Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Mycernius]

PC gremlins ate your words

@ Parasousia. Nice article on the Grand canyon and the flood myth. Just a few points. In some cases a canyon can be created by a sudden surge of water due to the type of ground it is running over. A softer material will erode very quickly than a harder one leaving one to beleive this could be the norm for all canyons and gorges. If erosion is really a quick process rather than a slow process then places like Niagara Falls would be moving at a quicker rate than they are now. The evidence that our planet is older than Genesis likes to point out is becoming more apparent than creationist would like to see. Mountains thousand of feet high have sea dwelling creatures in their strata. Mountains like this do not form in a matter of thousands of years. Even with seismic activity it takes a long time to push a seabed up to several thousand feet. I look at it this way creationists like to debase certian scientific methods and conclusions. By doing so they have to use scientific research to do so. The problem is they are looking for a biased result and will read what they want into the end results. If they end up with results that do not give the results they wanted they will disreagrd them or say it is the will of God that we shpuld not understand this yet. I believe science should be objective not subjective. By trying to find they facts to fit their agenda they are making it subjective. This will eventually become nonsense, as has happened in the past, not only to those who follow creationism, but also the those that follow scientific reason.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Scientism as a system of reason takes away the mystical sense by its reductionism. Scientism as a religion might allow the exclusion of reductionism, leaving room for awe when beholding a rainbow. Don't you think the element of surprise plays at least some part in the mystery ?

I suppose this is what I meant when I said above that my explanation seems lame! I'm having trouble expressing all of how I feel, because by their very nature mystical experiences are emotional and cannot be fully expressed in words. I suppose what I am saying is "Wow, that rainbow is beautiful" is OK on its own, but if you can move from that into an understanding of how the rainbow got there, why it appeared at that particular time, why you rarely see rainbows at noon or in winter etc, etc, it adds so much more to the experience. My mind is analytical, and I derive satisfaction from the process. If I see a mystery - something I don't understand - I have to try to understand it. If I succeed I learn something. If I fail, I know that there is still a lot left to learn, which gives me something to look forward to. Do I still sound like a robot?

I forgot the trust part. Threre is a mysterious~cryptic passage, "Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom/knowledge (?)" I could never understand that because fear hampers learning from my experience; not that I am justified in generalising on it.

I have always taken this to mean "the beginning of wisdom is knowing that you are inferior and you'd better behave". But your interpretation has got me thinking.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Hi Pararousia :wave:

What struck me even more was that the study of the eruption and its after-effects has challenged the very foundations of evolutionary theory.

Mycernius has more or less covered the arguments against this. I just want to add a bit. The way you are reasoning is this: I believe what Genesis says. Let's find what evidence we can to support Genesis and ignore the rest. The way scientific reasoning works is: let's assume such-and-such hypothesis is true and gather as much data as possible. If the data supports the hypothesis we'll call it a theory. BUT as soon as we discover something that isn't explained by the hypothesis we revise accordingly.

 

[Void]

I If I see a mystery - something I don't understand - I have to try to understand it. If I succeed I learn something. If I fail, I know that there is still a lot left to learn, which gives me something to look forward to. Do I still sound like a robot?

no, you certainly not (and you didn`t). Now, when i know why the rainbow
appears i can make one with garden hose just for aestetic amusement. I know
why it appears but can make a wish when i see one (or just consider it as
some token) And i don`t know why it makes me feel so happy when i see double rainbow

Many people like to analyse and figure out how smth works. But not all of
them reductionists. Besides, we have answer to the question "how it works"
but so seldom for "why?!", so, there is plenty of room for awe

 

[lexico]

Science may appear to answer the why when in reality it only answers the how. Always.
Only conscious beings with a will -- a personality -- can have an intention that can cause an action which will cause a result.
Nature, by nature, is impersonal, hence has no will or intention, and can never be the answer to the why-question. To do so would be anthropomorphising nature.

 

[No-name]

Interesting discusion on rainbows and creation science.

As a Christian, I can't buy creation science at all. There is a center in San Diego with a nice museum that took a lot of work, but at its roots you will find that the assumption came before the data. This always makes for bad science. Now I for one have no problem believing the Genesis account. I just don't believe you can prove it scientifically, and the more data you collect- it seems the farther you get from this "truth." The pseudo-scientists don't help the argument at all.

As an educator, trying to include what I think is clearly a religiosly based and non scientific theory into our science curriculum is horrible. I will teach my kids the Genesis story at home and at church. I want their science teachers to teach them science. I would get pretty upset if they had to include a chapter on astrology for balance, too. (Just like I want their math teachers to stick to algebra, geometry and calculas.)

I can't remember which scientist was looking at which coastal cliffs of chalk (Dover?) but realizing that the chalk was sediments of the remains of diatoms got him calculating that it took a really long time to form, get compressed and then erode into cliffs. Absolutely good science. However I can believe that those cliffs were there on the first day of creation. It is not beyond my God to create a million year old cliff of chalk in one day, and isn't it what I should expect to see?

I sincerely believe that serious inquiry will find truth eventually. Science will catch up to religion and will one day find the fingerprints of God.

 

[lexico]

Great, Sabro !

And may I add, that if there were a creator, would the creator be subject to time or any other physical frame of reference ?
If creation were true, then the whole time span would fall within what was created. The past, the future, were all created at once. Now could science even try to grasp that mystery ? (if it were true :biggrin: )

 

[No-name]

Lexico-
That blows my mind. (Sabro has a tense look of concentration :clueless: he tries his hardest to wrap a tiny human brain around such a huge concept.) This is worth exploring further- I am definitely going to bounce this one off of Philosophy MA and Pastor- Jake- at church today.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Many people like to analyse and figure out how smth works. But not all of them reductionists. Besides, we have answer to the question "how it works" but so seldom for "why?!", so, there is plenty of room for awe

Science may appear to answer the why when in reality it only answers the how. Always.
Only conscious beings with a will -- a personality -- can have an intention that can cause an action which will cause a result.
Nature, by nature, is impersonal, hence has no will or intention, and can never be the answer to the why-question. To do so would be anthropomorphising nature.

That doesn't worry me. 'Why' is irrelevant when it comes to nature. Nature just is. You're right, we can answer how it got that way, but that's all we need. The fact that nature is devoid of intention adds to my sense of wonder. I find it amazing that nature can be so complicated and beautiful, but no-one made it that way.

It occurred to me that we have been looking at the mystical without defining it. What do we mean by a mystical/spiritual/religious experience? Are they three words for the same thing, or three different phenomena? To me they are the same thing, and a mystical experience is one in which I realise that I am a small part of something bigger than myself, something that I can take part in that would still exist without me. What perspective do any of you have on this?

 

[lexico]

That doesn't worry me. 'Why' is irrelevant when it comes to nature. Nature just is. You're right, we can answer how it got that way, but that's all we need. The fact that nature is devoid of intention adds to my sense of wonder. I find it amazing that nature can be so complicated and beautiful, but no-one made it that way.

All agreeable; but your conclusion is but your assumption; neither verified nor disproved. That is why I used the term Scientism that has the religious aspect in addition to the rational. By accepting one axiom over another, you have subscribed to the religion of Scientism.

It occurred to me that we have been looking at the mystical without defining it. What do we mean by a mystical/spiritual/religious experience? Are they three words for the same thing, or three different phenomena? To me they are the same thing, and a mystical experience is one in which I realise that I am a small part of something bigger than myself, something that I can take part in that would still exist without me. What perspective do any of you have on this?

A fine definition that I have no qualms with. As for your above statement of "I'm having trouble expressing all of how I feel, because by their very nature mystical experiences are emotional and cannot be fully expressed in words", I am not sure you can confine it to something emotional. How about something that transcends reason ?

Another possiblity is that while we might be able to circumscribe it, ie. talk about it and discuss various properties associated with it, it might cease to be a mystery the moment we fix it to something definite.

 

[Mars Man]

There have been a lot of things here that I'd just love to think about more carefully than time allows at the moment. (that meaning not just this very minute) At the same time, there are a number of yet outstanding considerations which, as someone has mentioned before (maybe Void?), may not fall into any absolute white and black type things, but which may nevertheless be reasonably considered more, or, most likely,probable. These areas, in my opinon have to focus on the data base that Christianity uses in the first place--the best possible rendering of the original autographs which are then translated into English--in our case.

Sabro san had mentioned in his #78 post, and I quote, "On that first day when light was created how old would the sun appear?" Well, while it is very possible, linguistically, to get the idea of 'time period' out of the Hebrew word which is translated 'day' (see Gen 2:4b), it better fits the concept of 'sabbath' which comes up so much later on (Ex 20:8-11-notice YHYW is supposed to have said this;vs 1-; 31:12-17) so as to give good weight to the then understanding of a literal 144 earth-hour period of work and a 24 hour period of rest. The Hebrew basically does not have future and past tense, and the continious is common, so it's hard to say just what had been in the minds of the writers. But, the Genesis account does not have the sun being created on the first day. The author probably conceptualized light as something unrelated to our star--and that word cannot be argued to carry much later overtones of the word 'light' as it can be found in the writings of John, and his troupe. The sun was made, and put inside the 'dome' which was under the 'water zone', along with the moon and the stars, on the fourth day (Gen 1:14-19)

The very possible secondary sorce material for the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the nature of the first source. Although there is some degree of generality, the wording in the first source (Gen 1:1-2:3) puts human creation after animal creation whereas the second source (Gen 2:4-26 plus alpha) puts it together . There are really some problems here that are simply very illogical, do not mix with what is known to be a more realistic understanding of natural history, and which greatly tend to lessen the overall truth value of the story.

It is very unreasonable to assume that it could be realistic to say that any creator would have created a male without any intention of a female. It is very mythological in nature to assert that any automatically speaking, reasoning, acting creature would not know what state they were in and feel shame because of that--that is why this area is always explained as being purely symbolic in nature, BUT we do not know if the original penman intended it to be so or not, and since so many of the connecting stories are usually thought of as attempts to report on true history, such people are logically obligated to take this as an attempt to report on true history as well. Jumping a little to save a lot of space, all this story telling most likely boils down to a reflection of the mindset of the religious leaders of that culture of that day. (That's why you get "God" telling Noah that some of the animals that "He" had created, had been created 'unclean'. (Gen 7:2,8; 8:18-21. That's why you get "God" basically saying that it's a sin to be a woman. (Lev 15:19-29). That's why you get animal sacrifice as being important right from the begining almost (Gen 4:3-5)

I agree with much that has been said in the 'science' thing. I have a good definition of 'scientism' which I hope to share later. Rational thinking is a must, and for that reason, good scientific method is a very realistic tool to use when even looking at the Bible--because it would not be safe to believe an object before knowing that object's real believability. Some in the past and even now, believe some very obviously wrong religious stories to be representative of true history--and I'm not adding Christianity to that list at this particular point even. Also, if we are to put any god on an anthropomorphic model, it is only certain that the author of such god's model will be put upon the god that that one creates. The Hebrew god was built on the Hebrew model, it's fixed in history, and we can't change that. It is reasonable, by so many yet untouched on points, to say that the creation model of Genesis was a generally accurate model, by whatever means it that had been--study, luck, supernatural input (which does not equal truth nor "God")--but not an all and out true model. It is very certain that human existence is longer than some 7000 plus years--there are footprints in the ash-turned to rock in Africa and other places that very well seal that point in stone, so to speak.

Oh no, time has gone, gone...with the wind and sun and erosion....See you all next time !! :wave:

 

[No-name]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept that time itself falls under creation. A day in the creation story takes on such a fresh meaning. I also remember back to some history classes, some pre mosaic egyptian and babylonian writings that closely parallel the torah's creation story. I'm wondering if that whole genesis account was supposed to be taken as literal as we American Evangelicals take it. How would the ancient hebrews have read such stories? And I love the "Let there be light." line. To speak light into existence is the essence of the power of God.

Got anything Mars Man?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Scientism: The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

You're right Lex, I'll sign up for that. But why do I believe that? Am I just as dogmatic as a Creationist? I don't think so. The key is falsifiability. Christian dogma starts from the assumption that god or the Bible (depending on the degree of fundamentalism) is infallible - unfalsifiable. Scientism accepts the possibility that anything it holds true could in fact be false.

 

[No-name]

I think a certain amount of any religious faith has to be dogmatic. I know there are apologeticists out there that can "prove" there faith. There are rather convincing books like Evidence that Demands a Verdict. But what shook me to the core was an unwaivering belief that God existed. It is nothing that I chose, or constructed or was convinced of. My only decision was how to respond to it.

 

[Mars Man]

Howdy sabro, Tsuyoiko chan,

Well, I don't really think anyone can claim to know what the essence of whatever may be out there that we could apply the concept god to, is. It's pretty obvious that Judaism didn't really have enough 'inside information' on it, so who really knows. I would avow the great possibilty of some sort of creative act or event, in whatever manner and degree, but in the same breath would admit that we just don't know anything that we cannot learn from looking at nature itself--all our understanding has to go with the established basics of nature because without any doubt whatsoever, it was here before any human conceptualism.

The pre-Egyptian source I don't know of, but the other is the Gilamish Epic, thought to have been composed in Babylonia c. 2000 BCE. It has a flood story, like a good number of ancient stories (remember Mu)--also the chinese character for 'boat' or 'ship' (eight people in a vessel)--but is different in that his mother (if my memory serves me well, the book's at the uni) is cut up and from that comes the earth. Some scholars have seen enough resemblance to argue that the author of Genesis borrowed from there some, but those voices appear to be a bit eccentric.

The linguistical flow, and poetical touch in the Genesis story is nice--it is well written. It would be an empty exercise to attempt to show that any quotes given in that flow were actual quotes made by any non-human, however, and only by looking at commentaries of the Jewish religious leaders of the second temple period, and the Christian writings, can we get a glimpse of just how they (not the common folk) understood the stuff. But it would be good to point out here, I feel, that the very style and format of almost the entire group of writings compiled by those early AND later Jewish religionists heavily leans to a very literal understanding other than the definitely visionary and prophetic symbolism and hyperbolic passages. (which are always in a very distinguishable context)

Tsuyoiko chan, a good short and to the point post there. Actually, I have learned that when it comes to the Bible, it is falsifiable. In all the science/religion (usually Christianity) articles, documentaries, and books that I have some across, that matter is never talked about. It seems as though the science people usually don't really know so much about the Bible, and those on the other side do not think of (or do not wish to be) applying some basic physical rules and the more 'known-to-be-true' things of science to the Bible. I mean it is not necessary to look to quantim theory in this case, it is not necessary to worry about some who may want to only reduce things all down. I'm just talking about plain ole common sense about the more readily understood and known-to-be-true things--for example (as I mentioned before--no intent to harp here)if four writers writing on a certain, single event in the flow of time (as we have always percieved it) do not agree on just what happened, we have to admit that at best, three of them are simply wrong (they do not know what happened) and yet, it cannot be shown that any of them are right because they all differ. In this case, we can clearly say that at best, three of the accounts are falsifiable. I appreciate your bringing that up there.

I've got a big post to do on that other thread, I don't have time to spend here....wow.... signing out for now folks, catch you down the road !! :wave:

 

[Void]

It occurred to me that we have been looking at the mystical without defining it. What do we mean by a mystical/spiritual/religious experience? Are they three words for the same thing, or three different phenomena? To me they are the same thing, and a mystical experience is one in which I realise that I am a small part of something bigger than myself, something that I can take part in that would still exist without me. What perspective do any of you have on this?

i think words rarely appear without reason. So mystical, spiritual and religious, they seem related and blen casualy one into another, but...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mystical
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spiritual
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religious

from same dictionary
mystery - [Middle English misterie, from Latin mystrium, from Greek mustrion, secret rite, from musts, an initiate, from mein, to close the eyes, initiate.]

spirit -[Middle English, from Old French espirit, from Latin spritus, breath,
from sprre, to breathe.]

religion - [Middle English religioun, from Old French religion,
from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.]

For myself. Let`s start with spirit. We have a church (and not one) at our town, but i never visit it. It`s nice looking building of traditional orthodox
architecture. But i am not willing to enter inside. But from time to time visit
the church yard just to look, to take pics of one pine tree standing in a
middle of it. For me this tree has much more of divine presence than the church itself with all its parishioners. I just breathe into the beauty of a skies, of rustling wind and such. Maybe it has smth to deal with animism, but i don`t feel so. Almost like that you can inbreathe the words or suddenly opened idea, into the piece of art work. Maybe, this is an awe. But i also feel myself a part of it

Mystery. As smth uncomprehensible. Maybe, has more to do with anima, feelings or emotions. For example, my friend has a dog. I`d never done anything extremly nice to this fluffy fellow but he is so happy to see me, greeting, jumping expressing his joy the way he can. Sometimes my cats are so happy to play with me and they shake their heads unable to say and show more. I can see and feel how my friend are glad to see me, how my mom loves me. I`ve got that strange overwhelming feeling when i see or think about people i love and care about.
There also can go artworks what touch your heart and tune the emotions.
Well, i can get an explanation that certain ares of my brain have higher impulse than the others and that gives my feeling of joy, satisfaction and such. But hell, it`s not just that - electric impulses and chemistry!
This is indeed like initiation, when another being making me a part of his universe and so do i.

religious. It`s probably almost the same with yours, Tsuyoiko, My religious
belief is that there is something big outside what can go without me, smth
i can barely touch and comprehend. If i am not mistaken Lomonosov said that
God gave us two books. 1st one to show His magnificence and grandeur, and 2nd - to show His Will. The fist book is the World, the 2nd - is Bible.
Personally, i am not sure about the second (guilty-guilty ), but about the 1st - have no doubts in its greatness.
Some people can experience this just thinking about God

i can see that all this situations sometimes unseparable, but in many cases
some borders can be draught. I never really tried to distinguish them, but
that`s some quick sketch. Don`t know whether i am willing to paint the picture or not

 

[Void]

it was hard to resist ... no intent to offend anyone

 

[Pararousia]

They must've tapped his lil beak shut! *L*

Waves :wave:

Marsy, Guess I'm still missing your point about the sign. When I was in Japan this past June, I had the opportunity to read a story to a group of children in English. The story was then read in Japanese. I would read 2 or 3 sentences and then our translator read the Japanese. I and the other Americans would look at each other in amazement at how long it took the translator to read the same 2 or 3 sentences! Had I not known better, I would have thought she was off reading something else entirely!

Mycernius: Mountains thousand of feet high have sea dwelling creatures in their strata.

Is this like sea gulls flying over McDonalds 200 miles inland???

Tsuyeiko: I suppose what I am saying is "Wow, that rainbow is beautiful" is OK on its own, but if you can move from that into an understanding of how the rainbow got there, why it appeared at that particular time, why you rarely see rainbows at noon or in winter etc, etc, it adds so much more to the experience.

Did you see the recent movie "War of the Worlds"? Do you remember how they begin the movie in outer space and then zoom in to a drop of water and then zoom in further to all the microscopic life inside the drop of water? That gives me that same sense of amazement to think how life is built upon life, culture upon culture, building block on building block. Reminds me of the very old song line "O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder consider all the worlds Thy hands have made, I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder, Thy pow'r thruout the universe displayed! Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to thee, how great Thou art, how great Thou art!"

Sabro: It is not beyond my God to create a million year old cliff of chalk in one day

As were Adam and Eve created with age, not as babes in the garden. And, yes, Lexico, I believe Time is a creation of God as well. From where God dwells in Eternity, He knows the end from the beginning. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, "God has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

Marsy: That's why you get "God" telling Noah that some of the animals that "He" had created, had been created 'unclean'. (Gen 7:2,8; 8:18-21. That's why you get "God" basically saying that it's a sin to be a woman. (Lev 15:19-29)

There's been several occasions in this thread and others where whole subjects were slung out here, out of context, and left to hang. God created an order to His "government", He laid out rules of how He wanted man to serve Him. Taking verses like those above totally out of context prove, IMHO, personal bias' of my fellow posters to the subject of God and the Bible and nothing else.

So much talk about truth and honesty here, yet why is this thread titled "conceptions and misconceptions" or the other one "Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion" when both threads should be entitled "Bible bashing" or "what atheists want you to believe"? You see, no amount of explanation or proof/evidence will change your minds any more than your explanations will change mine. You don't believe Jesus rose from the dead even though there were eyewitnesses to His death or resurrected life. You would say immediately, "oh they got it wrong" or "they were mistaken". These are men and women who were martyred because they knew a risen Lord. They risked their lives, their families, their cultural ties, all--not for a lie--but for the Truth!

:wave:

 

[Mars Man]

Marsy, Guess I'm still missing your point about the sign.


Good Morning there Pararousia !! :wave: I hope it's as nice a summer-becoming fallish day there, as it is here !!

I've got an idea. Please do give this a try, and think about it very carefully, and let me know the results, please.

Take out a piece of paper, and in letters large enough to pretty much make the writing cross the whole page, please write the following:

This is King of the Jews


Then, after having written it, look at it carefully, and read it to yourself, and then get back with me, and please kindly and honesty tell me if the sentence read, "Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews."

I'm waiting to hear the results. Oh and by the way, just what does IMHO stand for, I've seen it in a couple of posts from time to time, and have yet to break the code. Talk to you later !!

sabro, my friend, I really think that being dogmatic for no reason other than to protect an ideological or religious tenent, is nothing more than being closed-minded. That is the stuff of religious persecution, the constricting of freedoms that are naturally endowed which give rise to such as the dark ages, if not checked at the roots, by free inquiry and reason. History has had too much of this blindsightedness for too long, to too much destruction and waste--and that IS a fact--even though it is a whole lot less now.

See you all later !! :wave:

 

[Mars Man]

There's been several occasions in this thread and others where whole subjects were slung out here, out of context, and left to hang. God created an order to His "government", He laid out rules of how He wanted man to serve Him. Taking verses like those above totally out of context prove, IMHO, personal bias' of my fellow posters to the subject of God and the Bible and nothing else.

:wave:

Pararousia, would you please explain in full and careful detail just how it is that the texts I had pointed out in my post which you had highlighted, had been 'taken out of context'? And would you please take the time to show just what that context is? ( I would suggest showing chapter and verse identification with that, if you really wish to make a clear and valid point.)

I would greatly appreciate that, and I feel as though it would be helpful in getting proof text usage under control--as it is within the circles of those who are the scholars of biblical literature. Catch you later !! :wave:

ps. I broke the code after a little more thought: In My Honest Opinion.