What Is Your Faith Story?

[juice]

Barnaby, I am curious. Why does the Bible (in specific, the New Testament and gospels) not count as history?

In regards to seeing the priests' rectory and being turned off to religion, I would like to paraphrase something I heard, but can't remember from whom:
"A man is out wearing his unique and distinguishable coat. Quickly, a thief runs back and snatches his coat, and after that, sprints to a bank. He proceeds to rob the bank and flee. 100 yards away, a policeman sees a man fleeing the bank and recognizes the coat. Consider the 'coat' Christianity and the man a sinful follower of Christ. In the same way we shouldn't judge the original victim because someone was wearing his coat, we shouldn't discredit God for His followers' shortcomings."

I think you would not find a single true Christian who claim to NOT be sinful. Christ came for the sick, not the healthy. I would encourage you to judge God by God and not by people.

Thanks for being open and sharing. Edited June 5, 2009 by juice

[Dr. B]

Thats a leap. If you flip a coin 10 times in succession, the chances are quite low that heads will come up 10 times in a row. 1:1024 if my math serves me well. On the other hand, the combination H-T-H-H-T-H-T-H-H-T in that order will only come up 1:1024, too. A person might look as a 1:1024 possibility of 10 heads in a row as quite improbable. The universe, our planet, humans, everything are the results of millions of "coin flips". It is indeed a unique result...highly improbable, quite true...but it is only one possible permutation, each just as unlikely as our "reality". You look at it as marvelous and impossible, that such an improbable series of random chances produced everything. I say, you're looking at the result as spectacular. Is H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-T less spectacular than H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H? Perhaps, if thats your viewpoint...but they have the same likelihood. The same thing is true here...you are looking at everything in the universe, biased, and thinking the result is miraculous...but from random chance, it is no more or less probable than any of the possibilities that didn;t come to pass...if H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H came up, and you were amazed, you might assume some divine hand had to influence it because of its improbability...unless you had bet on all tails..then you would curse your rotten luck. Your marvel of the improbability of the universe and everything in it sets you up to believe in a divine hand. If you just view it as one possibility...then the need for divine influence disappears.

It is in your view, that these people will lead a good life if they worship these things. I disagree. I don't have variances from my moral code. I live without fear or apprehension...I live with little remorse and no regrets or guilt. Again, not deviating from my moral code. These are by-products, in my opinion, of these religions. When a religious person does wrong, they seek absolution. They may be wracked with guilt or regret or fear of going to hell. I have no such inclinations. My life is free of these negative emotions. I am a pious man, I lead a good life and am good to other people, and all without the negative emotions of religion. The bible says true believers are people that follow the word of the bible, naturally, without intervention...am I a true believer? Am I a man who god would smile heartily on for I follow all the teachings of the bible without internal struggle? When you have no internal struggle with right and wrong and can only do right because of the removal of negative emotions that religion superimposes on people, happiness, tranquility and internal peace follow. I feel sorry that religious people can't experience the spiritual high and personal satisfaction I feel all the time at rest without fear, hatred or apprehension; religion must block it. You can't see that until you are where I am. If you did feel what I felt, you wouldn't need church or religion or god. You would be a good person because it is the most obvious, right thing to do; not because the bible or a preacher says its the right thing. Thats my view anyways. When I say "you" I mean other people, religious ones mostly, not FSU specifically. If there was a god, I think moral atheists would be closer to him. The Ten Commandments don't say anything about believing in god at all...atheists don't have religious wars, they don't bomb abortion clinics, or have inquisitions...yet we can be pious people...which is better, then? If all the positives of your (I mean FSU here) spiritual life can be had without the baggage that religion carries around with it (Whether in terms of global conflict or negative emotions). Why not try moral atheism? Its beautiful...

I'm left with the impression that your feelings on probability lack naturalism. To appeal to your example, to some degree, yes H(10) could be better than H(9)+T(1) if you in fact have some sort of dependence on one permutation over an other. Though they are just as likely to occur as each other in a number of coin flips in which T(1) could occur at any time, analyzing the series of subsequent coin flips with relation to their occurrence in time means that the likelihood of having H(10) is far less than having any other outcome, with the exception of T(10). Knowing this and realizing we live in a world where the "coin flips" are not mutually exclusive, that is that some parameters arise as consequences of the outcomes of others, we come to understand that the specific existence at which we have arrived at this immediate point in time is more rare than one would previously believe.

But you're right, all that really means is that the foregone existences are just as rare - it's a relative return to scale. However, the point at which faith enters the picture is when you realize that we depend on a specific set of outcomes from a countless number of parameters (assuming everything is not a multivariate experiment) for our particular existence, an outcome at which we have peculiarly arrived. Though life itself may exist as the result of other probable tangents, intelligent life, ours specifically, resulted from a delicate balance of outcomes - which we witness cohabiting this earth with a plethora of less intelligent animals. To view your existence as merely the result-not-forgone would imply you would be just as happy living as a fish or not living at all.

However, you make an appeal to moral relativism as the guiding force of your life. From this and your posts I gather that you have morals and a certain set of behavioral codes, for which I congratulate you. I do not believe that religion is the only path to virtue and am not attempting to dissuade you, but rather attempt to understand something I find peculiar. It seems apparent that you believe life is special and worth living successfully, which to me negates the possibility that you are an absurdist - you would not readily abandon your life at this moment. If some facet of your existence is important, anything at all, then, working backwards, the outcome of the many variables and parameters that make it possible must be important as well (existence as a whole). From this I deduce that the force/law which enabled these exercises in probability to occur must be important, disregarding the possibility that there was an external force commanding certain results. The intricacey and complexity of what is necessary to enjoy life, the order by which all mathematics and logic are governed, and the realm in which it all occurs is as important as the every-day interactions which are only possible through these governing forces. The totality which accounts for all these things is commonly called the universe, and it is important.

What puzzles me is that you simultaniously find the universe important yet seem to have no regard for the particular series of events which led to your being, which ought to be important. It is something that I am inferring, so if you would not mind elaborating on (or correcting) my observation I would appreciate the insight.

Personally, the fact that time and space somehow favored our particular probability series, and the arena in which is took place, is one of the many facets of G-d's work for which I am grateful.

P.S. Sorry if I dragged the post on, it's something I feel I might have an easier time explaining verbally.

[Barnaby]

Barnaby, I am curious. Why does the Bible (in specific, the New Testament and gospels) not count as history?

In regards to seeing the priests' rectory and being turned off to religion, I would like to paraphrase something I heard, but can't remember from whom:
"A man is out wearing his unique and distinguishable coat. Quickly, a thief runs back and snatches his coat, and after that, sprints to a bank. He proceeds to rob the bank and flee. 100 yards away, a policeman sees a man fleeing the bank and recognizes the coat. Consider the 'coat' Christianity and the man a sinful follower of Christ. In the same way we shouldn't judge the original victim because someone was wearing his coat, we shouldn't discredit God for His followers' shortcomings."

I think you would not find a single true Christian who claim to NOT be sinful. Christ came for the sick, not the healthy. I would encourage you to judge God by God and not by people.

Thanks for being open and sharing.

It is only 1 source. You need to have to back it up somehow, typically through other sources saying the same thing. Take the scientific method. You don't go and publish your findings, and have it taken by doctrine. It has to go through a peer review to back up those claims. The bible doesn't have this. There are not other works that back up the life of Jesus. And history was already being documented then. Without something else to back up the story of the bible, I cannot simply accept it as truth.

Without man, is there a God? Supposed you were born into this world, and no one EVER told you the concept of religion, of God. Nothing of that. Is there anything that would make you come to these concepts on your own? Only by the fruit of your own imagination, would you think that there is some all powerful being that must've created it all, as its the only way you could explain it, since you don't have the scientific knowledge to explain it all yet.

If I am to judge God on his actions, I can only think of this quote by Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

[Sherwood]

It is only 1 source. You need to have to back it up somehow, typically through other sources saying the same thing. Take the scientific method. You don't go and publish your findings, and have it taken by doctrine. It has to go through a peer review to back up those claims. The bible doesn't have this. There are not other works that back up the life of Jesus. And history was already being documented then. Without something else to back up the story of the bible, I cannot simply accept it as truth.

1) It's actually a collection of sources -- each book represents a separate source from a unique author or time period bound together.

2) It's very well-supported history. There is more corroborating evidence of Jesus' life than that of, say, Julius Caesar. That is to say, there's a minimal amount of evidence for both, but a minimal amount has been deemed acceptable considering the time period.

3) You would be throwing away almost the entirety of world history if you only accepted "peer-reviewed" firsthand accounts. You can't actually mean this. There was no academic standard for peer review in the first century CE, nor would Biblical documents have been submitted if there was. Much of the New Testament is comprised of private letters from Apostles to the churches they founded (letters which are, by and large, still extant and verify the accuracy of the current text of the Bible). The Bible is a primary source, not a journal submission -- there is no academic requirement for peer review.

There are numerous peer-reviewed analyses of Biblical content, however, many of which make a convincing case for both its historical accuracy and its truth. If the presence of peer review is all you need, you now believe in almost every world religion simultaneously.

The debate can be had over whether the Bible is "true", in the sense that its teachings actually mirror the will of God, and that by adhering to those teachings you can expects the benefits outlined therein. There is a difference between that truth, however, and historical validity. The Bible is an extremely thoroughly researched document. Historical records exist that match the current text with ancient text word-for-word, and there is much more evidence to verify the truth of most events as presented than there is to refute them. You can choose to distrust it as a historical document, but your distrust is not based on any sort of logical or scientific rigor -- it's just prejudice. Edited June 5, 2009 by Sherwood

[Sherwood]

There is more corroborating evidence of Jesus' life than that of, say, Julius Caesar.

Edit: This was intended to say Epicurus. Caesar may be true as well, but I don't have any evidence to substantiate that claim.

[judgeposer]

What is a moral code? Its a system of rules you live by because you have faith in their correctness.

I think can be said of a moral code taught by a religious faith too.

I don't have variances from my moral code. I live without fear or apprehension...I live with little remorse and no regrets or guilt. Again, not deviating from my moral code. These are by-products, in my opinion, of these religions. When a religious person does wrong, they seek absolution. They may be wracked with guilt or regret or fear of going to hell. I have no such inclinations. My life is free of these negative emotions. I am a pious man, I lead a good life and am good to other people, and all without the negative emotions of religion. [. . .] When you have no internal struggle with right and wrong and can only do right because of the removal of negative emotions that religion superimposes on people, happiness, tranquility and internal peace follow. I feel sorry that religious people can't experience the spiritual high and personal satisfaction I feel all the time at rest without fear, hatred or apprehension; religion must block it. You can't see that until you are where I am. If you did feel what I felt, you wouldn't need church or religion or god. You would be a good person because it is the most obvious, right thing to do; not because the bible or a preacher says its the right thing. Thats my view anyways. When I say "you" I mean other people, religious ones mostly, not FSU specifically. If there was a god, I think moral atheists would be closer to him. The Ten Commandments don't say anything about believing in god at all...atheists don't have religious wars, they don't bomb abortion clinics, or have inquisitions...yet we can be pious people...which is better, then? If all the positives of your (I mean FSU here) spiritual life can be had without the baggage that religion carries around with it (Whether in terms of global conflict or negative emotions). Why not try moral atheism? Its beautiful...

If it's your moral code, can you really stray from it? -vary from it? or operate in a truly contradictory way?

[judgeposer]

At the end of the day, any question I had was answered in circular logic. The bible is the word of God. "how do we know this?" Because the bible says so. "But why believe the bible?" Because the Bible is infallible. "But how do you know its unfallible?" BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!!! and so it goes.. But you must have faith I'm told... Ah.. Ok, let's have faith then. Like in Santa Claus.. oh.. yea.. oops..

This is a common criticism against the Bible, and a common concern of those who attempt to defend it. In another thread, I attempted to provide an answer to this criticism. The argument/response goes something like this. To have a circular argument, as you point out, the initial premise concludes the same thing as the final conclusion. Catholics argue spirally, not circularly. This, we can do because we believe in an infallible, God-founded (i.e. Christ-founded) institution. First, we can affirm the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is historical - this we can verify though other historically contemporaneous sources; in other words, other primary documents of the same time and place. From the Bible and from those sources we can claim that an infallible Church was founded (again, as Catholics see it, by Christ himself). Catholics then take the word of their infallible Church that the Bible is inspired (inspiration, however, means something different from necessarily inerrant or something that we should take literally). This argument avoids circularity, or what philosophers call begging-the-question, because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is something different that the initial premises/claims (that the Bible is historically reliable). In other words, the initial premise (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). The Catholic argument demonstrates that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

This argument, for some, presents new difficulties to overcome, admitedly. But, in the least, it does substantiate the Bible in a way that the less-intellectual, and thus circular approach does.

I think one of the biggest turn offs for me was in high school, we got to tour the Priest's Rectory. Vow of poverty my ass. Sure, they don't technically own anything, but what they are provided is complete luxury. A full kitchen staff to cook them all their meals. A mahogany library, a closest full of booze, 10 Lazy boys, with satelite TV.. They were hooked UP! How am I supposed to look to these hypocrites for guidance, when they did not practice what they preach?

Keep in mind that Religious priests take vows of poverty. Diocesan priests, those priests belonging to a diocese, and assigned to staff diocesan churches, do not. You can find Religious priests staffing local churches, but that is atypical since their vocation is usually to live in a religious-priest community. When they do diocesan work, they typically do enjoy the comforts anyone else would have in a home - and perhaps a few more, considering their enormously taxing schedules, which results from a lack of priests. In the end, a vow of poverty means not owning anything, or making an income - if you do make an income, it goes to your religious community. An example of Religious priests are those priests belonging to a religious order, like the Jesuits, the Dominicans, or the Franciscans, to make the three traditional powerhouses.

In regards to seeing the priests' rectory and being turned off to religion, I would like to paraphrase something I heard, but can't remember from whom:
"A man is out wearing his unique and distinguishable coat. Quickly, a thief runs back and snatches his coat, and after that, sprints to a bank. He proceeds to rob the bank and flee. 100 yards away, a policeman sees a man fleeing the bank and recognizes the coat. Consider the 'coat' Christianity and the man a sinful follower of Christ. In the same way we shouldn't judge the original victim because someone was wearing his coat, we shouldn't discredit God for His followers' shortcomings."

I think you would not find a single true Christian who claim to NOT be sinful. Christ came for the sick, not the healthy. I would encourage you to judge God by God and not by people.

Thanks for being open and sharing.

I think that's about right.

[judgeposer]

If I am to judge God on his actions, I can only think of this quote by Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

You bring up the problem of evil, or as it is a philosophical sub-discipline, theodicy. If this interests you any, you should, if you haven't already, read Alvin Plantinga's writings on this topic. I recommend him above others because he is an accepted analytical philosopher, a particular brand of philosophy practiced widely in the English-speaking world. It seeks to answer philosophical questions in a particular way that emphasizes clarity, and an analytic approach to language, often using formal logic to do so. (Analytic vs. Continental, if you're familiar with the distinction) - I don't mean to sound pedantic either; you might well be already aware of the volumes addressing this topic. Edited June 5, 2009 by judgeposer

[Rani]

Ive been sitting back and reading the responses before wading in because my story to faith is a wild one..... So here's my story strange though it's going to seem......

My father is full blood Cherokee, my mother has traces of Irish and whatever else came down the pipeline along with her Cherokee heritage. My parents separated when I was six months old so I didn't meet my paternal grandparents until I was 9 years old. Until that time I had no religious training of any kind. My paternal grandmother was a shaman - a medicine woman. My mom called her because really weird things were happening to me. I would almost supernaturally pick up on the emotions of everyone and everything around me. I'd be happy one moment, crying the next, and back again. Manic depressive elements seemingly within minutes, but then gone. My maternal grandparents wanted me tested by a psychiatrist, but my mother had seem some strange things when she and my dad were together so she took another route. Anyway my grandmother arrived and I remember seeing her at the base of the stairs to the porch. She had this amazing "presence" about her that to this day I can't explain. She studied me for a minute and then told my mother I was destined to be a shaman. She said I had the gifts and by picking up what was going on around me they were manifesting. She came inside and spent the next week teaching me how to control what I was picking up. For what I realized was the first time in my life it seemed like I was finally alone in my own head with my own emotions. Then at 14 serious training began. I spent winters in Los Angeles, and summers on the reservation in Northeast Oklahoma learning what it meant to be a medicine woman and use whatever strange gifts I'd been stuck with. And I do mean stuck with. I'm the biggest skeptic in the world and I don't buy into hocus pocus. But I do believe there's more out there than we can explain because I feel it with me 24/7/365. Like this hand on my shoulder and when I've refused to use this
perception I'm stuck with, that something gives me a good swift kick in the backside. Eventually I would give in with a disgruntled "Alright, already" and start taking it all seriously. And accepting it.

Part of the training includes sweat ceremonies, which everybody has some inkling of, even if only the Western movie version. During a meeting with your spirit guides you get what you might call is a mandate, or instructions on what you are supposed to do with your life. In my case my mandate or instruction were to study all the faiths of mankind because they all contain a thread of the divine and will all eventually be joined into one.

Well, like I said, I'm the worlds biggest skeptic, but that hand never leaves my shoulder. I can feel it every moment of every day. So I study. I study them all from old Egyptian "magic", all the way through Ba'hai' and everything in between. I read all the "documents" and I listen. I listen a lot. People come up to me out of nowhere and tell me things they'd never told anyone before. They tell me about their personal relationship with what people like to call God. And sometimes that thing out there fills me with so much pure peace and contentment that I never want to leave that moment. Sometimes it reminds me that we all have infinite potential and I'm not fulfiling all of mine just yet and tells me to "get a move on already!"

So that's how I ended up where I am. I've learned everyone walks a different path and sometimes we all get tripped up on the details along with road. But we're all heading to the same place. Some of us take a more roundabout route than others, but we'll all get there eventually. Because the funny thing about it all, is that it doesn't matter what you believe. What only matters is what Is. And what Is isn't going to change what It is whether you believe this way or that or not even not at all. Just like you can believe with all your heart that the sun will come up in the West tomorrow morning. It's still going to go blissfully along it's path and show up in your East window.

'Rani

[Tyler]

Wow Boho, that's an awsome story. I havn't studied any Native American religions yet other than some of the Alaskan tribes. I've always wanted to do a study with the Miccosukee tribe of Florida as well as the Seminoles, but so many things about the tribes are sacred and it's very hard for a non-native person to learn everything about the tribe's heritage, and I can't blame them for how they've been treated in the past and present. Out of all the faiths you've studied, which one do you find the most interesting?

[Rani]

Wow Boho, that's an awsome story. I havn't studied any Native American religions yet other than some of the Alaskan tribes. I've always wanted to do a study with the Miccosukee tribe of Florida as well as the Seminoles, but so many things about the tribes are sacred and it's very hard for a non-native person to learn everything about the tribe's heritage, and I can't blame them for how they've been treated in the past and present. Out of all the faiths you've studied, which one do you find the most interesting?

Here's what's amazing...... They are all very, VERY similar below the more obvious surface. Even polytheistic faiths have a supreme Creator/God who stands at the head of the pantheon. All the way down to Voodoo, Santeria, etc. Catholic saints are equal to spirit guides who are equal to minor gods who are equal to....... There is so very much in common that few people step outside themselves and their own teachings to look. I feel like "organized religion" in general should serve your personal purpose. It seems to serve more societal purpose than the purpose of God, because if God is infinite then he/she doesn't much care what you call him/her or how you make the call. I take something from everything I study and it works for me. For ritual I'm most comfortable with Tibetan Buddhism along with my Native American basis. They are both very formalized in many ways but both also allow for a great deal of laughter and just plain joy. Blending the two works for my personal ritual system, but I still come across things now and then that make me offer an extra prayer to something specific to that faith. I've seen way too much to not accept that it's ALL true. What people generally call God is like this incredible all encompassing diamond. Sometimes you're looking through this facet, something that one. Sometimes it's a little cloudy from your particular view, sometimes radiating. All depends on where you're standing at that particular moment.

'Rani

[Tyler]

I agree 100% with you Boho. I view each religion/denomination as a thread of a rope that we all use to climb to God. They're all very similar and seemingly innumerable parrallels can be drawn between then, especially the major religions out there.

[Rani]

I agree 100% with you Boho. I view each religion/denomination as a thread of a rope that we all use to climb to God. They're all very similar and seemingly innumerable parrallels can be drawn between then, especially the major religions out there.

If you get a chance pick up a book by Elizabeth Gilbert by the name of "Eat, Pray, Love". It's definitely more of a chick book because it deals with her personal journey after a bad divorce, but you go along reading her story and she says something so profound about life and faith that you suddenly find yourself slapping your forehead with a "Oh, yeah! That perfectly describes it!"

'Rani

[Tyler]

I'll have to check it out on one of my semester breaks, the reading for classes is intense enough haha! Thanks for the rec. though!

[Barnaby]

If anyone has not yet watched it, watch http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/. Make sure to watch the move, and not the addendum, as that's the 2nd part. Might want to skip the 1st 10 minutes or so, as it's just a very long intro. It has a very good argument on the basis of religion. To me, it makes the most sense. It all comes down to Occam's razor.

What is more believe at the end of the day? That a supernatural being exists, created everything, is omnipotent, spoke to us, gave us its teaching to write down, immaculately impregnated one of us, that gave birth to his son who is also god.. etc etc..

OR

Us being a primitive race, who did not yet have the knowledge of science necessary to start explaining things, came up with stories to try to explain how the world works. To explain why the sun rises and sets. To try and take away the fear of death, by saying you go on to life after death? To make sense of the chaos around us, so we can feel safe and not so alone.

I'm sorry, but the simplest explanation must be true. Watch the movie I linked to, and keep an open mind. The argument is way to compelling to ignore.

[Barnaby]

It is only 1 source. You need to have to back it up somehow, typically through other sources saying the same thing. Take the scientific method. You don't go and publish your findings, and have it taken by doctrine. It has to go through a peer review to back up those claims. The bible doesn't have this. There are not other works that back up the life of Jesus. And history was already being documented then. Without something else to back up the story of the bible, I cannot simply accept it as truth.

1) It's actually a collection of sources -- each book represents a separate source from a unique author or time period bound together.

2) It's very well-supported history. There is more corroborating evidence of Jesus' life than that of, say, Julius Caesar. That is to say, there's a minimal amount of evidence for both, but a minimal amount has been deemed acceptable considering the time period.

3) You would be throwing away almost the entirety of world history if you only accepted "peer-reviewed" firsthand accounts. You can't actually mean this. There was no academic standard for peer review in the first century CE, nor would Biblical documents have been submitted if there was. Much of the New Testament is comprised of private letters from Apostles to the churches they founded (letters which are, by and large, still extant and verify the accuracy of the current text of the Bible). The Bible is a primary source, not a journal submission -- there is no academic requirement for peer review.

There are numerous peer-reviewed analyses of Biblical content, however, many of which make a convincing case for both its historical accuracy and its truth. If the presence of peer review is all you need, you now believe in almost every world religion simultaneously.

The debate can be had over whether the Bible is "true", in the sense that its teachings actually mirror the will of God, and that by adhering to those teachings you can expects the benefits outlined therein. There is a difference between that truth, however, and historical validity. The Bible is an extremely thoroughly researched document. Historical records exist that match the current text with ancient text word-for-word, and there is much more evidence to verify the truth of most events as presented than there is to refute them. You can choose to distrust it as a historical document, but your distrust is not based on any sort of logical or scientific rigor -- it's just prejudice.

Its not prejudice. When looking at non-christian writers at the time that lived in the area that Jesus supposedly lived in, in particular Philo Judaeus (look him up). You'd think that he'd write about someone who walked on water, performed miracles, was crucified, and later resurrected. He didn't. The only documentation that we have to back up the life of Jesus, is wait for it.. Church leaders.. You think that they might be a tad bit biased here?

I mean seriously.. If you met someone who told you, that God spoke to him, and gave him his teachings, would you believe him? Hell no, You'd' think he's off his rocker. Do you believe in the Mormon faith? That God game to Joeseph Smith, and gave him tablets that had a new testament of Christ, that he could only read out of a magic hat?? No, you probably don't. But is that any less believable than what is said to have happened to inspire the writers of the bible? We might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
Edited June 6, 2009 by Barnaby

[Rani]

It is only 1 source. You need to have to back it up somehow, typically through other sources saying the same thing. Take the scientific method. You don't go and publish your findings, and have it taken by doctrine. It has to go through a peer review to back up those claims. The bible doesn't have this. There are not other works that back up the life of Jesus. And history was already being documented then. Without something else to back up the story of the bible, I cannot simply accept it as truth.

1) It's actually a collection of sources -- each book represents a separate source from a unique author or time period bound together.

2) It's very well-supported history. There is more corroborating evidence of Jesus' life than that of, say, Julius Caesar. That is to say, there's a minimal amount of evidence for both, but a minimal amount has been deemed acceptable considering the time period.

3) You would be throwing away almost the entirety of world history if you only accepted "peer-reviewed" firsthand accounts. You can't actually mean this. There was no academic standard for peer review in the first century CE, nor would Biblical documents have been submitted if there was. Much of the New Testament is comprised of private letters from Apostles to the churches they founded (letters which are, by and large, still extant and verify the accuracy of the current text of the Bible). The Bible is a primary source, not a journal submission -- there is no academic requirement for peer review.

There are numerous peer-reviewed analyses of Biblical content, however, many of which make a convincing case for both its historical accuracy and its truth. If the presence of peer review is all you need, you now believe in almost every world religion simultaneously.

The debate can be had over whether the Bible is "true", in the sense that its teachings actually mirror the will of God, and that by adhering to those teachings you can expects the benefits outlined therein. There is a difference between that truth, however, and historical validity. The Bible is an extremely thoroughly researched document. Historical records exist that match the current text with ancient text word-for-word, and there is much more evidence to verify the truth of most events as presented than there is to refute them. You can choose to distrust it as a historical document, but your distrust is not based on any sort of logical or scientific rigor -- it's just prejudice.

Its not prejudice. When looking at non-christian writers at the time that lived in the area that Jesus supposedly lived in, in particular Philo Judaeus (look him up). You'd think that he'd write about someone who walked on water, performed miracles, was crucified, and later resurrected. He didn't. The only documentation that we have to back up the life of Jesus, is wait for it.. Church leaders.. You think that they might be a tad bit biased here?

I mean seriously.. If you met someone who told you, that God spoke to him, and gave him his teachings, would you believe him? Hell no, You'd' think he's off his rocker. Do you believe in the Mormon faith? That God game to Joeseph Smith, and gave him tablets that had a new testament of Christ, that he could only read out of a magic hat?? No, you probably don't. But is that any less believable than what is said to have happened to inspire the writers of the bible? We might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

As someone who reads all the doctrine, I would like to add something here...... I take them all as lessons to be learned but with a grain of salt. Even if one turns out to have assumed that the Bible for example is the direct word of God, it seem logical to give God credit for dictating it to the time and place it was dictated. The big Bible references floating around these days in my neck of the woods are the verses the religious right are using are those that imply gay marriage is an affront to God and I just have this vision of God showing up at the doorway to the world and saying......

"For My sake people! I wrote that several thousand years ago when there were like a million poeple on the whole earth. If I didn't insist you go forth and multiply in hertero fashion, one good plague could have wiped out the whole species and I'd have to start all over! Doesn't seem much danger of that now - earth is so lousy with human life you're driving all my other creations into extinction, so stop with the multiplying already! Why do you think I'm increasing the gay population? I am afterall, God! A little credit for knowing what I'm doing would be appreciated!"

If religious doctrine are going to continue to be living, working guidelines, we also have to include logic in the study of them. And then there's that entire chapter on free will the religious right wing just seem to want to gloss right over. I find it amazing how many religious personalities have so little of the spiritual in them. They will take from context what supports their own personal prejudices and ignore that which doesn't. That could surely not be the intention of any form of divinity that I would feel a connection with.

'Rani

[Sonthert]

Eric: "If all the positives of your (I mean FSU here) spiritual life can be had without the baggage that religion carries around with it (Whether in terms of global conflict or negative emotions). Why not try moral atheism?"

Because life is more fufilling to me with my beliefs and my faith in God; and to me moral atheism sounds empty, cold, and unfufilling, if it works for you -- that's great, but it's not right for me.

I would submit if you don't believe in god, with certainty, you couldn't begin believing in god again, so therefore you can't really make your statement that life is more fulfilling with your faith in god. If you were to believe in god and stop practicing religion, but choose to begin practicing again, comparing the two is hardly comparable to comparing the two of us, that is, you don;t know that it is more fulfilling because you never not believed in god.

I'm left with the impression that your feelings on probability lack naturalism. To appeal to your example, to some degree, yes H(10) could be better than H(9)+T(1) if you in fact have some sort of dependence on one permutation over an other. Though they are just as likely to occur as each other in a number of coin flips in which T(1) could occur at any time, analyzing the series of subsequent coin flips with relation to their occurrence in time means that the likelihood of having H(10) is far less than having any other outcome, with the exception of T(10). Knowing this and realizing we live in a world where the "coin flips" are not mutually exclusive, that is that some parameters arise as consequences of the outcomes of others, we come to understand that the specific existence at which we have arrived at this immediate point in time is more rare than one would previously believe.

The coin doesn't care whether it comes up heads or tails...nor does the universe care whether we evolved on this planet or not...whether we're betting on it or not.

That is not correct. Using 5 flips as a shorter example, H-H-H-H-H is just as likely as H-H-H-H-T or H-H-H-T-H. The last two are different results, not just 4H, 1T. It is correct that 4H, 1T in any order is more likely than 5H or 5T(5 times more likely, in fact, or 5/2 more likely than both put together). I don't agree with your point at the end. All life on Earth derives from L-Amino Acids (I believe its not D-Amino Acids..). If the cosmic coin flip had started us off from D-Amino Acids...would life have been different? Is there an advantage to using L-Amino Acids rather than D-Amino Acids that is unclear? There is a whole school of thought that there are more mechanisms to evolution besides natural selection and they would argue that perhaps everything is the way it is because it is the best design, all things considered. Also, they might argue, life will evolve in a multitude of places, not because of a miracle or strange concurrence of variables, but because life is a chemical inevitability if their is a satisfactory energy gradient.

But you're right, all that really means is that the foregone existences are just as rare - it's a relative return to scale. However, the point at which faith enters the picture is when you realize that we depend on a specific set of outcomes from a countless number of parameters (assuming everything is not a multivariate experiment) for our particular existence, an outcome at which we have peculiarly arrived. Though life itself may exist as the result of other probable tangents, intelligent life, ours specifically, resulted from a delicate balance of outcomes - which we witness cohabiting this earth with a plethora of less intelligent animals. To view your existence as merely the result-not-forgone would imply you would be just as happy living as a fish or not living at all.

That is supposition on your part. Religious dogma, in fact, the backing for the wallpaper of intelligent design. How can you make that assertion before being able to ascertain how common intelligent life is in the Universe? Perhaps only one planet in our Solar System having intelligent life is an oddity...maybe in almost all other star systems, intelligent life independently evolved on several planets over different spans of time or even simultaneously. You're making a generalization from one case...what science book did that come from?

However, you make an appeal to moral relativism as the guiding force of your life. From this and your posts I gather that you have morals and a certain set of behavioral codes, for which I congratulate you. I do not believe that religion is the only path to virtue and am not attempting to dissuade you, but rather attempt to understand something I find peculiar. It seems apparent that you believe life is special and worth living successfully, which to me negates the possibility that you are an absurdist - you would not readily abandon your life at this moment. If some facet of your existence is important, anything at all, then, working backwards, the outcome of the many variables and parameters that make it possible must be important as well (existence as a whole). From this I deduce that the force/law which enabled these exercises in probability to occur must be important, disregarding the possibility that there was an external force commanding certain results. The intricacey and complexity of what is necessary to enjoy life, the order by which all mathematics and logic are governed, and the realm in which it all occurs is as important as the every-day interactions which are only possible through these governing forces. The totality which accounts for all these things is commonly called the universe, and it is important.

What puzzles me is that you simultaniously find the universe important yet seem to have no regard for the particular series of events which led to your being, which ought to be important. It is something that I am inferring, so if you would not mind elaborating on (or correcting) my observation I would appreciate the insight.

Ah, I see your question. Its written in the Christian Doctrine (paraphrasing) of the Lord's Prayer: Its not worth worrying about things you can't change...only the things you can change. Putting it in my tone, its unwise to waste energy dwelling on things which you have no power to influence. A reed caught in the current can question its final destination, but not what brought it to be at that destination. It is our choice to live well in our journey, but how we came to be on this road is irrelevant. We are here, that is all that's important. A peach margarita might be nice, though.

Personally, the fact that time and space somehow favored our particular probability series, and the arena in which is took place, is one of the many facets of G-d's work for which I am grateful.

That is not a fact at all. Again, the coin cares not whether you win or lose on the coin toss. This is the mindset of the religious that it is miraculous. If you see it as only one possibility of an infinite series, god is impossible.

I think can be said of a moral code taught by a religious faith too.

I apologize if it sounded like I was saying otherwise.

If it's your moral code, can you really stray from it? -vary from it? or operate in a truly contradictory way?

Next time you go to confession, you'll have your answer.

[Tyler]

That MAY be true, but sometimes you don't have to go to the other side to know that the grass is greener. A life without God, for one -- doesn't exist, and is meaningless...in my point of view.

[Tyler]

O.K. guys I really like the conversation going on here but it seems to be getting to the point where the origonal intent of the thread is being lost and this is turning into more of an atheist/theist debate. Would it be too much to ask to either a) move the debate to a seperate thread move it to PM or c) just let it go? I don't want it to scare off others from posting their journies.

[Sonthert]

That MAY be true, but sometimes you don't have to go to the other side to know that the grass is greener. A life without God, for one -- doesn't exist, and is meaningless...in my point of view.

You can't be sure though. You've never had a favorite food replaced by another favorite food? You like tuna, for instance and then you try calamari and its better. How can you assume that what you have tried is the best possible there is?

[Tyler]

Faith.

[Canon]

That MAY be true, but sometimes you don't have to go to the other side to know that the grass is greener. A life without God, for one -- doesn't exist, and is meaningless...in my point of view.

You can't be sure though. You've never had a favorite food replaced by another favorite food? You like tuna, for instance and then you try calamari and its better. How can you assume that what you have tried is the best possible there is?

I believe in God. I believe that he has made the universe and the earth (surprisingly i believe in the big bang aswell). you cannot compare liking tuna (believing in God) to trying calamari if you have always believed in God. in order for me to actually try to enjoy calamari i would have to stop believing in God. i would have to believe that the big bang happened by itself, that matter was never created to begin with and was always there and that earth just happened by coinflips.

[Kapten Kanel]

That MAY be true, but sometimes you don't have to go to the other side to know that the grass is greener. A life without God, for one -- doesn't exist, and is meaningless...in my point of view.

You can't be sure though. You've never had a favorite food replaced by another favorite food? You like tuna, for instance and then you try calamari and its better. How can you assume that what you have tried is the best possible there is?

Faith.

You do realize that you kind of just pointed out the issue yourself?

[Barnaby]

True that.. People had faith that the earth was flat for a LONG period of time.. uh.. I think it might be round now, yes?