"The Koran is bascially a book which plagerizes some of Moses writings. It also pagerizerized the one theisist writings of Moses."
In making that statement it's only fair to add that Jesus quoted Buddha...
I can't say I believe in God...I don't believe in prayer, rituals of any kind...I have long since stopped speaking in tongues and toying with all the "manifestations" or "gifts"... But there are moments, like the other day when
I fed a bottle to my neighbors newborn and remembered her sight is clearest when fixed on the face of her mother while nursing from birth...well those are the moments when I acknowledge something divine in the universe and I am at ease in that.... It's in those moments when I am most grateful and loving and compassionate and "Christ like" whether I accept him as Lord or not...
It is those moments when I can see the divine in everyone...
You made some mention of Rafs website, or another website where others post. I am relatitvely new to GS and was not aware of them. If you provide me with the links either here or at my EMAIL I will put them on my favorites list and visit. Thanks.
Anyways, I enjoy the intellectual stimulation and it is not threatening to me. If whatever your views are is trying to keep the rif-raf out, if it works for you it works for me, I aint very yippy skippy on mayonaise on moldy bread either, I find focusing on answers delightful; rather than periodic tiptoeing to not cause a pandemic. :D-->
See comment directly above. Yah know I posted after reading part of the new JAL letter to Shandanzer? Is it possible that what I posted is a literal desciption of some of the nonthiest theories? If it is I understand it and I am really zipped.
I have thought long and hard about taking the bait as it were to this thread. The question posed by Oak is hard to answer without resorting to experiences.
In my understanding of the Bible, I am required to tell of what God has done for me and what He can do for you. I am not required to give several theological proofs or answer obtuse questions that are only meant to degrade me because of my faith.
For me, Christianity is a faith of promises, covenants and blessings.
The promise of a new life here and in eternity, the covenant between God and me, about His plans to prosper me and not to harm me, if only I seek Him.
I have seen Him do mighty works, pull off miracles and comfort me when things didn't work out.
My faith is not in a Santa-like God. No. My God is a rock, shepherd, king who will stand by me and for me and take care of me. He is a God with high standards, but one who supplies the means to meet those standards.
Sometimes He will chastise me, other times give me blessings undeserved.
He sent Christ to save me from sins and they are plenty. I accepted Christ before TWI and have met up with him again on the other side.
I reject the others because they are so vague in what they offer.
One offers a vengeful God that may or may not allow you into paradise, but will if you kill in his name.
Another religion promises a loss of individual consciousness as a reward, but only through many lives.
All those require work on my part just to get into the gate.
Christianity says the work has been done. All I have to do is accept.
free-for-alls with the Christians maligning our lack of faith, and my fellow non-believers and I criticizing the believers for lack of thinking ability...
I just wanted you and lindy to know how refreshing it is to me personally to talk about scriptures in a challenging way. There are many things I "need to know" that I don't, some of which were washing around in my mind prior to this thread. Understanding things, I think , is the process of enlightenment.
I am also wondering if your have any comment to my post in the next John Lynn letter from shandanzer, and how exactly you think, the former "rightly divided scripture" thing of TWI fits not just in your scheme but in the scheme of peoples mind who perhaps might deplore the Bible?
I also thought today much about this one question you had:
I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof? I would say that if God or Jesus or God-Jesus were to stop me on the road somewhere and audibly speak to me and blind me and then have a stranger or rather one one I would normally hate come over and heal me miraculously, I think I would believe.
Don't miss understand me , I am not sure I can answer this question in full, but perhaps in part.
I find myself wondering much these days, about this one scripture in Revelations that talks about the Lord's "new name". Well, whats a matter with his old name, why does he need a new one?
We have this world where our self worth is evaluated by others, on basis of accomplishments, success, other things. I think most of us would admit if we met a famous person (like the President), we would change our behavior to be careful to put the best spin on our behavior. Yet , I think if we met Christ wouldnt' most of us do the same? I think Christ rejects this method of behavior. I see in this name change thing, God's method of dealing with that. In order for this process "of comparisons with others" to be negated, something must change within us. The leadership example of His Majesty is quite profound. He seems to disrepect others to the degree that they disrepect not himself, but others who are the "least" in everyones view.
From this example I take delight, for I know affirmation of his approval is miles different than back slapping in this world.
Thank you all for the answers, and for keeping the discussion civil :D-->
All of you Christians have stressed how God and Christ are real to you, how you experienced his love in many fashions. Some of you experienced miracles, for others the confirmation of God's love and the correctness of Christianity was more subtle.
Most of you, in addition to your experience, say that you adhere to Christianity because, on some level, it makes sense to you, or appeals to you, and that other forms of theism do not.
Here's where I stand, folks:
For over twenty years I believed what TWI taught about the bible, and accepted it, though not without question, certainly without argument.
At the end of the year 2000, some months after Martindale's resignation from the Way presidency and later expulsion from The Way, I began a systematic review of what was being taught in THe Way. I started with Martindale's WayAP class, and identified so may errors that they took over ten pages to enumerate. When I say errors, I mean errors similar to Raf's "Actual Errors in PFAL", not differences in interpretation, but errors in fact. For example, Martindale said that it said such-and-such "in the text" when "the text" said no such thing. Fabricated definitions of Greek or Hebrew words, misrepresentations of scientific theory...the list goes on and on.
As I was slogging through Martindale's errors, I started looking at Wierwille's writings as well, since Martindale often used them as his source; I started seeing many of the same problems with Wierwille as I had with Martindale (not as many to be sure, but plenty nonetheless). An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 in his section on "formed, made, created" as "berere sh ith, barah, elohim..."
Now, looking for errors, I was not applying a denominational or "orthodox" standard, but the Way's own: read what's written, etc. I was seeing The Way's errors using The Way's own yaerdstick.
About this time I started checking out information from various ex-Way offshoots and was surprised at the different answers many people were coming up with, not only from The Way, but from each other. Doctrinal discussions on Waydale & GS added to the mix. Seems to me that the magic self-interpreting bible wouldn't yield so many different interpretations using the same set of "keys".
Add to the existing mess the plethora of denominations, sects, and past "heresies" and you have quite the mass of contradictions within Christianity.
Beyond interpretation, I dfon't believe that you can make the bible "fit like a hand in a glove" without verbal and linguistic gymnastics. To me the bible, while chock full of wisdom and the experience of godly men and women is NOT perfect, or given word-for-word by God himself. There's too many contradictions, not the least being the contradiction between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the loving father of the NT.
I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't trust The Way, I couldn't trust Christianity, I couldn't trust the bible, I couldn't trust someone else's vision or version of what God was...I would go with my own experience.
Can I prove that any of my experience has objective reality? Nope, not any more than you Christians can. Is my experience appliocable to anyone else? Maybe, but probably not.
Is God capable of being big enough to include a multitude of faiths and realities in what is "true". Why not?
RE:"Christianity says the work has been done. All I have to do is accept.
I hope that helps."
Gaaak! How could it? Just accept it?
But, but, Gawd, I don't even know where to start (refer back to the "disconnect" in my prior posts).
How can you just accept something that you have no proof of? You don't know where the Bible came from, who wrote it, when it was written, why it was written, and certainly not whether any of it is even true.
You don't know if there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, what he actually did if he lived, what he really believed or said (even if you believe the Bible all it ever does it quote him, he didn't actually write any of it).
So with all that unknown, we're still supposed to just accept it.
I breifly read some of the threads on Rafs web site. Thanks.
You may find some of the things I say wierd or odd, but I will drivel anyway.
I'm not sure that your statements don't meet the criteria for belief and faith in God. I fail to see where God doesn't want us to challenge things that we suspect are error. ie(be wise as serpents but harmless as doves)
Your writings also give me new definition for the term loath in respect to TWI. With difficulty, what was (not there responsiblity) but ours that we believed the process? I dont know. I suspect for everyone it might be a somewhat different.
It also has created a diffult method with which to communicate. Terms like faith, and the word and believing are irritating. It's a good thing that words like the cross, and suffering and holiness were never wrecked.
What is faith? (Satori was writing some cool stuff about nounciples, very humorous)How about an illustration. What did Jacob possess that Esau did not? (Please dont take me as being condescending I am merely trying to communicate my view) Jacob had interest in the promises of God and he also attached some value to them. Esau did not. If this at core level is what faith is (in my view it is), you would seem to qualify. (Although I do not know wehter you have interest and value in Gods promises nor do I know the level that anyone else possess's it either)
Why? Humorously, I guess there is no such thing as a faith radar machine. It must be personal then. Perhaps God is the only detector of it.
In my view, Oak, I think this. Any view from man, that does not leave an individual with a option of only and I mean ONLY, relationship and direction to God, is anti-God. It is the reason for the clutter that you mentioned. It brings me to another subject of covetousness. Perhaps down the road.
The more I read the claims of why Christianity and the Bible are true the more convinced I am that they are not.
Most of my understanding of Christianity is from what I learned in The Way, which put the bible as God’s greatest work. At best that proves that god is very weak. The book is hard to understand by itself. So you need to turn to scholars and bible teachers for the correct interpretation. These people are constantly arguing about which books should be included in the bible. There are also disputes on chapters and verses.
If the Bible is God’s will for the human race, why didn’t he protect it better. TWI spent a lot of time explaining this. There is a delicate balance between God and Satan. Anything that would really prove the existence of God is obfuscated by Satan.
I choose to go with simpler explanations.
=================================================
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
As a matter of this thread, I posted a topic about the circumcision in the doctrinal form, which somewhat reconciles difference between Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, in what perhaps ought to be a more centrist faith; the error coming in my view from not understanding and doing the circumcision (as a rule).
I am looking forward to your comments on that matter, either here or on that thread. thanks
Oak re:An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1
VPW Got this from the Pe****a Text Bible that George Lamsa did. The Lamsa Bible does read that way from the Aramaic of the Pe****ta Text.
The Lamsa Bible is listed in most Academic Book Catalogs and holds a favorable reception as a Syric transation. Maybe this will clear up that translation question for you.
Thanks Whitey, but the translation question was clear already for me.
Hebrew was without question the original language of the old testament, there's no argument as there is about the NT.
I don't have access to an Aramaic text of Genesis, and couldn't find one online, so I can't verify the word order in that language, but since Aramaic is similar grammatically to Hebrew it is likely that the word order is the same.
The fact that Lamsa translated Genesis 1:1 to put the word "God" first, does not guarantee that it was first in Aramaic.
"An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 in his section on "formed, made, created" as "berere sh ith, barah, elohim..."
and
"I don't have access to an Aramaic text of Genesis, and couldn't find one online, so I can't verify the word order in that language, but since Aramaic is similar grammatically to Hebrew it is likely that the word order is the same.
The fact that Lamsa translated Genesis 1:1 to put the word "God" first, does not guarantee that it was first in Aramaic."
I looked this up for you, it is the Hebrew . . .
1:1In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Bere**** bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
and these are the Rabbinical scholar notes to this verse
" Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.' (Bere****h Rabbah)."
From what I recall from my studies on Judiasm, it seems to be pretty well agreed upon that the word "God" was NOT placed first.
I thought you might get a charge out of the circumcision arguement. In the end some people were thinking I was going in the circumcision business. Uffda. Anyway, it reconciles three religions, but leaves Islam holding the cat in the bag, due to there own embodiment of false law.
And by the way, Buddahism and most early eastern religions were generally not unlike praying to a God of molten stone.
Anyway, I may take a week or two break from posting, be cool.
I suggest you might enjoy reading C.S. Lewis . A famous author very famous.. who denied believing in God for most of his life because of the very same reasons you suggest! His mother died when he was a child he refused to believe in God. He is a brillant man and author and in later life did chose to believe ... Many consider Him as the #1 christian writer that ever lived.
He does not use terms such as christ and god in his works and zero bible scripture yet clearly all agree they are most profound pointing to the idea of christianity!
he wrote children books the lion witch and the wardrobe, and of course his satire the screwtape letters. where one demon is teaching a lesser demon on the pitfalls of christian living. very very funny! and many other writings.
Oak you write as he writes in your doubts and trials you may really enjoy his writings they have helped many understand exactly what you address as valid concerns.
RE:"Christianity says the work has been done. All I have to do is accept.
I hope that helps."
Gaaak! How could it? Just _accept_ it?
(Geo, thanks for being so tolerant. Surely, your way is the most loving of all.)
But, but, Gawd, I don't even know where to start (refer back to the "disconnect" in my prior posts).
How can you just accept something that you have no proof of?
{What's your proof that God does not exist? I have a written record and creation.}
You don't know where the Bible came from {Um, I think it was God.}
who wrote it,{Read your Bible again, we know who wrote many books} when it was written,{that is debateable, but many scholars believe the first letters and Gospels were written as early as 50 A.D.} why it was written,{to show how God loves man and to give purpose - Gee, it's like you were asleep or something.} and certainly not whether any of it is even true. {we have non-biblical sources who testify that Jesus existed, and we know archaelogists have used the Bible to find so-called "lost" cities.}
You don't know if there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, {yes we do}
what he actually did if he lived, {ahem, we have the Gospels, the letters and the testimony of the non-biblical [pagan critics]} what he really believed or said (even if you believe the Bible all it ever does it quote him, he didn't actually _write_ any of it).
{And your point being?}
So with all that unknown, we're still supposed to just _accept_ it.
{It's unknown to you because you choose to reject any knowledge of it. And no, we are not to blindly accept anything. This isn't the kool-aid line. Christianity is a very reasonable faith. And if you want to seriously explore two reputable non-Way sources, check out "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel -an atheist turned believer and "Skeptics Answered" by D. James Kennedy.
These two books will point you in the direction of serious scholarly men and women who put their trust in God and the Bible.
Thank you MJ, I read some CS Lewis years ago and enjoyed his writing. But I will not be satisfied by someone else's experience, which is what it all ultimately comes down to. I appreciate the thought though.
It's quite true that for most believers nearly all their evidence is completely subjective and amounts to little more than anecdotal data. That doesn't necessarily make it false, merely irreproducible. That's the fundamental reason religious skepticism exists, apart from any emotional response on the part of the skeptic.
It's the principle of acting on incomplete data that incenses most skeptics, yet science itself is filled with little-understood processes and incomplete models of those processes. That doesn't stop science, it shouldn't stop religion.
Case in point: TMOATSN mention Schroedinger's Cat a couple of pages back. The idea is that if there are equal probabilities of a certain thing happening or not, that thing exists in a state wherein the thing has half-happened and half-not-happened until it is observed by an outsider, whereupon it immediately "collapses" into one reality or the other. (called "eigenstates")
Ludicrous, right?
Well, not really. It turns out that you really can predict the behavior of subatomic particles as if they were the sum of all their fractional eigenvalues, even though you cannot predict which will be in one eigenstate and which will be in another. (Huh?)
Let's move aside from Schroedinger's fanciful half-dead half-alive cat and move to an experiment closer to reality.
Suppose we have a lump of radioactive material that decays at a steady rate. Every second, exactly 100 particle decays occur, of two possible varieties. 75% of the time, the decay produces a pi-meson and 25% of the time, the decay produces a K-meson. So, we stick the material in a K-meson detector and let it sit for exactly ten seconds. We check the counter and it shows 250 clicks, exactly what we expect. We then stick it in a pi-meson detector for exactly ten seconds, and we get 750 clicks. (Duh.) So far, we've experimentally proved the decay product distribution.
What happens if we expose either detector for only 1/100th of a second, though? That's only enough time for a single decay, right?
Well, 75% of the time a pion will fly out, and 25% of the time a kaon will fly out, right?
Well, no. What the Schroedinger Wave Function shows is that that single particle behaves as though it is 75% in the pion eigenstate and 25% in the kaon eigenstate until something observes it (i.e. it hits the detector.)
Wait a second--that's impossible. The decay product is either a pion or a kaon, it's not a little bit of both. If we have another element that emits only pions 100% of the time and a third that only emits kaons and place them in the detector, we get 1000 clicks on one detector and zero on the other, just like we're supposed to. There are no pions that are a little bit kaon, and no kaons that are mostly pion. It's either one or the other.
Not so, says Schroedinger. The single particle will behave as if it were 75% pion and 25% kaon superimposed on each other until something definite happens to force it to reveal itself as 100% one or the other. We perform the experiment, and sure enough, we get the same statistical results as if we had done it with a million particles at once.
No one's quite sure what's really going on, or why, and we cannot predict at all which particle will fly out at any given decay, only that 75% of them will be pions and 25% will be kaons. It's completely random. Scientists really don't like random stuff. They like to have a cause for every effect, but the quest to eliminate apparent randomness keeps most of them in business, after all.
So, even though they know what's supposed to happen in the long run, they don't know at any given instance what's going to happen next. Heisenberg proved that was impossible anyway. (cf. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
In that sense science and religion do have similarities. Believers don't exactly know how God works or why, but they see enough subjective results to keep believing in spite of the gap in their knowledge. Scientists don't know exactly how the Schroedinger Wave Function predicts the behavior of systems even though it's seemingly impossible in some cases, but the math works, so they keep trusting in it until something can come along and explain it better. In that sense, it's very much a belief based on incomplete knowledge.
And that's okay. It keeps the searcher moving forward, gives them something to work with, as they try to figure out how it actually works.
The difference is that scientists can do the same experiment and get the same results, so they're more secure in their belief. They still don't really understand it, and can't explain it, but as long as everyone's getting the same answers, that's good enough. Religion, however, deals with something infinitely more complex than the behavior of tiny subatomic particles. We don't know the whole scope of the factors involved, so we don't even know the extent of our ignorance. But there's an awful lot of people getting what they believe are positive results, even if one person doesn't exactly get what another one does. Since the religious model predicts a much greater benefit for belief than skepticism (Pascal's Wager) there's enough reason for some to continue working with an incomplete and irreproducible model.
The question then becomes, which model do we go with? They're all mutually-incompatible as written, which leads to my old Incomplete Theorem of the Supernature--in any given supernature, there is at most one religious system that is true, all others can only approach the truth as a limit. The problem is, it doesn't say anything about WHICH one is true, it only says that if there is one, there is only one.
Which brings us back to the "Christianity works for me" position. As long as we believe we are observing the predicted results, we have no reason to switch belief systems, especially if we understand that we do not know everything that's going on behind the scenes. Those who cannot accept this fact usually do switch. And that's just fine--until they start attacking those who didn't. If you don't know, then you don't know--one way OR the other. It's the assumption that giving up the search is somehow superior to continued experimentation that's just plain arrogant. There are examples in science where long-dismissed theories get resurrected and modified to explain an observed phenomenon better than a more modern one.
I wanted to jump in to respond to some of your response to George. To keep it all straight, George's word will be in quotes, your's in regular type, and mine in bold (if I remember all that :D-->
quote:Gaaak! How could it? Just accept it?
(Geo, thanks for being so tolerant. Surely, your way is the most loving of all.)
George is not claiming to be loving, just rational. You may argue about the logic and reasonableness of his stance...heck, you can even comment on his (lack of) love, but not as if it's the argument he is making
quote:But, but, Gawd, I don't even know where to start (refer back to the "disconnect" in my prior posts).
How can you just accept something that you have no proof of?
What's your proof that God does not exist? As you well know, you can't prove a negative. George is NOT claiming that he has proof that God does not exist, merely that you have no proof that he does. YOU have no proof that the tooth fairy DOES NOT exist, or Santa Claus, or any other of the non-Christian gods.
I have a written record and creation. You view that written record as proof of something that is in the written record, it's a classic circular argument. Creation is not proof of God. Personally, I lean toward intelligent design, but not for any reasons that I can defend, it's just a personal preference, but the existance of something doesn't require that an intelligence (i.e. God) was behind it
quote:You don't know where the Bible came from
Um, I think it was God. "Um", you base that on what? That the bible says that of itself? Again, a circular argument, which is worthless.
quote:who wrote it,
Read your Bible again, we know who wrote many books
We know who claims to have written many of the books, but it is far from unanimous, even among bibliocal scholars.
quote:and certainly not whether any of it is even true.
we have non-biblical sources who testify that Jesus existed, and we know archaelogists have used the Bible to find so-called "lost" cities
Even if the questionable non-biblical sources are true, all that they tell us that a person with the name Jesus (or the Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek/Latin equivalent) lived during the time indicated. Finding "lost" cities is a long way from talking donkeys and walking on water
quote:You don't know if there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth*, what he actually did if he lived, what he really believed or said** (even if you believe the Bible all it ever does it quote him, he didn't actually write any of it)***.
*yes we do
**ahem, we have the Gospels, the letters and the testimony of the non-biblical [pagan critics]}
I adressed this line of reasoning already
***And your point being?
The point is that what you have, are other peoples' opinions and impressions of what Jesus said, assumimng that there was a Jesus.
quote:So with all that unknown, we're still supposed to just accept it.
It's unknown to you because you choose to reject any knowledge of it.
Typical weak arghument. "I can't convince you by evidense, so it must be YOU who don't WANT to see.
And no, we are not to blindly accept anything. This isn't the kool-aid line. Christianity is a very reasonable faith.
It's only reasonable (which is debateable) if you accept the premises, which are not at all self-evident
The original point of this thread was to ask Christians why they are Christians. Embedded in the initial post is my assumption that the reasons are subjective (although they are judged objective by some :D-->))
I have no problem with "it works for me"
I have no problem with "I experienced a, b and c so..."
I really have no problem with "God told me"
Because I cannot say, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't work for you, that you haven't experienced a, b or c, or that God didn't tell you.
What I do have a problem with is when one person's personal experience becomes the defining standard for everyone. And, in my opinion, the bible is a collection of peoples' personal experiences with and personal opinions of God. It's true because this book says it is. -->
I reserve the right to observe that although you say that you are experiencing something, there is no external evidense that I can see, and the experience is therefore useless to me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
9
5
24
Popular Days
Aug 10
19
Aug 11
14
Aug 12
13
Aug 13
12
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 34 posts
George Aar 9 posts
def59 5 posts
Oakspear 24 posts
Popular Days
Aug 10 2004
19 posts
Aug 11 2004
14 posts
Aug 12 2004
13 posts
Aug 13 2004
12 posts
karmicdebt
sky posted
"The Koran is bascially a book which plagerizes some of Moses writings. It also pagerizerized the one theisist writings of Moses."
In making that statement it's only fair to add that Jesus quoted Buddha...
I can't say I believe in God...I don't believe in prayer, rituals of any kind...I have long since stopped speaking in tongues and toying with all the "manifestations" or "gifts"... But there are moments, like the other day when
I fed a bottle to my neighbors newborn and remembered her sight is clearest when fixed on the face of her mother while nursing from birth...well those are the moments when I acknowledge something divine in the universe and I am at ease in that.... It's in those moments when I am most grateful and loving and compassionate and "Christ like" whether I accept him as Lord or not...
It is those moments when I can see the divine in everyone...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
You made some mention of Rafs website, or another website where others post. I am relatitvely new to GS and was not aware of them. If you provide me with the links either here or at my EMAIL I will put them on my favorites list and visit. Thanks.
Anyways, I enjoy the intellectual stimulation and it is not threatening to me. If whatever your views are is trying to keep the rif-raf out, if it works for you it works for me, I aint very yippy skippy on mayonaise on moldy bread either, I find focusing on answers delightful; rather than periodic tiptoeing to not cause a pandemic.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
See comment directly above. Yah know I posted after reading part of the new JAL letter to Shandanzer? Is it possible that what I posted is a literal desciption of some of the nonthiest theories? If it is I understand it and I am really zipped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I have thought long and hard about taking the bait as it were to this thread. The question posed by Oak is hard to answer without resorting to experiences.
In my understanding of the Bible, I am required to tell of what God has done for me and what He can do for you. I am not required to give several theological proofs or answer obtuse questions that are only meant to degrade me because of my faith.
For me, Christianity is a faith of promises, covenants and blessings.
The promise of a new life here and in eternity, the covenant between God and me, about His plans to prosper me and not to harm me, if only I seek Him.
I have seen Him do mighty works, pull off miracles and comfort me when things didn't work out.
My faith is not in a Santa-like God. No. My God is a rock, shepherd, king who will stand by me and for me and take care of me. He is a God with high standards, but one who supplies the means to meet those standards.
Sometimes He will chastise me, other times give me blessings undeserved.
He sent Christ to save me from sins and they are plenty. I accepted Christ before TWI and have met up with him again on the other side.
I reject the others because they are so vague in what they offer.
One offers a vengeful God that may or may not allow you into paradise, but will if you kill in his name.
Another religion promises a loss of individual consciousness as a reward, but only through many lives.
All those require work on my part just to get into the gate.
Christianity says the work has been done. All I have to do is accept.
I hope that helps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
Thanks for the link. One more thing.
Your comment:
free-for-alls with the Christians maligning our lack of faith, and my fellow non-believers and I criticizing the believers for lack of thinking ability...
I just wanted you and lindy to know how refreshing it is to me personally to talk about scriptures in a challenging way. There are many things I "need to know" that I don't, some of which were washing around in my mind prior to this thread. Understanding things, I think , is the process of enlightenment.
I am also wondering if your have any comment to my post in the next John Lynn letter from shandanzer, and how exactly you think, the former "rightly divided scripture" thing of TWI fits not just in your scheme but in the scheme of peoples mind who perhaps might deplore the Bible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Lindy:
I also thought today much about this one question you had:
I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof? I would say that if God or Jesus or God-Jesus were to stop me on the road somewhere and audibly speak to me and blind me and then have a stranger or rather one one I would normally hate come over and heal me miraculously, I think I would believe.
Don't miss understand me , I am not sure I can answer this question in full, but perhaps in part.
I find myself wondering much these days, about this one scripture in Revelations that talks about the Lord's "new name". Well, whats a matter with his old name, why does he need a new one?
We have this world where our self worth is evaluated by others, on basis of accomplishments, success, other things. I think most of us would admit if we met a famous person (like the President), we would change our behavior to be careful to put the best spin on our behavior. Yet , I think if we met Christ wouldnt' most of us do the same? I think Christ rejects this method of behavior. I see in this name change thing, God's method of dealing with that. In order for this process "of comparisons with others" to be negated, something must change within us. The leadership example of His Majesty is quite profound. He seems to disrepect others to the degree that they disrepect not himself, but others who are the "least" in everyones view.
From this example I take delight, for I know affirmation of his approval is miles different than back slapping in this world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thank you all for the answers, and for keeping the discussion civil
:D-->
All of you Christians have stressed how God and Christ are real to you, how you experienced his love in many fashions. Some of you experienced miracles, for others the confirmation of God's love and the correctness of Christianity was more subtle.
Most of you, in addition to your experience, say that you adhere to Christianity because, on some level, it makes sense to you, or appeals to you, and that other forms of theism do not.
Here's where I stand, folks:
For over twenty years I believed what TWI taught about the bible, and accepted it, though not without question, certainly without argument.
At the end of the year 2000, some months after Martindale's resignation from the Way presidency and later expulsion from The Way, I began a systematic review of what was being taught in THe Way. I started with Martindale's WayAP class, and identified so may errors that they took over ten pages to enumerate. When I say errors, I mean errors similar to Raf's "Actual Errors in PFAL", not differences in interpretation, but errors in fact. For example, Martindale said that it said such-and-such "in the text" when "the text" said no such thing. Fabricated definitions of Greek or Hebrew words, misrepresentations of scientific theory...the list goes on and on.
As I was slogging through Martindale's errors, I started looking at Wierwille's writings as well, since Martindale often used them as his source; I started seeing many of the same problems with Wierwille as I had with Martindale (not as many to be sure, but plenty nonetheless). An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 in his section on "formed, made, created" as "berere sh ith, barah, elohim..."
Now, looking for errors, I was not applying a denominational or "orthodox" standard, but the Way's own: read what's written, etc. I was seeing The Way's errors using The Way's own yaerdstick.
About this time I started checking out information from various ex-Way offshoots and was surprised at the different answers many people were coming up with, not only from The Way, but from each other. Doctrinal discussions on Waydale & GS added to the mix. Seems to me that the magic self-interpreting bible wouldn't yield so many different interpretations using the same set of "keys".
Add to the existing mess the plethora of denominations, sects, and past "heresies" and you have quite the mass of contradictions within Christianity.
Beyond interpretation, I dfon't believe that you can make the bible "fit like a hand in a glove" without verbal and linguistic gymnastics. To me the bible, while chock full of wisdom and the experience of godly men and women is NOT perfect, or given word-for-word by God himself. There's too many contradictions, not the least being the contradiction between the bloody tribal god of the OT and the loving father of the NT.
I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't trust The Way, I couldn't trust Christianity, I couldn't trust the bible, I couldn't trust someone else's vision or version of what God was...I would go with my own experience.
Can I prove that any of my experience has objective reality? Nope, not any more than you Christians can. Is my experience appliocable to anyone else? Maybe, but probably not.
Is God capable of being big enough to include a multitude of faiths and realities in what is "true". Why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Def,
RE:"Christianity says the work has been done. All I have to do is accept.
I hope that helps."
Gaaak! How could it? Just accept it?
But, but, Gawd, I don't even know where to start (refer back to the "disconnect" in my prior posts).
How can you just accept something that you have no proof of? You don't know where the Bible came from, who wrote it, when it was written, why it was written, and certainly not whether any of it is even true.
You don't know if there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, what he actually did if he lived, what he really believed or said (even if you believe the Bible all it ever does it quote him, he didn't actually write any of it).
So with all that unknown, we're still supposed to just accept it.
Why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I breifly read some of the threads on Rafs web site. Thanks.
You may find some of the things I say wierd or odd, but I will drivel anyway.
I'm not sure that your statements don't meet the criteria for belief and faith in God. I fail to see where God doesn't want us to challenge things that we suspect are error. ie(be wise as serpents but harmless as doves)
Your writings also give me new definition for the term loath in respect to TWI. With difficulty, what was (not there responsiblity) but ours that we believed the process? I dont know. I suspect for everyone it might be a somewhat different.
It also has created a diffult method with which to communicate. Terms like faith, and the word and believing are irritating. It's a good thing that words like the cross, and suffering and holiness were never wrecked.
What is faith? (Satori was writing some cool stuff about nounciples, very humorous)How about an illustration. What did Jacob possess that Esau did not? (Please dont take me as being condescending I am merely trying to communicate my view) Jacob had interest in the promises of God and he also attached some value to them. Esau did not. If this at core level is what faith is (in my view it is), you would seem to qualify. (Although I do not know wehter you have interest and value in Gods promises nor do I know the level that anyone else possess's it either)
Why? Humorously, I guess there is no such thing as a faith radar machine. It must be personal then. Perhaps God is the only detector of it.
In my view, Oak, I think this. Any view from man, that does not leave an individual with a option of only and I mean ONLY, relationship and direction to God, is anti-God. It is the reason for the clutter that you mentioned. It brings me to another subject of covetousness. Perhaps down the road.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herb Wexler
The more I read the claims of why Christianity and the Bible are true the more convinced I am that they are not.
Most of my understanding of Christianity is from what I learned in The Way, which put the bible as God’s greatest work. At best that proves that god is very weak. The book is hard to understand by itself. So you need to turn to scholars and bible teachers for the correct interpretation. These people are constantly arguing about which books should be included in the bible. There are also disputes on chapters and verses.
If the Bible is God’s will for the human race, why didn’t he protect it better. TWI spent a lot of time explaining this. There is a delicate balance between God and Satan. Anything that would really prove the existence of God is obfuscated by Satan.
I choose to go with simpler explanations.
=================================================
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Guys:
As a matter of this thread, I posted a topic about the circumcision in the doctrinal form, which somewhat reconciles difference between Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, in what perhaps ought to be a more centrist faith; the error coming in my view from not understanding and doing the circumcision (as a rule).
I am looking forward to your comments on that matter, either here or on that thread. thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Oak re:An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1
VPW Got this from the Pe****a Text Bible that George Lamsa did. The Lamsa Bible does read that way from the Aramaic of the Pe****ta Text.
The Lamsa Bible is listed in most Academic Book Catalogs and holds a favorable reception as a Syric transation. Maybe this will clear up that translation question for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
LOL Paw is Pe shi tta a cuss word?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thanks Whitey, but the translation question was clear already for me.
Hebrew was without question the original language of the old testament, there's no argument as there is about the NT.
I don't have access to an Aramaic text of Genesis, and couldn't find one online, so I can't verify the word order in that language, but since Aramaic is similar grammatically to Hebrew it is likely that the word order is the same.
The fact that Lamsa translated Genesis 1:1 to put the word "God" first, does not guarantee that it was first in Aramaic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oak,
Ask a Jew
:)-->
"An example that pops up is Wierwille's assetion that the first word in the bible "in the original" is "God". The problem is that there is no evidense for this. The word "God" is placed third...Wierwille even quotes the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 in his section on "formed, made, created" as "berere sh ith, barah, elohim..."
and
"I don't have access to an Aramaic text of Genesis, and couldn't find one online, so I can't verify the word order in that language, but since Aramaic is similar grammatically to Hebrew it is likely that the word order is the same.
The fact that Lamsa translated Genesis 1:1 to put the word "God" first, does not guarantee that it was first in Aramaic."
I looked this up for you, it is the Hebrew . . .
1:1In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Bere**** bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.
and these are the Rabbinical scholar notes to this verse
" Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.' (Bere****h Rabbah)."
From what I recall from my studies on Judiasm, it seems to be pretty well agreed upon that the word "God" was NOT placed first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I thought you might get a charge out of the circumcision arguement. In the end some people were thinking I was going in the circumcision business. Uffda. Anyway, it reconciles three religions, but leaves Islam holding the cat in the bag, due to there own embodiment of false law.
And by the way, Buddahism and most early eastern religions were generally not unlike praying to a God of molten stone.
Anyway, I may take a week or two break from posting, be cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Oak
I suggest you might enjoy reading C.S. Lewis . A famous author very famous.. who denied believing in God for most of his life because of the very same reasons you suggest! His mother died when he was a child he refused to believe in God. He is a brillant man and author and in later life did chose to believe ... Many consider Him as the #1 christian writer that ever lived.
He does not use terms such as christ and god in his works and zero bible scripture yet clearly all agree they are most profound pointing to the idea of christianity!
he wrote children books the lion witch and the wardrobe, and of course his satire the screwtape letters. where one demon is teaching a lesser demon on the pitfalls of christian living. very very funny! and many other writings.
Oak you write as he writes in your doubts and trials you may really enjoy his writings they have helped many understand exactly what you address as valid concerns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thank you MJ, I read some CS Lewis years ago and enjoyed his writing. But I will not be satisfied by someone else's experience, which is what it all ultimately comes down to. I appreciate the thought though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
It's quite true that for most believers nearly all their evidence is completely subjective and amounts to little more than anecdotal data. That doesn't necessarily make it false, merely irreproducible. That's the fundamental reason religious skepticism exists, apart from any emotional response on the part of the skeptic.
It's the principle of acting on incomplete data that incenses most skeptics, yet science itself is filled with little-understood processes and incomplete models of those processes. That doesn't stop science, it shouldn't stop religion.
Case in point: TMOATSN mention Schroedinger's Cat a couple of pages back. The idea is that if there are equal probabilities of a certain thing happening or not, that thing exists in a state wherein the thing has half-happened and half-not-happened until it is observed by an outsider, whereupon it immediately "collapses" into one reality or the other. (called "eigenstates")
Ludicrous, right?
Well, not really. It turns out that you really can predict the behavior of subatomic particles as if they were the sum of all their fractional eigenvalues, even though you cannot predict which will be in one eigenstate and which will be in another. (Huh?)
Let's move aside from Schroedinger's fanciful half-dead half-alive cat and move to an experiment closer to reality.
Suppose we have a lump of radioactive material that decays at a steady rate. Every second, exactly 100 particle decays occur, of two possible varieties. 75% of the time, the decay produces a pi-meson and 25% of the time, the decay produces a K-meson. So, we stick the material in a K-meson detector and let it sit for exactly ten seconds. We check the counter and it shows 250 clicks, exactly what we expect. We then stick it in a pi-meson detector for exactly ten seconds, and we get 750 clicks. (Duh.) So far, we've experimentally proved the decay product distribution.
What happens if we expose either detector for only 1/100th of a second, though? That's only enough time for a single decay, right?
Well, 75% of the time a pion will fly out, and 25% of the time a kaon will fly out, right?
Well, no. What the Schroedinger Wave Function shows is that that single particle behaves as though it is 75% in the pion eigenstate and 25% in the kaon eigenstate until something observes it (i.e. it hits the detector.)
Wait a second--that's impossible. The decay product is either a pion or a kaon, it's not a little bit of both. If we have another element that emits only pions 100% of the time and a third that only emits kaons and place them in the detector, we get 1000 clicks on one detector and zero on the other, just like we're supposed to. There are no pions that are a little bit kaon, and no kaons that are mostly pion. It's either one or the other.
Not so, says Schroedinger. The single particle will behave as if it were 75% pion and 25% kaon superimposed on each other until something definite happens to force it to reveal itself as 100% one or the other. We perform the experiment, and sure enough, we get the same statistical results as if we had done it with a million particles at once.
No one's quite sure what's really going on, or why, and we cannot predict at all which particle will fly out at any given decay, only that 75% of them will be pions and 25% will be kaons. It's completely random. Scientists really don't like random stuff. They like to have a cause for every effect, but the quest to eliminate apparent randomness keeps most of them in business, after all.
So, even though they know what's supposed to happen in the long run, they don't know at any given instance what's going to happen next. Heisenberg proved that was impossible anyway. (cf. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
In that sense science and religion do have similarities. Believers don't exactly know how God works or why, but they see enough subjective results to keep believing in spite of the gap in their knowledge. Scientists don't know exactly how the Schroedinger Wave Function predicts the behavior of systems even though it's seemingly impossible in some cases, but the math works, so they keep trusting in it until something can come along and explain it better. In that sense, it's very much a belief based on incomplete knowledge.
And that's okay. It keeps the searcher moving forward, gives them something to work with, as they try to figure out how it actually works.
The difference is that scientists can do the same experiment and get the same results, so they're more secure in their belief. They still don't really understand it, and can't explain it, but as long as everyone's getting the same answers, that's good enough. Religion, however, deals with something infinitely more complex than the behavior of tiny subatomic particles. We don't know the whole scope of the factors involved, so we don't even know the extent of our ignorance. But there's an awful lot of people getting what they believe are positive results, even if one person doesn't exactly get what another one does. Since the religious model predicts a much greater benefit for belief than skepticism (Pascal's Wager) there's enough reason for some to continue working with an incomplete and irreproducible model.
The question then becomes, which model do we go with? They're all mutually-incompatible as written, which leads to my old Incomplete Theorem of the Supernature--in any given supernature, there is at most one religious system that is true, all others can only approach the truth as a limit. The problem is, it doesn't say anything about WHICH one is true, it only says that if there is one, there is only one.
Which brings us back to the "Christianity works for me" position. As long as we believe we are observing the predicted results, we have no reason to switch belief systems, especially if we understand that we do not know everything that's going on behind the scenes. Those who cannot accept this fact usually do switch. And that's just fine--until they start attacking those who didn't. If you don't know, then you don't know--one way OR the other. It's the assumption that giving up the search is somehow superior to continued experimentation that's just plain arrogant. There are examples in science where long-dismissed theories get resurrected and modified to explain an observed phenomenon better than a more modern one.
But this post is too long already...
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hiya Def:
I wanted to jump in to respond to some of your response to George. To keep it all straight, George's word will be in quotes, your's in regular type, and mine in bold (if I remember all that
:D-->
(Geo, thanks for being so tolerant. Surely, your way is the most loving of all.)
George is not claiming to be loving, just rational. You may argue about the logic and reasonableness of his stance...heck, you can even comment on his (lack of) love, but not as if it's the argument he is making
What's your proof that God does not exist? As you well know, you can't prove a negative. George is NOT claiming that he has proof that God does not exist, merely that you have no proof that he does. YOU have no proof that the tooth fairy DOES NOT exist, or Santa Claus, or any other of the non-Christian gods.I have a written record and creation. You view that written record as proof of something that is in the written record, it's a classic circular argument. Creation is not proof of God. Personally, I lean toward intelligent design, but not for any reasons that I can defend, it's just a personal preference, but the existance of something doesn't require that an intelligence (i.e. God) was behind it
Um, I think it was God. "Um", you base that on what? That the bible says that of itself? Again, a circular argument, which is worthless. Read your Bible again, we know who wrote many booksWe know who claims to have written many of the books, but it is far from unanimous, even among bibliocal scholars.
we have non-biblical sources who testify that Jesus existed, and we know archaelogists have used the Bible to find so-called "lost" citiesEven if the questionable non-biblical sources are true, all that they tell us that a person with the name Jesus (or the Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek/Latin equivalent) lived during the time indicated. Finding "lost" cities is a long way from talking donkeys and walking on water
*yes we do
**ahem, we have the Gospels, the letters and the testimony of the non-biblical [pagan critics]}
I adressed this line of reasoning already
***And your point being?
The point is that what you have, are other peoples' opinions and impressions of what Jesus said, assumimng that there was a Jesus.
It's unknown to you because you choose to reject any knowledge of it.
Typical weak arghument. "I can't convince you by evidense, so it must be YOU who don't WANT to see.
And no, we are not to blindly accept anything. This isn't the kool-aid line. Christianity is a very reasonable faith.
It's only reasonable (which is debateable) if you accept the premises, which are not at all self-evident
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Zix:
You're right, that was a long post
;)-->
The original point of this thread was to ask Christians why they are Christians. Embedded in the initial post is my assumption that the reasons are subjective (although they are judged objective by some
:D-->))
I have no problem with "it works for me"
I have no problem with "I experienced a, b and c so..."
I really have no problem with "God told me"
Because I cannot say, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it doesn't work for you, that you haven't experienced a, b or c, or that God didn't tell you.
What I do have a problem with is when one person's personal experience becomes the defining standard for everyone. And, in my opinion, the bible is a collection of peoples' personal experiences with and personal opinions of God. It's true because this book says it is.
-->
I reserve the right to observe that although you say that you are experiencing something, there is no external evidense that I can see, and the experience is therefore useless to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.