly enough... the Resurrection of Jesus was the main rational reason, in the book I mentioned above and which I forget the name of and no longer have access to. And not just how the Resurrection, if it happened, validated Christianity, but how the Resurrection is the most logical explanation for what actually happened to Jesus and the disciples.

I seem to be having an interesting day, making connections...

This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't the Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....

Well, it doesn't necessarily turn you into a hedonist- I quite agree (I don't think I intimated that I did... did I?). However, it seems like a terribly, terribly sad thought... Blame it on my being young, but I don't see a problem with living forever- especially in a perfect Heaven. I consider myself fully capable of amusing, entertaining, and occupying myself forever- especially with the good health, peaceful relations, and advanced mind and body that is part and parcel with being in Heaven.

For one thing, I want to create a fictional word with as much or more depth than Middle-Earth.

[Mithalwen]

I did read a book where a lawyer presented the evidence for the resurrection - he had set out to discount it and ended up converting himself......

I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

The assumption is that God is absolutely Good, and so cannot fathom one degree of unGood? All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

That was Eckhart's theory. God has no 'evil' aspect, therefore cannot know evil - or even recognise its existence. This is because evil does not have a real existence, being (as Boethius stated) nothing. Evil is a 'void' hence God cannot be aware of it.

Eckhart believed that God was constantly creating (because He is a Creator in His essence) everything - even the past & future are being constantly created, not just the present is. Nothing can exist unless it is being constantly created. He also believed that we are judged on our intentions - hence, if you so all you can to feed the hungry then from God's POV you actually have fed all the hungry: ie, you fed as many as you could, & if it had been possible you would have fed them all therefore it was only limited resources (for which you cannot be held responsible) which prevented you from feeding them all. From that perspective Hitler would be judged to have killed all the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled simply because he did all he could to bring that about.

The point is, God cannot create evil, only good, therefore if someone had become completely evil He could not continue to create them as He would not even be aware that they needed to be created....

Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing.

All of the Christian God's subjects/children are by definition ungood, yet exist. Maybe I'm just not seeing it.

No, they have some good in them - mainly in that they have been redeemed, but also, in Eckhart's view they must have some good in them otherwise they would not actually exist.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing.

I'm no theologian (I think we need a symbol that means the same thing, as in this thread and others we all've been starting with that caveat ), but do not Christians believe that there is a real Satan? Isn't that what lmp and I've been circling, the incarnation of the Fallen? So Eckhart can think whatever, but I am using an accepted interpretation of the Bible. My original comment, that Hell makes sense, was stated assuming that we are talking about a Christian world view that many hold.

[davem]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm no theologian (I think we need a symbol that means the same thing, as in this thread and others we all've been starting with that caveat ), but do not Christians believe that there is a real Satan? Isn't that what lmp and I've been circling, the incarnation of the Fallen? So Eckhart can think whatever, but I am using an accepted interpretation of the Bible. My original comment, that Hell makes sense, was stated assuming that we are talking about a Christian world view that many hold.

Well, Eckhart's views were considered heretical.

I accept that some Christians believe there is a real Satan. Many don't. I don't think that makes them less Christian though my knowledge of Christianity is admittedly theoretical.

[Lalwendë]

Excuse my poor typing and rambling before I begin, I'm not very well.

I was a thoroughly conventional Protestant (C of E brand) until I read Tolkien and started exploring some of the wonderful stories and ideas that I had heard more deeply, especially exploring what those who came before me believed, and what those who were in other parts of our world believed.

I'm not that way nowadays, but nor am I a fully paid up Atheist. I can't remeber who said that Atheism was a 'broad, breezy highway' - might have been Russell? But anyway, I didn't find it to be so. Experience has shaped me.

I have experienced that moment of death, and I can say now that the one emotion I felt in that split second was utter disappointment. I can't forget that. It left me knowing that whatever happens, even if there is life after death, it's nothing like what we have been blessed with right now. This is our only chance for any kind of happiness in the way we see it now. Any other kind of happiness is unknowable. If there's a god, it wouldn't want us to waste that mad chance that we have been given to be alive - and the chance that we came to be is a chance in a million anyway.

But there is no way I can accept the concept of either Hell or the Devil as a place or a supernatural being. Hell is here now, it's being bullied, being robbed. The Devil is also something here, it's that thing which gets into people just like you or me which makes us tut at people in queues, shout at kids, etc. Or worse. Hell and the Devil are just us. God is in the best we can be, no matter what our religion is, or even if we don't have one. If there is god, then it will accept everyone no matter if they reject it. And I'm deliberately not saying He because that sticks in my throat - as a woman I find it ridiculous that god is He, especially as women are the ones who go thorugh all the pain to prodcue the human race.

That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth?

I'm truly universalist (and I also deeply respect anyone who has a religion - I see the individual's religion as deeply personal and will only criticise it where it impinges on the good of other people) and I find that sense of the Universal in Tolkien's work more than anything else. I do find god in his work, a sense of limitless possibility and a sense of awe, but not one kind of god, one brand.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling

And that's what gets me too. The concepts of physics amaze and astound me, the idea that we are in the second age of the five ages of the universe, that really we are indestructible... What's really depressing is when people are unwilling to consider all of that, either because they can't be bothered or are afraid of it. That to me is a really miserable existence. Godless even.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth?

Because God was the one who wrote it...

Ahem!

Anyway, the main reason I quoted/posted here was to say how terribly sad the relationship between Science and Religion has become. Prior to the 20th Century, and even ofttimes therein, the great scientists tended, by and large, to fairly devout people- typically Christians, if from the Western world. Newton, Galileo, Einstein- all believed in God (and according to an organised faith) and studied His creation out of a desire to understand the things He wrought (I simplify, somewhat...).

Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past.

The two are not natural enemies, though, and it is entirely possible to be both a progressive scientist and a devout -even a conservative- believer.

Alas that things appear otherwise these days...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get.
Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies.
----------------------------------------
Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is.

Many times even the most learned have never quite thought their personal views to their end... I think we could rephrase your question: "What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is only a small part of what we get?"

Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?).

And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary.

Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Many times even the most learned have never quite thought their personal views to their end... I think we could rephrase your question: "What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is only a small part of what we get?"

Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?).

I get what you're saying....

But what if your chance to move on the next level is determined by what you do in this one?

To use the Werewolf analogy, if this is all we get, then at the end of Day 1, we all die- good or evil- it doesn't matter. All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over.

If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife".

And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary.

Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.

Perhaps so...

The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible.

If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not.

And that, as I see it, the great difference between Christianity and other faiths: Christianity has a "Great Proof": the Resurrection. Scholars, historians, and others deny that Christ was ever raised, because to admit it undermines everything they say about Christianity in general. Rightly or wrongly, they HAVE to hold to that position if Christianity is to be disproved. No other faith has a singular "Great Proof" of the same nature.

[littlemanpoet]

I was wrong earlier about the deaths in the Flood being a mystery. It's clear in the Bible why the people were killed. God judged them and found them wanting. This answer raises heated objections amongst some of us here, as in, "What right did God have to judge them and find them wanting, and then go and kill them? Wasn't the whole thing a set-up anyway? Isn't God to blame for the Fall in the first place, since He knew what was going to happen the whole time?"

God's foreknowledge is not a rational reason to blame him. Foreknowledge leads one to a choice whether to halt the direction something is going, or not. In this case he would have had to halt the free choices of Adam. To do so would have turned Adam into slaves to God, which is not what God wanted. I've outlined this in a previous post.

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made.

Belief is a choice.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God. We mustn't be misled about this. Belief or unbelief are choices. To say "I cannot bring myself to believe in God because: (fill in the blank)", is to say "I'm making a choice based on this set of standards or principles." We're setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims. This is to place our understanding in a superior position vis-a-vis God. And this is precisely the same choice Adam made.

Belief is a choice.

As to the Flood - I think the problem we have is not simply that God killed evil people, but that He killed everybody & everything - including children & animals.

To your final point, I think that one could argue that God must be bound by a moral code of right & wrong, & that He cannot simply set aside those rules. If killing en masse, holocausts, 'ethnic cleansing' are wrong they are wrong - whoever does them. If those rules, that moral code, has been laid down by God He cannot simply ignore it when it suits. Jesus exhorts his followers to 'be like their Father in Heaven'. God cannot simply start over by mass slaughter of sentient beings. Giving free will to his children places a responsibility on Him.

I'd say its perfectly valid to judge God by the standards of Good & evil which He Himself set down or He is being hypocritical.

Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the Hebrews had inherited the tale of the Flood & attempted to account for it by involving God in it. Unfortunately, it makes God look bad. Or rather, it required them to make the victims look bad, so that they 'deserved' what they got.

In other words, we are not 'setting up standards by which we are judging the veracity of God's claims', we are simply requiring God to abide by the standards He Himself gave us.

What we come back to is the question of whether whatever God does is 'Good' simply because He does it, or whether there is an objective standard of morality which God also is bound - ie, not 'whatever God does is Good', but 'God only does Good because He acts within the moral code'. But what if He doesn't act within the Moral code - can His actions still be considered 'good'?

The problem I have with your argument is that we can never know where we stand with God, or what constitutes 'Good' at all. It makes God an amoral, arbitrary figure, who just does whatever the hell He wants & declares it 'Good'.

Belief or unbelief are choices.

No they aren't - unless belief is irrelevant to anything. Belief/unbelief is not like the choice between coffee or tea. Belief is a response, not a choice, & therefore it must be a response to something. It is a spiritual state or it is nothing worth bothering about. To just sort of shrug your shoulders & say 'Oh well, why not - I've nothing better to do' trivialises the whole thing. For me to decide now 'I'll believe in God' when I feel nothing of the sort is as valueless as my deciding 'I'll believe in aliens' or 'I'll believe in reincarnation' or 'I'll believe the moon's made of green cheese' ('whatever the scholars or the evidence says').

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I was wrong earlier about the deaths in the Flood being a mystery. It's clear in the Bible why the people were killed. God judged them and found them wanting. This answer raises heated objections amongst some of us here, as in, "What right did God have to judge them and find them wanting, and then go and kill them? Wasn't the whole thing a set-up anyway? Isn't God to blame for the Fall in the first place, since He knew what was going to happen the whole time?"

I don't blame God for destroying what He created. His rules, rewards and penalties. Interesting though is that in this case mankind was drowned but not given a chance to be immersed in water in a completely different fashion, like by John the Baptizer. How many years did man have to wait until God reached out with His grace? How many years did man toil under the Law until it was shown to be only a guide? We have God stating that by living by the Law one can "live" (Leviticus 18:5), yet later in Romans we learn it's really all about faith in the Lord, or having faith in the Law, or... even those who 'naturally' conform to the unknown Law are saved. Or not.

My point is that those drowned people, like the other others that are seen in the Old Testament, are beyond redemption (or at least that's how I read it). It's not until later that Paul tells us that the 'Tetragrammaton' is not only the God of Abraham but of all humans. It's just confusing. And even more disturbing is that after all of that death, we still have sin (Gen 9:20), so what really was the point?

Genesis 10 lets us know where each tribe came from, all from Noah. Later in the Old Testament we will have kinslaying, as all of these tribes are family. If God intended on wiping out the 'dark angel' seed, then He might have chosen a different vehicle, as apparently Noah's children still had the taint.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

All we get is one Day 1, so there's no point in hiding one's Wolfishness or Giftedness, but one had may as well blow the game now, because it's over.

Someone once said, that if your belief system is what's keeping you here, then by all means, keep believing! And note that I've read about people that existed thousands of years ago, and so even though they might be dead, they still have made an impact on my life. And from a biological POV, my immortality is in my children (it's also most likely to be the cause of my mortality... ).

If, however, there is an afterlife, then it makes sense to play the game according to the rules, because otherwise you won't make it to the "Afterlife".

I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?

The Resurrection of Christ, to paraphrase St. Paul, is a "stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks" (or have I got their positions mixed up?). Resurrection does not seem logically possible.

But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?

If, however, the Resurrection DID happen (and that is the simplest explanation to fit all the facts), then it seems a good deal more rational to believe in the Resurrection- and therefore the entire Faith that Christ taught, than not.

I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical.

And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

God's foreknowledge is not a rational reason to blame him. Foreknowledge leads one to a choice whether to halt the direction something is going, or not. In this case he would have had to halt the free choices of Adam. To do so would have turned Adam into slaves to God, which is not what God wanted.

So God judges humans based on our choices, and our deeds. Adam chose their own way rather than obedience. Each of us chooses whether to believe God or disbelieve God.

This kind of argument rings of a particularly nasty version of western individualism. I'm not thinking, that individualism as such is bad - quite on the contrary - but only, that we have kind of unleashed a beast with it here in the west. That one seems to be a cornerstone of much of modern spirituality as well...

So. Why do we always contemplate on the acting subject? It was Adam's (or Eve's) decision, or the murderer's decision, Hitler's or Stalin's decision etc. which we analyze. When do we look at the "innocent" victims: those raped, killed, tortured? The children of Babylon, whose heads should be broken towards the stairs? Those under 10-year-old moslim girls raped and killed in ex-Jugoslavia, The children and women in Ruanda, the gypsies and mentally handicapped in Nazi-Germany... You can continue the list almost indefinitively. When do we ask about their choices, and their deeds? What wrong choice had made the 3-year old, her head crushed on the cement by drunken christian serbs? And we can't say, that the culprits will have to pay later with Gods wrath landing on them: how will that bring that child back?

All this wrong and evil.

And HE knew it already with HIS foresight? So was it good and loving FATHER'S move to give people free will? Just to test the individualistic actors (mostly self-centered males) with the murder, rape and anything you can come up with, acted against equally precarious souls of others???

I just can't see the point... not to speak of love.

[davem]

I have to say I go along with Nogrod here - where's the freedom & freewill of the victims? If so-&-so is merely acting with his God-given freewill when he punches me on the nose, where is my freedom not to be punched?

It seems that God has specifically arranged things so that the offenders have all the freedom & the good have none. As to punishment after death it seems merely vindictive. The only value in punishment is as a deterent - either of the perpetrator or of others who may be considering similar bad behaviour, but punishment after death in Hell can achieve neither of these things as for the perpetrator its too late to be deterred & no-one in this world can be deterred, because they don't witness the punishment.

If God's going to intervene against the offenders why doesn't He do it when it would do some good. If He's only going to intervene when its too late He should just forget it & find something useful to do.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

I have a friend who believed that, "logically" it was better to believe, as you don't waste much and have everything to gain, than to not believe and find out that you were wrong. But like many have observed, how does one know which belief system or what diety, sect, group, interpretation (i.e. partial-preterism versus dispensationalism) to choose?

How about the one with the most convincing proofs?

I suspect I'm going to be told that this is "subjective" or "personal"...

But, in the Christian sense, it does as it's a pretty common occurrence. Isn't that why when Jesus went and raised many from the dead that he was thought to be the return of Elijah? Also, Elisha raised the dead. And didn't the bones of one of the twain also return the dead to life? And I quoted to lmp my confusion with Mark 9:37-39, as it seems that there are 'free-lance' miracle workers in the mix. Anyway, if one believes that the dead can truly be raised, then why not the Resurrection? Is it because Jesus brought Himself back? How do we know that another didn't help?

Well, you are correct, Jesus did bring Himself back. That, in and of itself, does not imply that He did not have help. But consider that He said that He would "raise Himself up"- and then he comes back to life. No one else raised to life, such as Lazarus, made that claim before or after being raised.

Furthermore, though raised, Lazarus and all those others who were restored to life must still face death again. In the case of Jesus, that is not so. It is an eternal Resurrection.

I've read many simpler explanations, and even if I believed as you, I would think that there must! be some doubt for the believer to overcome. Think about it: where would my free will/choice be if even on my best/worst day there was no way that I could refute the divinity of Jesus Christ? It'd be to me like ranting against gravity. And before you say it, I might be skeptical but I'm not that skeptical.

Well, you CAN refute it if you choose to. That just doesn't mean that the argument you are using is more rational. It may be more convoluted or complicated, but you (I mean "you" in a not-necessarily-you sense) HAVE to go along with it if you don't want to accept Jesus.

Holocaust deniers are an excellent example. They are denying that something actually happened, explaining it away using means that, we who accept it as historical fact, would find rather... silly.

What's more, I'd be more than a little curious to see/read any of these "simpler explanations".

And please note that I'm hoping not to be attacking, but asking for more information (though none of us here or anywhere might be able to answer), so if I've offended, note that it is unintentional.

No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

No offence... yet. I'm either developing thicker skin, or the vibes I was getting about this thread have stopped... Or something else. Possibly Divine...

That's one thing I love about the Christians - and that said with no sarcastic overtones. I couldn't think of the kind of reaction from people of some other faiths... but could think of it from still certain other belief-systems.

I hope, it's the questions that do the "battle" here (I haven't yet have time to read all of the correspondence here - not to talk of you people discussing earlier about these topics - which you surely have done, I just "hunch" it) - for my part it is just that way. And even if we never know, how other people take different inquiries and questionings, I still think, that honest questions are worth more than multiple muddied or unthought of answers...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The idea of just going on & on & on, for ever & ever & ever would seem equally 'hellish'.

Thinking on this was a way I could drive myself insane. .... until a certain experience that changed everything. My sense of continuous serial longevity (remember that?) was a feeling of the Void; just me and foreverness. I could imagine God there, but could never really connect. Until a certain experience. It can still sometimes still give me the heeby jeebies, but not for long.

Originally Posted by davem

It would require God to just shrug His shoulders at the suffering of His children.

No. God wants every last one of his children to experience eternal life to its fullest, but he wants relationships. That necessitates free choice. Free choice requires that his children must be allowed to choose against Him. It's the nature of reality. There is love, and the absence of love. There is God, and the absence of God. It had to be that way.

I find Meister Eckhart's thought to be too divorced from reality. It doesn't present God the way the Bible presents God. The Bible's God is more real, more emotional, more personal.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect.

I understand the sense of relief you feel; however, relief is not the same as joy.

As to the existence of a Satan, the gospels record Jesus as having spoken of a real being whom he called Satan.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Christianity is not first of all a religion. It has taken that shape, and more's the pity. The Church, which is what Christ instituted, is a living, breathing organism ..... which also has gotten confused with the organized thing that works sometimes better, sometimes heinously .... but the Church that Christ instituted, the real one, is where the Faith of Jesus Christ really resides. Quite often that merges and overlaps with the various organized religious bodies professing to be Christianity, but not necessarily.

Science deals in the natural world, that which is repeatably provable in terms of controlled tests verified by the five senses. It cannot prove anything in terms of Christianity. Nor need the Church bother itself with railing against the theories currently in vogue in Science. The two realms do not overlap. I read in my newspaper how a scientific experiment was done to determine the benefit of prayer for surgery patients, with a control group and all. The experiment showed that those who knew they were being prayed for had more problems than those who didn't know. Does this prove that prayer doesn't work? It doesn't prove that it doesn't work, nor that it does, because prayer is a thing directly connected with God. God cannot be made the subject of scientific experiments. It just doesn't work that way.

I have a lot more to catch up on, it seems. I shall return. (up to 113)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

My problem is with the idea of taking a book & simply believing it

You may have noticed that no one actually does this. They may think they do, but they don't. There are genetic, cultural, familial, and other experiential factors that come into play. For example, that I come from a Dutch, Reformed (protestant Christian) background, am third generation American, all play a role in what I believe. So does the fact that I was introduced to Tolkien's "Riddles in the Dark", the revised version, when I was 8 years old, and found my life changed forever.

Originally Posted by davem

In other words this desire/obsession with what happens after we die is what stops us really being alive now.

Indeed. It shouldn't be an obsession. You have chosen not to think about it, and I have chosen to resolve the issue by deciding to accept Jesus at his word. For both of us it's a done deal (although I hope that you reconsider ). My life is now all about, "what to do now"? Of course, this means for me being aware of God's presence, and living within the "confines" of heaven already.

Originally Posted by davem

Belief is 'negative' because it effectively gets between us & reality. We look at the world through 'belief-coloured lenses' & don't see it, experience it, as it really is. It attempts to classify & quantify the universe, & ends up trying to break it up & force it into pigeon-holes.

This reminds me of another poem, although it names the problem not belief, but analysis:

I had a moment
clear -
like a water balloon
small as the space between
cupped hands -
big as day.

In and through it I could
taste God and touch being
see all colors of earth, water, sky
smell fresh cut grass and rich loam
hear bird song and squirrel chatter.

With rational blade I took hold
bisected, laid it open to dis-
cover what was inside
dissected to analyze its parts
diced and weighed to evaluate its worth
to discern the whole.

I lost the moment
having never lived it.

© 2001, littlemanpoet

(You may notice that this was written in an "Emily Dickinson" phase )

hence LMP's attempt to account for mythological creatures by assigning their origin to 'fallen Angels' of 'demons'.

Interesting. It seems that Tolkien's conception of evil was quite complex by comparison, more mature. Though this properly belongs to the "Absolutely Evil" thread, I'll just mention that Tolkien described in LotR that good and evil cut through everyone, rather than any character being clearly good or clearly evil (except perhaps Sauron...?)

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

My major sticking point with Christianity (and with other religions too, e.g. Islam) is the belief that there is one road to God. I believe otherwise, but thinking about it logically, of course believers/followers of each religion will say that their way is the only way. If they said other ways were as valid then what incentive would there be for people to stick with one faith?

This makes sense. But it's an attempt at a psychological explanation for something that doesn't immediately make sense to you. I might prefer to believe that there's more than one road to God, but there's this constant theme repeated by Jesus (who is my God) in all of the gospels: "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." Kind of hard for me to argue with that, psychological leanings being what they are....

Originally Posted by Formendacil

people who are Christian can fail to make the journey to Heaven.

Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.

Originally Posted by davem

'It all sounds good, but where's the proof?'

There's only one way you'll ever discover the proof, and that's to take the test.

As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.

Originally Posted by davem

Bit pejorative there - the God you believe in is 'the True God' other people's Gods are 'false' or 'demonic'. You see, you're imposing your belief on the world as though its objectively true without supplying any proof.

It's not meant to be pejorative. I've been quite honest that "I believe" these things. I've also been forthcoming that "proofs" are quite limited. I'm very aware that all of my beliefs rest on a set of paradigms that I accept, by choice. That's the nature of belief. I don't apologize for what I believe, and I don't expect anyone else to either. Anything I do say by way of answering questions posed to me, is going to come in the context of what I believe.

Originally Posted by davem

No it doesn't heal them. Go tell that to the survivors. Its just platitudes.

Not if you believe the human is eternal, which I do. If the human isn't eternal, then there is no worse tragedy, especially since the suffering becomes frankly meaningless. The universe I understand, has at the back of it a God who hungers for all his children to know him, and wants to heal them and give them unimagined joy.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not talking about God hurling thunderbolts, or sending universal floods, just intervening to stop children being raped or pensioners being mugged or maniacs flying airliners into tower blocks.

But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

Originally Posted by davem

Again, you're 'assuming that which is to be proved'. Where is the evidence for a 'Fall'?

In the heart of every human.

Originally Posted by alatar

I always saw the god of the Old Testament as much different from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The OT one is more tribal and punishing; the NT more forgiving and loving.

One must factor in the increasing knowledge of God over time. The earliest Hebrews didn't understand God as well as, say, Daniel, for whom by that time there had been a good 500 years or more of dealings with God; time to get to know Him better.

God can't be unchanging, or else there could not be an incarnation of Jesus Christ. It amazes me how systematic theologians seem to just blithely pass over this little stumbling block in their understanding of God. God did change.

Originally Posted by alatar

Would it be impolite to ask what your deepest desire, met seemingly, was?

To experience real joy in Christ. It took 45 years of living before that happened.

Originally Posted by alatar

See Isaiah 45:6-7. Are we sure that concepts like 'all good' and 'sin' (though we do know that He hates it) apply to such a being?

It was a rhetorical question that I threw out there somewhat haphazardly. I'm not prepared to back it up with sound argument. Note that in the passage, God is the author both of peace and calamity. Does that bother you? I suppose it might. God's motivation for calamity is to bring his children to him.

Originally Posted by alatar

God is not so limited, and yet...What always sparks me is any god that would allow the innocent (children and the child-like) to suffer. Death, okay, but suffering? He could end it, but chooses not to do so for some purpose "beyond our understanding." Those words are ashes in the mouths of anguished parents.

And should never be said to anguished parents. Jesus did alleviate suffering while he was on earth, wherever he found it. It's a Christ-followers role to "be Jesus" to those in anguish, not to offer platitudes, but to be present in the midst of their suffering with them. Bearing another's burdens.

Originally Posted by alatar

On the other hand, seeing Truth in a text, though dictated by God yet written and printed and interpreted and heard by human hands and minds and ears is unquestionalby 100% accurate.

This is an unnecessary hang-up, my friend. The crucial matter is not its accuracy (even though I do generally accept it as so), but its power to change lives.

And by the way, there's still those Flood people that got the wrath (am I whipping a dead horse?).

I answered this. Noah preached righteousness for hundreds of years (according to the account, a good 500), and none turned from their evil ways, not one.

One additional thing: if you want to know what the Christian view of God's character is, it is found in the story of Jesus while he lived on earth.

(up to 155, and I gotta quit) I'll be away at St. Gregory's Abbey in Three Rivers, MI from Sat. noon until Sun. evening, so I'll be away from here for a bit....

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.

I think you may have misinterpreted me... You seem to be taking my meaning to infer that Catholics alone are necessarily saved, while the rest of Christianity is out there with the Hindus and Buddhists on the Maybe list.

That was not my meaning at all!

What I was trying to express is that being a Christian- be it a Christian of the Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox persuasion is not a guarantee to getting into Heaven. If you live a Christian life, then, yes, it would seem you've got a good chance- regardless of your denomination. However, I was speaking with the people in mind who CALL themselves Christian, who go to Church and put a semblance of a Christian lifestyle, in complete hypocrisy. These people are Catholic as often as they are Protestant, and that fact that they are formal members of any Church will not save them from Hell if they deserve it.

I hope that clears it up...

As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.

Contrary to what you were thinking, this Roman Catholic at least (although Roman Catholic is a bit of an antiquated term. In this era we try to remember and recognize our Greek Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Catholic, and so forth, brethern. Latin-rite Catholic is more accurate, and reminds the reader that the "Roman" Church is just a rite of the Catholic Church) would agree with you. Hymns, rituals, and the like are not going to get you into Heaven. I say this in agreement with my last remark of clarification.

However, I would take issue with the use of the word "paraphrenalia" with regards to ritual. This is not mere extraneous "stuff", this is a very real and tangible way of connecting to God, person to person. Again, the issue of the Sacraments comes up. God realized that Man needs physical connections, that he needs Real connections to God. The Sacraments are physical in nature. There is never any doubt as to whether they've occured or not- any newspaper reporter could watch them and document them. The Eucharist in particular is a Real, Physical connection with God.

Now, some of the arguments in the Church over the DETAILS of ritual, etc, are somewhat extraneous. In God's eyes, I doubt it really matters if we kneel or stand for the Consecration. I doubt if it really matters if the people respond "and also with you" or "and with your spirit also". But the reason that people debate these things, their deep love and concern for the rituals, ultimately stems from a noble devotion to God Himself, for these rituals are very important part of the means by which we know Him.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Now c'mon Form! You can't be serious! And this is not a point of an afterlife or something like that - for that, I think well all have freedom (within cultural constraints) to believe what we will. But really: a christian, believing in one God - or a moslem, believing in one God - what's the difference? If you look at the history of these religions, none! Only Islam is the updated version of Christianity - so being a Christian is kind of using Windows 98 still? You can't be serious about this Hell-stuff anyways. That's just a puerile-metaphysical-void-nightmare -thing most people get over with as they grow up...

This seems to be written very tongue in cheek... I hope it is... The differences between Islam and Christianity are many and varied, and to call Islam an "updated Christianity" is to ignore the numerous contradictions between the two religions. Christians have claimed Jesus as the Son of God since the time of Jesus Himself. Even if you throw out all the Bible as evidence, Jesus was accepted as God by Christians before the 1st Century was out. Islam, started in the 600s, completely disagrees with this. The two may have similarities, but they are not compatible- at all.

And yes, Hell exists. Theologians have jumped all over the place in guessing what it's like, but it exists. And, quite frankly, I have no desire or intention of going there and seeing firsthand what it's like.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So you are going to heaven? Which here is the primary motivation in your life: securing yourself, or being good? This I would call something like crooked utilitarianism (which indeed the "golden rule" can be interpreted as too?). So you are "offered benefits"? Like the store that gives you three for the price of two? Which one do you see better in moral sense: the one that does good without believing to be paid for it, or the one awaiting a nice return?

Just think this question carefully. It's a stinger! Sorry to mention it.

It is possible for two reasons to produce the same results- and to be present in the same person and situation, is it not?

In my own particular case, I will not deny that going to Heaven and avoiding Hell are major reasons for living a Christian life. However, as I live that life, the more I follow it for those "selfish" reasons, the more I want to follow them for the right reasons. I'm far from perfect, and always will be, but there is a genuine interest when helping others, to help them because they need it, and because that is what God would want. It's a very basic "I want to please God" feeling that I feel when being somewhat successful at living a Christian life. The ramifications of "maybe I'll get into Heaven" or "whew! a little further from Hell" are not thoughts that occur to me immediately, but later, if I'm thinking things over too much.

Finally, is it WRONG to want to go to Heaven, and to avoid Hell, and to be Christian for that sole reason? I think not. If you truly want to avoid Hell and get into Heaven, you cannot help but do as God directs, and love your neighbour as yourself, and as if he or she was Jesus in person. And if you start to treat other people as though God was in them (meaning respectfully and lovingly) then you cannot fail but come to love God as well.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And anyhow. What are you going to do there - and what is the meaning of your life here?

I shall love the Lord my God with all my mind and heart, body and soul, and I shall love my neighbour as myself.

Or, at least, that's what I'm going to try and do. There is nothing more than that.

[davem]

First, Nogrod's statement that Islam is 'merely' an updated version of Christianity. It isn't. If anything its an updated version of Judaism which completely by-passes Christianity. Both Judaism & Islam emphasise the 'separateness' of Creator & creation, of God & man. The creation in both is seen as fallen & apart from the Creator.

Christianity teaches that the Creation has been redeemed, the split healed:

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" was written by Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, in De inc., 54, 3: PG, 192B, in his refutation of Arius during the First Ecumenical Council
Some people think that St. Irenaeus of Lyons may have said it before Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria.

The image: Christ hangs on the cross - he is 'transfixed', uniting in himself in that moment all the broken parts of Creation: God & Man, life & death, heaven & earth. Day & night are joined at that moment as the sky darkens. Christ becomes the central point of the new Creation & the Fall is healed. Without this act the Fall still operates, the Universe is still broken & the creation is still sick.

Islam denies this act because it denies that Jesus was God & merely a Prophet (who would be 'superceded' by Muhammed, who goes on to bring fire & the sword to most of the known world - & marrying a six year old girl btw- though it must be acknowledged that the marriage was not consummated till she was nine). Yet this is an act which only the Creator of the Universe could accomplish, because it would require the active participation of God to bring it about.

Now, I'm not changing my spots here - if Christianity is true that act would be vitally necessary, but I don't see any evidence that it is true - in a literal sense. It is a myth which is internally self consistent - like all good secondary world should be if they are to convince & move the reader & produce a sense of Eucatastrophe.

But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.

But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff. If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least. If I was to go around punishing everyone who failed to acknowledge me - not saying thank you when I hold a door open for them, or barging past me in a queue, I'd pretty soon get a reputation for being an overly sensitive so-&-so who ought to lighten up & get a life. I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out. If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff.

Ah. Thanks for your persistence. God has put something in place to stop the really bad stuff, or at least when it happens, to be right there and fix or heal it. However, this 'something' has done by and large a deplorable job. No excuse. It's called the Church. That means us folks who say we follow Jesus. We've failed God and our fellow humans a lot over the last 2,000 years, and it's something we ought to be very remoresful about.

If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least.

but he doesn't. He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.

I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out.

That's one way of thinking about why he sent Jesus.

If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.

But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?

[quote=Nogrod]Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D.

davem's concerns about power are apt. However, the Church should not seek earthly power. It's not what Jesus put it here for.

I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God

must run......

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

IThis seems to be written very tongue in cheek... I hope it is... The differences between Islam and Christianity are many and varied, and to call Islam an "updated Christianity" is to ignore the numerous contradictions between the two religions. Christians have claimed Jesus as the Son of God since the time of Jesus Himself. Even if you throw out all the Bible as evidence, Jesus was accepted as God by Christians before the 1st Century was out. Islam, started in the 600s, completely disagrees with this. The two may have similarities, but they are not compatible- at all.
-------------------------------
And yes, Hell exists. Theologians have jumped all over the place in guessing what it's like, but it exists. And, quite frankly, I have no desire or intention of going there and seeing firsthand what it's like.

To your first question, yes. It was written with a tongue in cheek. Surely. But the question behind is a good one - even though I somewhat admit Davem's point of the Islam being a "update" of Judaism in the first place. But really, what's the difference? the jews still wait for the Messiah - the Shii'te moslems wait for him too (read what the Iranian president Ahmadinejad talks!), the christian believe, he was here already, but needs to come again... So everyone is waiting .

You can google the different people announcing the end of the world in internet: some say, it will be 06.06.06 (the number of the Beast!), some give other dates... They all are the same people, wishing or believing, that certain things they hold true, will be so. How can you differentiate between them - or between a jew, a christian or a moslem?

And for the hell. You should go back to the scripture & some Middle-age -studies. Hell is a medieval invention - that can be explained quite nicely with very earthly agendas. The moslems make a difference between the holy scripture and the interpretation of it. Should those christians not doing it already, do it too?

[littlemanpoet]

Someone sent me a very kind rep regarding this thread without saying who they were. I'll quote a portion of it so you can know you you are, as there are questions I'd like to answer if I may, via PM, once you PM me who you are.

Originally Posted by ?

Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?

[davem]

Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?

If we're reading the Bible, yes. I could just as well ask 'If Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, aren't we all sort of on the same page?'

The question is whether in either case we are dealing with a 'fact' about the Primary World, or a particular Secondary World. Speaking as an Introvert I'd tend to give priority to a Secondary World over the Primary one.

Of course, the Primary World is also in some ways an amalgam of all our Secondary Worlds - we invent our own model of 'reality' which we project onto the things around us - we tell ourselves a story about it. The 'real' world has no colours, sounds, tastes, textures. Quantum theory tells us that all that is 'really' out there is energy. Our brains interpret that sea of energy & invent the colours, sounds, etc. 'I' exist as a character in my own invented secondary world, the one my brain has put together.

LMP, Formendacil & others 'really' see a fallen but redeemed creation when they look at the world. Many others see nothing of the sort. What happens though is that we get so caught up in our 'Secondary World ' that we forget that we're dealing with a fantasy. Take the following. Read the blog & the first comment. http://shelleytherepublican.com/2005...-american.html

Now, some will see them as opposing political views. I see them as two 'realities'. 'Shelley' claims (& no doubt believes) he/she is a Christian, but so do many of his//her opponents.

Problems arise when one group adopts a consensus 'reality' & sets out to 'prove' it is objectively true by imposing it on everyone else. In other words, one group builds a set of pigeon-holes & tries to force everyone & everything to fit in them. Anything that will not fit is dismissed as untrue, 'evil' (the work of Satan or the 'fallen Angels) or, if possible, destroyed. Alan Watts told a great story of an eminent scientist who won great kudos for a theory about marine biology. One day someone came up to him with the shell of a creature, the existence of which would destroy both his theory & his reputation. The scientist asked to examine the shell, promptly dropped it on the floor & stamped it to pieces saying 'There, I told you it didn't exist.'

Christ's redemptive act is absolutely a FACT to LMP & Formendacil & absolutely a fantasy to others. Same with the Afterlife. My own position is that there are lots of very interesting stories out there, many of them very beautiful & interesting, just as there are many cultures & languages. Some of the stories contradict each other, but that's fine as long as they don't contradict themselves, as then they would not be very good stories. The thing I fear is that the 'story' of one particular group, because of the power that group gets, comes to dominate & destroy all the other stories. We end up with one story, one language, one way of thinking about & seeing the world. And the road to that destination begins when one group decides 'our story is the only true story - the other stories may have something of truth in them, of course - but if they do its because they're only versions of our own'.

One Story. One Truth. One Reich.

One Ring.

[Laitoste]

Not sure if this really fits, but I wanted to clarify some issues regarding Islam. The Islamic religion is not necessarily an update on Christianity. They are both updates on Judaism. Christians believe that, with the birth and death of Jesus, the title of "chosen people" transferred from the Jews to them. Muslims believe that with the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, the title of "God's chosen" is moved to them. In Islam, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are seen as “people of the book”, and are not included among the “unbelievers” and therefore are dealt with differently. Muslims historically see the Christians as wrong only in the emphasis they place on Jesus. According to the Qur'an, Jesus is merely a prophet, nothing more. In the Qur'an, in the sura about Mary, Jesus, as a baby, says:

I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is on me wherever I go, and He has exhorted me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honor my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised into life.

Christianity and Islam have the same base. The truly major differences between the religions are cultural, rather than religious. For example, the five pillars of Islam are: Shahada (confession), Salat (prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Saum (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage). Similar ideas can be found in Christianity. However, you could claim that, historically, Muslims have been more intelligent about using their faith, despite the lack of any concept of a secular state. In the Pact of Umar from the 7th Century, a set of conditions for non-Muslims under Muslim rule, requires non-Muslims simply to not ostentatiously display their religions or impede the Muslims in any way. They are also required to pay slightly higher taxes. However, if you take a look at what happened during the aftermath of the 1st Crusade, when the Christians actually accomplished something (taking Jerusalem), they gave no thought to making political enemies or alienating the people who lived there first. It was a massacre. During the penitential pilgrimages that took place between the major Crusades, the knights just wanted to go, kill some “pagans”, and leave. This wreaked havoc on the Christian leaders who had set up kingdoms in the area.

(For the record, I was Lutheran all my life, go to a Lutheran college in Minnesota, and am now far too apathetic to be religious. Furthermore, I refuse to believe in a God who tells someone to "kill thirty-one kings in all" (Joshua 12), or who appoints misogynistic jerks as his mouthpieces (Paul). I took a history class examining the Crusades and the Islamic counter crusade last semester and we read parts of the Qur'an (poorly translated) in another class this semester. I am not an expert on Islam, nor am I Muslim, and apologize for any mistakes or misunderstandings. )

[alatar]

Great post, davem, especially the end.

My position, from the science corner of the world, is that if there exists these Truths, then no one or group can successfully hide them. There are 6+ billion people on this planet, and if these truths are self-evident, surely persons will stumble upon them again and again.

And who can thwart the will of God?

When someone in the scientific community proposes a theory that cuts across the accepted paradigm, this person may be ridiculed, shunned, persecuted etc by the establishment. It happens, as we are dealing with humans who are prideful, in fear of change, desiring personal power and stability over openness, slothful...along with many other virtues and vices. However, eventually the truth will win out. Goodly objective people lend a hand, obstinate personalities die out, as does their power and influence, and so we move science and everyone with it over to the new paradigm. Shortly thereafter, the cement comes, forms the new floor and starts to solidify, making the new bosses much like the old bosses.

Religion follows a similiar process. Unchanging? Not likely, for the same reasons I give above. On the other hand, the religious can point to something purportedly outside of influence and say that that Truth is objective and in no need of change. Trouble is, is that one many want to look at that Truth to find out why it is considered to be so, not just accepting the finger pointing and statement "Truth." Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?

I find it funny that the DaVinci Code has caused any uproar, as it has been resoundly debunked by both the Christian community and the pagan skeptics. Yet some Christians still doubt, which makes me think that either they do not really know what they believe, tend to believe in anything rather easily without evidence, or have not or are trained not to ask for the evidence.

Like the link that davem provided, the site provides a list of things one should do to be a good American or whatever. Each statement seems clear enough and simple enough to follow. But what if one looks a little deeper, or asks the dreaded "why?" Does that make one less American (or Republican or whatever)?

Paul had the Bereans; Denethor II Gandalf, and Manwë Fëanor.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

And who can thwart the will of God?

Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.

Originally Posted by alatar

When someone in the scientific community proposes a theory that cuts across the accepted paradigm, this person may be ridiculed, shunned, persecuted etc by the establishment. It happens, as we are dealing with humans who are prideful, in fear of change, desiring personal power and stability over openness, slothful...along with many other virtues and vices. However, eventually the truth will win out. Goodly objective people lend a hand, obstinate personalities die out, as does their power and influence, and so we move science and everyone with it over to the new paradigm. Shortly thereafter, the cement comes, forms the new floor and starts to solidify, making the new bosses much like the old bosses.

This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.

Originally Posted by alatar

Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?

Yes.

Originally Posted by alatar

I find it funny that the DaVinci Code has caused any uproar, as it has been resoundly debunked by both the Christian community and the pagan skeptics. Yet some Christians still doubt, which makes me think that either they do not really know what they believe, tend to believe in anything rather easily without evidence, or have not or are trained not to ask for the evidence.

While I'm not familiar with DaVinci Code (yet), there are many followers of Christ who are ruled by their fears; which is sad. Their faith is weak and they feel that they can be waylaid by such things (Harry Potter's another example ). Because fear rules them, they can't think very clearly. It's a shame.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).

Wow. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind about the man already. Are you talking about Paul the apostle? Could you provide examples of the hate?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!

Well. Matthew 8:12; 2 Thess. 1:9; Romans 2:1-10; 2 Peter 2:4; Matt. 10:15&28; Matt. 5:29,30.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

It says in the Bible that is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. I find it a good deal more consistent for God to allow into Heaven a firm, if misguided, Moslem than a lukewarm "Catholic".

This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the Calormene who sought Tash but really sought Aslan, not knowing it. I've always been rather enamored of the idea. I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but it's attractive. I do agree with your point that God is the judge, not some organized church's set of doctrines. Oh! and regarding "paraphernalia": I have a higher view of the sacraments than that word may connote. God's grace is communicated to us through the sacraments and many other rituals of the church, even icons. It's important not to confuse the things with the source of the grace, of course.

(post 175 next), much hie me to bed.....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The question is whether in either case we are dealing with a 'fact' about the Primary World, or a particular Secondary World. Speaking as an Introvert I'd tend to give priority to a Secondary World over the Primary one.

Of course, the Primary World is also in some ways an amalgam of all our Secondary Worlds - we invent our own model of 'reality' which we project onto the things around us - we tell ourselves a story about it. The 'real' world has no colours, sounds, tastes, textures. Quantum theory tells us that all that is 'really' out there is energy. Our brains interpret that sea of energy & invent the colours, sounds, etc. 'I' exist as a character in my own invented secondary world, the one my brain has put together.

LMP, Formendacil & others 'really' see a fallen but redeemed creation when they look at the world. Many others see nothing of the sort. What happens though is that we get so caught up in our 'Secondary World ' that we forget that we're dealing with a fantasy.

We need to distinguish between how davem is using the phrases Tolkien coined, from how Tolkien used them. The difference is subtle but profound.

Tolkien meant, by Secondary Reality, a mental construct, passed, by means of the written word (in Tolkien's case), from the author's mind to the reader's mind, in order to engender Secondary Belief.

Secondary Belief is the act of entering into a story one reads, knowing it is not primary reality, but engaging the story as if it is while in the act of reading.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief, by contrast, is the act of choosing not to get derailed by a lack in either the story or the reader's ability to engage the story, in order to .... engage the story.

davem means a mental construct, created in the mind of the perceiver, by means of the senses from Primary Reality to the mind, engendering - by nature - Primary Belief.

As I said, a subtle but profound difference. Tolkien coined the phrases in order to shed light on story and the reading of stories. davem is using these same phrases in a way that confuses things; without the intention of doing so, I would bet. However, there are perfectly adequate words and phrases to describe what davem is really talking about: "world view; weltanschauung; philosophy of life".

Primary Belief is believing something to be real. It is unhealthy to have Primary Belief regarding Secondary Reality. Of course, what davem is more or less saying is that we're all delusional and we might as well enjoy it and let each other have the delusions of our choice. Sorry, that's not good enough.

Originally Posted by Laitoste

I refuse to believe in a God who tells someone to "kill thirty-one kings in all" (Joshua 12), or who appoints misogynistic jerks as his mouthpieces (Paul).

Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appelation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Originally Posted by Formy

Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has.

Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

That's all I can manage for now. Alatar, I'll respond to your post when I get a chance.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

You are, likely enough, right. What I'm trying to express is the idea that God is the final judge of who's going to get into Heaven or not- and that he's going to judge all of us individually- based on what we've done, not on what membership cards we've held.

If I say that only Christians are going to get into Heaven, then why shouldn't I say that only Catholic will get into Heaven? After all, the Catholic Church is the Right Church, and the other Churches are in contravention with the Church Christ established?

It says in the Bible that is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. I find it a good deal more consistent for God to allow into Heaven a firm, if misguided, Moslem than a lukewarm "Catholic".

Anyone who has heard what the Church teaches and rejects it is definitely in much graver moral peril than someone who has never heard, but I have great difficulty in believing that one HAS to a Christian (or, by extension, a Catholic) to get into Heaven.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Primary Belief is believing something to be real. It is unhealthy to have Primary Belief regarding Secondary Reality. Of course, what davem is more or less saying is that we're all delusional and we might as well enjoy it and let each other have the delusions of our choice. Sorry, that's not good enough.

Maybe you're right - should we start with you? From my perspective you are clearly 'delusional'. At the moment I'm happy for you to keep your beliefs, but if we can only have the one 'true' belief you better start putting up your barricades.

I'm absolutely certain my 'weltanshauung' or belief system is as delusional as anyone elses. But I'm equally sure that all religions & philosophies are secondary worlds created in the minds of individuals & passed on either via the written word or via sermons, rallies or TV etc.

Of course, the problem comes when individuals confuse the primary with their own secondary worlds, but I'm sure we all do that - Tolkien himself certainly did, referring to certain individuals as 'Orcs' or to Satan as 'Sauron' ('Its a dangerous business, stepping into a Secondary World - if youdon't keep your common sense there is no knowing where you might end up.

I'd say that's what you've done - found yourself a Secondary world that you like so much that you've confused it with everday reality & I've no doubt you believe I've done the same. If there's a difference between us its probably just that I acknowledge I've done that.

Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?

[Laitoste]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appellation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for my use of the term "jerk". It was inappropriate, and I had let my emotions run away with me. It is my gut reaction to Paul, for more reasons than just misogyny. So again, I apologize.

However, the fact still remains that Paul was unsympathetic towards women, with no good reason. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, he says:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

My marginal notes for this passage consist of: WHAT?!! Now, when we discussed Corinthians in my Romans and Early Christians class, many of my classmates wanted to simply forgive Paul for this clearly antifeminist text on the basis of history. Well, that doesn't work. People, in general, don't look at the Bible in a historical context. It has been abused, and is still being abused, to push political agendas (slavery, homophobia, etc). Furthermore, there is no Biblical precedent for this behavior. In fact, in the letter to the Romans, chapter 16, Phoebe, “our sister”, is listed as a deacon, and a Junia is mentioned as an apostle. According to the footnotes, in many translations, “Junia” is actually mentioned as “Junias”, a male Latin name that was not used among the Romans at that time. The earliest manuscript the editors used actually reads, “Julia.” If a woman was preaching the Gospel, how can Paul even imagine saying that “women should be silent in churches”? (Another good place to look for Paul’s attitudes about women is 1 Timothy; however, many scholars doubt the authenticity of this text.) To me, this obviously denotes a misogynist, and not a very observant one, either.

About Joshua: these kings happened to be in the way of the Israelites. They inhabited the land that the Israelites wanted, and were therefore eliminated. For example:

So Joshua burned Ai, and made it forever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day. Joshua 8:28-29

There is even one passage where one of the Israelites takes a few ornaments from the treasure gathered from Jericho, causing “the anger of the Lord [to burn] against them” (Joshua 7:1). This causes the Israelites to lose their next battle, and eventually, “all Israel stoned him to death; they burned him with fire, cast stones on them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day” (Joshua 7:25). Now, in my class on Jihad and the Crusades, we were required to read this at the beginning of the term so as to understand where the medieval holy violence was coming from. They used texts like these to completely massacre various populations of “unbelievers” in Europe and the Levant. It is simply repulsive.

To answer your third question, littlemanpoet, a creature cannot be morally superior to its “creator”, if such a being exists. However, once a creature starts acting in morally repugnant ways in the NAME of that creator, another creature is perfectly free to make moral judgments on those actions. It is wrong to kill another human being. It doesn’t matter if you do it in the name of God or not, it’s wrong either way. It is wrong to try to repress the ideas of others. If God exists, it would, theoretically, not be possible for humankind to be morally superior to it. On the other hand, we don’t have proof God exists, and have even less proof that this God has commanded people to do anything at all, so it is very easy to use God’s name to commit morally wrong acts. I think it is clear that anything that is a basic human rights violation is wrong. I would like a clarification, however, of what you mean by “psychological illness.” To what are you referring?

Finally, to restate my personal beliefs: I do not yet know if there is a God, but if there is, God will not be found in “holy texts” such as the Bible. The Bible was written by men, even if it was “divinely inspired.“ Men (and women, to be gender-inclusive) are apt to get things wrong. If God is to be found anywhere, God is in collective worship, such as in a church, or in nature. There is some value, I think, in people gathering to worship together. The only issues surface when these groups become hateful and intolerant towards other groups. But respectful, collective meditation, prayer, and song can be good for one’s mental state. It just doesn’t work for me, as much as I love the liturgy of the Lutheran Church (which is pretty much the same as in any other liturgical church, like the Catholic or Episcopalian Churches). As I said in my previous post, I cannot believe in the God of the Hebrew-Christian Bible. That God has been twisted and changed from its original form, whatever that was. That God has been manipulated by humankind, and is, in my opinion, no longer a god.

EDIT: I used the New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV with Apocrypha 3rd Edition. The footnotes and introductions are amazing.