The ASK LEBELL Thread: Philosophy and Religion

[Lebell]

For those who have questions about Life and the Universe and God, perhaps I have an answer you can use and build on.

I can also answer nuts and bolts questions about most of the Christian denominations as well as many Western and Eastern religions.

(Serious questions only. All others WILL be edited. Thank you!)

[3leggedfrog]

ok just a quick question what is the universe called by the Buddhists?


Seriously though, I am just curious about your background. How do you know so much about religion? studing it in college or personal experence?

p.s. i not trying to be an @sshole i am really curious. Studing religions is a hobby of mine.

[Lebell]

To answer the first question:

It depends. The same way Christianity is broken up into different factions, with some more alike than others, so are there different Buddhist groups, including Theravadin, Mahayana, True Path and Zen Buddhists.

Buddhists and Hindus (Buddhism started in India in approximately the 6th century) believe in cycles of reincarnation where past deeds help determine one's position in the next life. Where they differ is that a Buddhist believes that it is possible to break the cycle and this is what they strive for through out their lives by following the teachings of Buddah called the "Nobel Eight Fold Path".

As to a 'Universe", it is safe to say that most Buddhists really have no concern about the "Universe" or what it is, at least not as a Westerner understands it. Indeed, since the whole thrust of Buddhism is a distancing of oneself from worldly concerns, including the nature of the Universe. it's enough for a Buddhist to free him/herself from the cycle of life and to obtain the ultimate enlightenment or Nirvana. (Paradoxically, worrying about it works against acheiving Nirvana.

As to your second question,

I have studied world religions for approximately 30 years at the grade school, high school and college level, as well as being a Sunday school teacher, church musician, retreat organizer and acolyte in churches including the Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Methodist churches. I've also been past chair of an interfaith group dealing with the conflict surrounding the abortion controversy and how to deal with it in a faith based fashion that encompassed all faiths.

Vicariously I studied modern Biblical scholarship while my ex got an associates degree in Biblical studies from the Denver Archdioce's Catholic Biblical School (4 year program).

[3leggedfrog]

ok ok lol I am not trying to get you angry its just that I taken a lot of religion classes at college and I have come across a lot of so call experts who think they know what they are talking about just because they have read a book or two. Usally they know only their religion and not much else.

so if I offended you I am sorry.

p.s. i too have an associates in philosophy and religious studies as well as a certifation (another asociates) in professional ethics. in august i will have my BA in philosophy and religious studies and another BA in psychology. I just don't have your experence.
again i am sorry if i offended you.

[Lebell]

lol 3leggedfrog!

You did not offend me in the slightest, nor do I ever want to give the impression that I'm an expert at religion or philosophy! I merely wanted to answer your question to the best of my ability.

As to the purpose of this thread, it occured to me that some people might have some questions about either general philosophy and religion or the nuts and bolts of a specific religion (e.g. what is the purpose of confession, why do some churches let anyone celebrate the Lord's supper and others don't, etc.)

So I simply offer my humble services. Where I don't know something, I'll be the first to say and difer to others

[duckznutz]

We gladly
feast on those who would subdue us . . .where is that from Lebell? I like that.

To be clear . . can I ask you to nail your colours to the mast here . . . . . are you a beleiver? Or has your years of research brought you to a position where you do not beleive?

[duckznutz]

and a Question : -

I noticed a website about something or someone called The Divine Mother . . . . any background on this? A quick synopsis would be cool. i like a group called 'Yes' . . .it would appear that their leader . . Jon Anderson . . is a total convert to the Divine Mother . . I like his music and I am curious as to his spiritual sources.

Thanks in advance.

[duckznutz]

The SM avatar is cool too . . . . . . .

[4thTimeLucky]

Dear Lebell,

Thought I should open this in a new thread, otherwise your other one will get cluttered. As a wise man once said, "never cross the streams".

So here goes:

Does the Christian God answer petitionary prayers?

[NB: Bit of explanation for those who want/need it: Petitionary prayers are those where you ask God to do something (e.g. heal a sick relative) and he intervenes to do so. In other words, you petition Him.]

[duckznutz]

I find it very interesting how it seems acceptable to openly and publicly attempt to communicate with God (praying) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . but try telling someone that you heard God's voice in your head as he communicated back!!!!!

Just a thought . . . I wonder what it could possibly mean?

[Lebell]

Dear 4thTimeLucky,

The standard response you'll hear on this is that, Yes, (the Judeo-Christain) God answers petitionary prayers, but not always in the the manner that you want them answered.

Biblically, Jesus said that the Father would answer prayers of all that asked. Further, it is stated that a Father will not give a stone to a child that asks for bread. But Jesus also states that you should not put God to the test by asking for things just to prove God loves you.

So what then does this mean?

Well, this situation is directly analogous to a child asking a father for something. Parents deal with requests differently depending on what it is and what is best for their child.

This means that some requests will be granted, some will be denied and others will be answered in ways that the child doesn't expect. The offshoot of this is that the child may be angry and demand a different response.

So if you pray for healing of a sick relative, it is entirely possible that God would say "yes" and help. It is also possible that the answer is "no" for some reason. (And I haven't even touched free will and actions by individuals.)

BTW there are independent studies that indicate that patients who pray and have prayers said for them tend to heal faster.

[Lebell]

Dear Ducknutz,

The quote comes from the Addam's Family

As to your other question, without a link I can't address "The Divine Mother" as I am not familiar with it in the context you are using.

I can say that the Mother figure has played a prominant roll in almost every major religion that humans have devised, simply because the birth/creation allegory is too powerful to deny.

Ancient statues and fetishes of voluptuous women have been excavated from archeological sites all over the world. From the ancient Greeks, we have the legend of Geia giving birth to the world. Hindu's call Kali their "Divine Mother" while Christians (especially Catholics) have their own "Divine Mother" in the form of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus.

So the term "Divine Mother" is hard to pin down out of context

Edited to add:

is this what you are refering to?

http://divinemother.net/

-----------------

Now to your other question: Yes, I do believe.

But as I get older and experience more and more of the world, paradoxically I've realized that I know very little about God. But those same experiences convince me and my scientific mind that all we see and know is far from all there is to see and know.

[rogue49]

I've studied many different religions and philosophies, along with their histories and sociological implications,
but I do not have the training of you or 3LeggedFrog
And while the classic religions are interesting, (btw, I grew up with no official religion)
In all seriousness, I have come to be interested in the symbolism & dynamics of a few more obscure faiths,
although I do not "believe" in them.

What do you know about these?:
Qabbala (either Hebrew or Pagan based)
Shamanism (specifically philosophies of Carlos Casteneda)
Masonic Thought (Judeo-Christian based groups; the Founding Fathers were Masons)

I was just curious if you had any knowledge of them,
but I would perfectly understand if you had not.

Thank you

[Lebell]

Dear Rogue,

I'm glad I posted that I'm not by any means an expert in matters religious, because you threw me a pretty good curve ball.

I have a passing knowledge of the second two but none on the first.

I did find your mention of symbolism to be interesting. Symbolism is central to all religions to varying degrees, and can involve visual symbols (the cross, the pentagram), audio (Buddhist prayer bells), as well as ceremonies (beating your head with a sword, handling snakes, etc.)

What I find to be the common denominator is that they all help us transcend the everyday (the profane) and connect us with the divine (sacred).

My personal comfort zone is within the framework of Christianity (Episcopalian to be exact), but I've come to the conclussion that it likely doesn't matter to the almighty what means or symbols to use to seek Her/Him, so long as you do it sincerely.

Good luck on your search

[duckznutz]

Edited.

[rogue49]

Thanks Lebell,
Since I didn't grow up with a official religion, I had to figure out for myself where I was.
Of course, me being me I researched all of them, their meaning, their histories, their interconnections.
And pretty much most of them basically say the same thing in the end.
They just divided on the details.

I noted the concept of the Trinity...and the deeper less male - less Christian meaning of it. (Masonic)
The Father - The Creator
The Son - Us
The Holy Ghost - The Soul/essense of the Universe (feminine)

I decided when you become an adult, you do things on your own,
not your "father's way".
Thus my emphasis was on The Creator, but being "in tune" with the essense of the Universe, which I was apart of.
Thus "God" for me is the Soul of the Universe. (in both male & female terms)
Where we came from doesn't matter, it's what we "are"

I cannot be an atheist, I feel that connection everyday.
However, everything else is up for grabs.

I enjoy the Masonic meaning because it combines the Judeo-Christian symbolism that I was surrounded with in the U.S. and brought broader meaning to them.
For example, "The Rose & The Cross" are representations of the Female and the Male in one.

I enjoy the Quabala, because it takes further back & on even broader terms. That "rose & cross" was the "Ahnk" the ancient Egyptian symbol of life, and in turn it was orginally even then just a strap for the sandles which you walk on through life.
The ancient states of "matter"...Sprit, Fire, Water, Air & Earth actually represented Soul, Drive, Emotion, Intellect & Animal the essense of life as a human.

I enjoy the Yaqui Shamanic principles not so much the symbolism.
The philosophies that help get you through life.
For example, the statement "the True Warrior hunts with Intent".
It's ruthless way of life, but in a good way, very efficient.
I also like the idea of "totem" animals to help represent your self.

I have found that religion over time wasn't so much humans trying to explain their world and how it works,
only the overzealous people took it that far and screwed with it...
but it was humans way of explaining themselves and how they "relate" to the world.

I believe this is how it should be,
taking the terms literally to explain facts is just going mess things up,
taking the terms symbolically will enhance your connection with it all.

There are subtle multiple meanings to everything.
And everything is interconnected.

[duckduck]

What are your defining differences between these Christian denominations?

-Roman Catholic (Christ, Old)
-Baptist (Southern, Evangelical, Freewill, American)
-Anglican
-United
-Methodist
-Episcolian
-Salvation Army
-Quaker
-Pentecostal
-Mennonite (Old Order, New Order)
-Reformed (Canadian, Dutch, Netherland)
-Orthodox (Eastern, Greek or any other)
-Seven Day Adventist
-Lutheran
-Presbyterian


These are all the ones I can think of. Feel free to add more that I can't think of if you're feeling masochistic. This isn't meant to be a insult to your intelligence (which I greatly respect and, having read through only a few of the other threads, am somewhat intimidated by). I'm just interested in what you feel the defining difference factor is between them. Note that the ones in brackets are there only if you feel qualified or if you're not sick of answering this question. Feel free to give overtly brief synopses if I'm asking too much. Thanks in advance.

[Antagony]

I had some questions about the Episcopalian denomination in particular.

I'm pretty sure it was an Episcopalian church where I experienced this . . . most of the sermon was talking about "speaking in tongues". At more than one point during the evening, the preacher "spoke in tongues". There was some testimony also. The testimonies from these 2 or 3 different people in the congregation also specifically mentioned "speaking in tongues".

How central or how important is this belief to Episcopalians? Do all of them experience this phenomenon?

I looked up the scriptures talking about "speaking in tongues". I found most references in Acts and one in 1 Corinthians.

So basically all my questions boil down to what you guys think about this whole "speaking in tongues" thing.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by duckduck
What are your defining differences between these Christian denominations?

-Roman Catholic (Christ, Old)
-Baptist (Southern, Evangelical, Freewill, American)
-Anglican
-United
-Methodist
-Episcolian
-Salvation Army
-Quaker
-Pentecostal
-Mennonite (Old Order, New Order)
-Reformed (Canadian, Dutch, Netherland)
-Orthodox (Eastern, Greek or any other)
-Seven Day Adventist
-Lutheran
-Presbyterian


These are all the ones I can think of. Feel free to add more that I can't think of if you're feeling masochistic. This isn't meant to be a insult to your intelligence (which I greatly respect and, having read through only a few of the other threads, am somewhat intimidated by). I'm just interested in what you feel the defining difference factor is between them. Note that the ones in brackets are there only if you feel qualified or if you're not sick of answering this question. Feel free to give overtly brief synopses if I'm asking too much. Thanks in advance.

Ah hem.

Ok.

I'm not feeling particularly masochistic tonight, so I'll stick to what you've tossed at me, giving you my limited knowledge.

First a few notes to clear up on that list.

Episcopalians are part of the world wide Anglican communion. While each nation has it's "own" Anglican church, they share commonality in being related through the original Anglican church of England and nominally recognize the Bishop of Canterbury as the head of the Union, although he does NOT hold the same authority as say the Pope does.

I don't know which "United" you refer to (perhaps the United Church of Christ?) and the Salvation Army, while faith based, is not a denomination per se.

Nor can I give you a direct history of each of those (as I said, I am not an authority by any means), but here is a brief synopsis of how things got to where they are today.

Starting with the original church after Jesus (built mostly by Saul/Paul of Tarsis and Peter (on this Rock I will build my Church)), the three oldest denominations in Christendom are: The Egyptian Coptic, The Easter Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic branches, all of which still exist today. In the west, the Roman Catholic Church was official church of the Roman Empire after it was made so by Constantine the Great (and this is how the Western church became known as the Roman Catholic church(Catholic meaning Universal)).

Things remained this way until the 16th Century when an upstart priest named Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg in protest of the scandal and corruption that had engulfed the Western church. This started the Protestant reformation which swept through most of central Europe and instigated a particularly bloody period in Church history of battles between Catholics and the "Protestants". In rough terms, Germany, Belgium and other surrounding countries became mostly Protestant (Lutheran) while France, Spain, England and Italy were firmly Catholic. (Don't yell at me if I left someone out). Scottish Presbyterianism was also started at this time by John Knox at St. Andrew's Castle. (The ex and I had an antique lithograph of this, if you can believe it.) If memory serves, this is also the roots of the Mesonic movement.

In the special case of England, Henry V remained a solid supporter of the Pope until he refused to give Henry a divorce from Catherine of Aragon (daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain). Henry wanted a divorce because Catherine had been unable to produce a male heir, seen to be critical to the stability of the Tudor throne. The short story is that Henry decided to break with Rome and create his own national church, which survives in slightly altered form today as the Anglican Church of England. (many bloody stories of the early Anglican church have been omitted here.)

This splintering continued as new groups decided they had a better handle on things to do with the Almighty. The 17th century saw the Puritan movements in England and their subsequent leaving for America to avoid religious persecution (a trend which they immediately adopted in their new home), while the 18th Century saw John Wesley form the Methodist Church, again in response to corruption. In America the Anabaptist movement in the 19th century split into several different sects of Baptists, with probably the most well known split being between the Southern Baptists and the American Baptists happening at the time the American Civil War (~1861-65). The other major religious movements of the century which bear mention are the revelation of the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith in Ohio, and his subsequent preaching and murder, which lead to the great Mormon exodus to the Great Salt Lake valley and the eventual formation of the state of Utah as well as the preachings of Charles Russell, which lead to the formation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.


Theologically, those considered to be a the "main-line" Christain churches differ in several ways. Biblically, they use similar translations, more so today in the past. (There are some books, the apocryphal books that are included in the Catholic Bible, but not the Jewish Torah or the Protestant Bible.) Still some groupings can be made.

Today, there are many simularities between the Roman Catholic Church, The ELCA Lutheran Church and The Episcopal Church SA. Service wise they are very similar, usually including 3 Bible readings and the Lord's Supper as part of the service. Differences include the way church heirarchical authority is structured, as well as theological differences such as the availability of the sacrement to persons not of that particular church, married priesthood, woman priesthood, transubstantiation of the sacrament, etc. (I know I've left some groups out of this.) It is interesting to note that Rome grudging admits that Episcopal Bishops are indeed part of the Apostolic Succession.

The other loose grouping can roughly made with the Evangelicals and Pentacostals. Services tend to be centered solely around Bible readings and song with some denominations placing more or less importance on the Lord's Supper, it's meaning and it's frequency. Theological differences can include specific interpretations of the Bible (literalists), to restrictions on personal activities such as use of modern conveniences (Mennonites) and even dancing (Southern Baptists) and interaction between sects (Missouri Synod Lutherans) as well as more exotic activities such as speaking in tongues to snake handling.

So in closing, I hope you will forgive any gaps here as I was going mostly from memory. Obviously a complete treatise on the history of Christianity would make a small library, but I hope this gave you some starting point.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Antagony
I had some questions about the Episcopalian denomination in particular.

I'm pretty sure it was an Episcopalian church where I experienced this . . . most of the sermon was talking about "speaking in tongues". At more than one point during the evening, the preacher "spoke in tongues". There was some testimony also. The testimonies from these 2 or 3 different people in the congregation also specifically mentioned "speaking in tongues".

How central or how important is this belief to Episcopalians? Do all of them experience this phenomenon?

I looked up the scriptures talking about "speaking in tongues". I found most references in Acts and one in 1 Corinthians.

So basically all my questions boil down to what you guys think about this whole "speaking in tongues" thing.

Antigony,

The Episcopal church is unlike some in that it allows individual churches a great deal of freedom in setting their own 'tone' if you will (with limits of church doctrin as defined in periodic Lamdas and codified in the Book Of Prayer.)

Among Episcopalians you will commonly hear references to "High Church"(= a lot of ceremony akin to a Catholic Mass) and "Low Church (= much less pomp and more in line with what you might see a Methodist church, but still usually with a Lord's supper.) Individual churches will also reflect their congregations, which churches ranging from fairly conservative, to liberal, to almost pentacostal.

That being said, it is not my personal experience of seeing "talking in tongues" in the Episcopal church. While I suppose it is possible, the teaching I have heard is that according to the passages in the New Testiment, speaking in tongues should be done with an interpreter, which of course, is not possible today as we know it. Still, I don't believe it is discouraged, it is just not encouraged either.

This differs from Pentacostal sects, such as the Assemblies of God, where such occurances are common place. (I knew a fellow that actually spoke in tongues quite frequently.)

So while it is possible that you heard this in an Episcopal church, I lean towards thinking you probably heard it elsewhere. As to my own feelings on it, I feel much as the official teaching of the Episcopal church, i.e. it is not something I am personally comfortable with (mostly because you don't know what is actually speaking or what is being said, if anything.)

[Loki]

im about to ask you the hardest, and easiest question of all, Lebell.



Why?

[duckznutz]

LeBell,
as far as you know, are all faiths based on a pyramid heirarchy power structure (eg Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, Preists all the way down to the 'congregation' at the bottom) with instructions and proclamations flowing downstream only.

Or do any of these denominations which Antagony lists have a truly democratic 'everyone has an equal voice' power structure? I always see Amish depicted on the television and in films all working as one, building the young couple a house. Is Amish a denomination?

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Loki
im about to ask you the hardest, and easiest question of all, Lebell.



Why?

Ah, the Eternal question.

I was thinking of answering in very Douglas Adam's sort of way and saying something like, without the question, the answer is meaningless, but I didn't find that personally satisfying.

So, instead if you are asking me my own personal "why?" then I will tell you that I think that the Creator desires the freely given love of other beings (much like we ourselves do). And free we are, to choose to be with God (heaven) or without God (hell).

Of course, "why?" is such a personal question that everyone has to come to their own answer for it.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by duckznutz
LeBell,
as far as you know, are all faiths based on a pyramid heirarchy power structure (eg Pope, Bishops, Cardinals, Preists all the way down to the 'congregation' at the bottom) with instructions and proclamations flowing downstream only.

Or do any of these denominations which Antagony lists have a truly democratic 'everyone has an equal voice' power structure? I always see Amish depicted on the television and in films all working as one, building the young couple a house. Is Amish a denomination?

No, not all denominations exhibit such a strict top down power structure that is seen in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

There are varying degrees of control that different congregations/denominations exhibit, but a thumbnail sketch of a mainline protestant church might include a church council of people elected by the body, which then has direct power to hire and fire the minister. Variations on this can include bodies of selected/elected lay people within a given denomination that share authority with the clergy for actual church doctrine. Of course, you can still have cult like denominations which are defacto single rule groups.

Likewise, there are some denominations that have fewer or greater levels of clergy "rank" with the most well known belonging to the Catholic church.

And the Mennonites are indeed their own recognized denomination.

[duckduck]

Thanks for the response Lebell. I know that must have taken a lot of work. I believe the Anabaptist movement goes back a bit further, but I'd only be splitting hairs.

[duckduck]

Since no one else seems to be asking..........

What are your views on predestination and free will as it relates to Christianity as this seems to be your "main" strength, topic wise (I know you've hinted at this in other posts, but this outta to remove any doubt)?

Did believers choose God? Did God choose them? If God chose them, why bother evangelizing? If we choose God, can we not obey His plan for us?

[Lebell]

Originally posted by duckduck
Since no one else seems to be asking..........

What are your views on predestination and free will as it relates to Christianity as this seems to be your "main" strength, topic wise (I know you've hinted at this in other posts, but this outta to remove any doubt)?

Did believers choose God? Did God choose them? If God chose them, why bother evangelizing? If we choose God, can we not obey His plan for us?

Predestination vs. Freewill is always an interesting question, because as 4thTimeLucky pointed out in another post, if God is Omniscient and knows what we will do before we do it, do we indeed have freewill?

My viewpoint is this, that free will is a reality, the ultimate being a complete free will to affirm or deny the existance of God. Whether or not God knows what we will do and it is "predestined" centers around the nature of our percieved dimensions as seen in a larger dimension. In other words, is all of creation and time already in existance and we're just playing it out like a cd being played from beginning to end, or is there the possibility of change?

Well, after reading and pondering the latest theories on the nature of the universe, time, and alternate dimensions, I am still of the opinion that you and I have free will, but perhaps we do make all decisions in our lives.

This leaves me with the answer of "I don't know" beyond that.

As to God choosing believers or believers choosing God, I believe that God chooses all of us but it is up to us to accept that choice. As a result, we can try to discern and follow that plan or not as we desire.

[Loki]

Originally posted by Lebell
Ah, the Eternal question.

I was thinking of answering in very Douglas Adam's sort of way and saying something like, without the question, the answer is meaningless, but I didn't find that personally satisfying.

So, instead if you are asking me my own personal "why?" then I will tell you that I think that the Creator desires the freely given love of other beings (much like we ourselves do). And free we are, to choose to be with God (heaven) or without God (hell).

Of course, "why?" is such a personal question that everyone has to come to their own answer for it.

Thank you, for not answering it Douglas Adam's style. It is a very personal question, and your answer was very interesting... and close to what i felt about this a few years ago.

(btw, my personal answer to the question is why not?... Its sadly the most satisfying answer that i can come up with).

Heres my next question - Determinism vs Chance.

Are you comfortable with the idea of determinism, and how can one reject it, if nothing is random?

Nothing being random... at first you may reject this notion, but i ask you to give me an example of something that is random. (The uncertainty principle for electrons doesnt really count, from what i remember, all that is saying is that we don't know where electrons are at any given time).

I believe that chance is what makes the universe tick, or so to speak, but recently a friend asked me to tell him something that was random, and this has really gotten my stumped.

[4thTimeLucky]

Just a few thoughts.

a) Free will is a BIG issue. And I mean BIG. Hundreds upon hundreds of books on the subject and more journal articles than you would need to wallpaper the Albert Hall* with.

b) I didn't (or at least don't think I did) make the point the point Lebell ascribes to me. But I am so flattered at a reference that I'll overlook it

c) The reason I didn't make that point is that God's omniscience and freewill are not incompatible....
- There is a fixed past. If you got a B in Maths you got a B in Maths. You cannot change this, overwise you would have both had a B and not had a B and that folks, ain't gonna happen.
- There is a fixed future. If you are going to die at 83 you will die at 83. You cannot change this, otherwsie you would both die at 83 and not die at 83 and that folks, ain't gonna happen.
- That is not to say you do not have control over your future. You may die at 83 because you choose to live a sensible and healthy lifestyle. It simply states that there is one single future that will occur and what will occur is just as fixed as what has occured.
- So our past was fixed and I know what happened in your past: Loki at 01:40PM pressed the "Submit Reply" button on his computer. Does that mean you did not have a choice in that action. No. It simply means I know it occured.
- So our future is fixed and God (if He exists) knows (if he has omniprescience = total for-knowledge) what I will do next week: I will drink coffee at 4.35pm in Starbucks. Does that mean I did not have a choice in that action. No. It simply means He knew the result of my deliberation.

d) There is a difference between omniprescience and predeterminism (I don't know which one you would say predestination is closer to - people understand it in different ways). In predeterminism God doesn't just know what we will do He determines, He decides it, He chooses it. Quote....

“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set forth for them and the exact places where they should live.”
- Acts 17:26-27 (NIV)

Now obviously in this situation there is a contradication between God's power and us having Free Will. There can only be one person who takes the ultimate decision about how we act - Free Will says it us, predeterminism says that it is God.

-----
NB: All of the above stems from philsophical reasoning and logic. You don't need to invoke any theories of science, so it stays quite simple. Though you might start to invoke some sort of multi-universe theory to say that all future states occur, but that strikes me as (a) being incompatible with God [who presumably both gave His son to die on the cross and didn't give His son to die on the cross!] and (b) gets you into a whole host of trouble about identity - YOU can only be in one universe/place/time at once.
---------

e) The whole Free Will thing (regardless of God is tricky). There seem to be only two categories of event: random and non-random. I too couldn't give you an example of a random event, but physicist friends assure me they occur. That doesn't bother me or the discussion, because randomness doesn't equal free will, so the issue of their exsitence only needs to be raised to be dismissed. But if the event is non-random then science and reasoning seem to tell us that it will be determined by the preceeding state of the world. When we look at what determines things we see a picture of trillions of atoms hitting atoms in a long causal chain from Lincoln to the first man to land on Mars. The challenge is fitting the idea of *us*, human minds, into that picture: affecting or being part of this causal chain. How can atoms make me *feel* like I'm in love and how can my decision to buy flowers affect or be a part of this long causal chain. Getting my head around that is still something that I have not managed and indeed I don't think anyone has.


* For those outside the UK this is a very big music hall. The Beatles know how many holes it takes to fill it.

[harry]

Q: What did Jesus die for?

In school I was taught that Jesus died on the cross in order to take away the sins of the world. I didnt really understand it back then, and I wasnt especially interested either.

Well, Im interested now, but I still dont understand it. In what way would the death of God's son have anything to do with each person's share of guilt? Did God need a scapegout, so that the rest of us could be dispensed? Do WE need a scapegoat? Are we to blame for the death of Jesus and if so is that particular sin also taken away by his death? Well, as you can see i am quite confused. Whats your take on these questions?

(Of course it all makes perfect sense if viewed from the philosophical angel, i.e. that Jesus just wanted to give an exampel of how to lead an impeccable life. He stayed true to his principels of non-violence etc. no matter what the cost. But right now I am interested in the theological problem).

[bender]

.

[QuasiMojo]

What a nice thread for thought...

I grew up in the "Church of the Brethren" and went faithfully(!) every Sunday until I turned 16 got my own wheels and could realistically say "I don' wanna."
C.O.B was kind of ummm...Mennonite Lite, and although I chose to stop going, I never denied my faith. In fact I am quite sure that this early foundation in what I consider the fundementals of faith has lain the framework for spiritual quest in my life. I think that if "Religion" does serve a purpose it is to be a springboard for ones own inner-search. If you think that your religion has all the answers, I believe you kind of miss the point.

I became interested in something called "Gnostisism" after reading "The Transmigration of Timothy Archer" and some other books by Phillip K. Dick in the early 90's. and it seems to be the bedrock of what feels right to me.

Do you, Lebell (or anyone) have thoughts or opinions on this.

It seems to take the Middle-Man(The Church) out of the picture
and puts the individual 4-squre in front of the creator.

with this mindset I have know problem with THIS Trinity...

FatherGod
MotherEarth
and the Brotherhood of Man.

*edit*
I do realize that what I am saying here is just absolutely contradictory in it's nature.
~sigh~

[illdeviant]

OK. here it is.

I'm an atheist. My view on religion, specifically Christianity, is that it's merely a moral book which a group of people took way too far. And the fact that many people are fickle and weak. They want to personify the unknown, and further beleive that they have somewhat of a grip of their own lives by believing that this personification is indeed God who represents all good, etc. All in all, i think religion is just a big mental crutch to get us through our lives only to ascend into the heavens as afterlife. To give us something to believe in. A goal to strive for.

I mean don't get me wrong. I'm not attempting to knock any religion. I mean my girlfriend is a Catholic and we get along perfectly fine. I make an attempt to understand religion, specifically Christianity. I have many religious friends and we have occasional discussions. I am totally open to the idea of religion, but I guess I won't budge till I'm convinced.

I guess I'm just looking for feedback on my opinion. Is it valid? I don't know. I just htink that I have too much pride and refuse to believe that we don't have control of our lives, and that we're the most powerful people in our own lives.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by Loki
Heres my next question - Determinism vs Chance.

Are you comfortable with the idea of determinism, and how can one reject it, if nothing is random?

Nothing being random... at first you may reject this notion, but i ask you to give me an example of something that is random. (The uncertainty principle for electrons doesnt really count, from what i remember, all that is saying is that we don't know where electrons are at any given time).

I believe that chance is what makes the universe tick, or so to speak, but recently a friend asked me to tell him something that was random, and this has really gotten my stumped.

Dear Loki,

I've considered the question of determinism several times (being closely related to free will, see above), and this is the conclusion that I've come to: If free will is a reality and not a fantasy, then there we ourselves are not predetermined in every aspect of our lives. We may be predetermined to do somethings (e.g. die) or inclined to do others (be a star athlete) but not everything (go to the supermarket tonight).

I've also considered how this relates to physics as-we-know-it, but I'm not sure that anymore that there is a direct correllation. I have had the interesting thought that the world of sub-atomic physics really does tell us that the world is not what our eyes tell us it is. I've also thought, especially with the principles of chaos theory, that perhaps God really does influence great events with the moving of atoms and electrons in what *appear* to be random fashion. So I don't think you can toss out the interesting notion that sub-atomic physics are may not be totally random and that Schrodinger's principle allows for the workings of God. (The principle actually says more than just that and creates the whole notion of probability fields in physics).

All just musings, of course. Right now with no further data, your view is just as valid as mine.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by harry
Q: What did Jesus die for?

In school I was taught that Jesus died on the cross in order to take away the sins of the world. I didnt really understand it back then, and I wasnt especially interested either.

Well, Im interested now, but I still dont understand it. In what way would the death of God's son have anything to do with each person's share of guilt? Did God need a scapegout, so that the rest of us could be dispensed? Do WE need a scapegoat? Are we to blame for the death of Jesus and if so is that particular sin also taken away by his death? Well, as you can see i am quite confused. Whats your take on these questions?

(Of course it all makes perfect sense if viewed from the philosophical angel, i.e. that Jesus just wanted to give an exampel of how to lead an impeccable life. He stayed true to his principels of non-violence etc. no matter what the cost. But right now I am interested in the theological problem).

Dear Harry,

I would actually like to address your last paragraph first and work my way up.

To me, there is no separation of the philisophical from the religious, all being part of the great description of how I see the universe, so I think what you've said about Jesus and an "impeccable life" is very relavent. (I'm not saying this is impossible, of course. My college roommate, an avowed atheist, and I had a rather enjoyable series of talks about how moral systems were built, but this is how I happen to do things.)

That being said, I too have a problem with the whole notion of "scapegoating" on to Jesus. This lead me to consider just what this "original sin" thing really is.

I certainly do not believe there is some mystical "stain" on the soul of a newborn and that if said newborn dies without a baptism they go straight to Hell.

Instead, I started thinking of the nature of free will (yet again) and how it allowed us choices, both good and bad, and that frequently, human beings DO make bad choices, whether out of greed, lust, anger, etc. So in my thoughts, original sin is simply our tendancy as human beings to do bad things to ourselves and to each other.

NOW, if we begin to think about who Christianity tells us this "Jesus" person was/is, then it can make a little more sense. Christian theology tells us that Jesus was fully God, yet fully Man. It is a simple statement that contains huge ramifications which I don't think we as mortals can fully understand or appreciate. For one thing, it means that Jesus had the capability of sinning (temptation), even though Christians believe he didn't. Therefore he understood just how hard it is to be a human being.

So then this is my own take on this. Jesus was here as an example on several levels, including the 'impeccable life' you mentioned. He was also here to let us know that God is more than a distant creator, but is rather like a loving parent.

In doing this, God knew that our tendency to do bad we lead us to kill Him. The example of His death and resurrection (another huge topic) is that even if you lead the impecable life (or try) and people do their worst to you for it, you will still be ok.

(An interesting side question always is, "How much did Jesus know when He was here on earth?" I've not come to any personal consensus, but I highly recommend reading "The Last Temptation of Christ" or renting the movie with William Defoe as Jesus to ponder this question.)

I hope this gave you things to think about and good luck on your search

[Lebell]

Originally posted by bender
Lebell, thanks for this thread it's given me alot to ponder.
I was going to come in here and ask why people join into a religion when God is subjective, but after reading what you've posted here I wouldn't want to come across as flippant.

Dear bender,

I'm glad this thread is providing grist for your mental mill, as that was it's intent.

I do not think your question is flip at all, it contains some interesting questions and ramifications, the first question being:

Is God subjective/relative or an absolute or (possibly) a combination of the two?

After years of studing the Christian and other world religions, I've come to the conclusion that God is definitely an absolute quantity but that it is our own flesh and blood limitations that make Him/Her seem subjective.

In other words, human beings have been struggling to understand a power that we call God and it is in that struggle that we grasp certain truths which we build whole religions around. These truths may or may not be closer to the mark, but like the blind men discribing the elephant, they only grasp a very small part of the picture.

This does not make the exercise any less valuable to us (or in my mind) to God.

(please see below to my reply to an atheist's viewpoint)

[Lebell]

Originally posted by QuasiMojo
What a nice thread for thought...

I grew up in the "Church of the Brethren" and went faithfully(!) every Sunday until I turned 16 got my own wheels and could realistically say "I don' wanna."
C.O.B was kind of ummm...Mennonite Lite, and although I chose to stop going, I never denied my faith. In fact I am quite sure that this early foundation in what I consider the fundementals of faith has lain the framework for spiritual quest in my life. I think that if "Religion" does serve a purpose it is to be a springboard for ones own inner-search. If you think that your religion has all the answers, I believe you kind of miss the point.

I became interested in something called "Gnostisism" after reading "The Transmigration of Timothy Archer" and some other books by Phillip K. Dick in the early 90's. and it seems to be the bedrock of what feels right to me.

Do you, Lebell (or anyone) have thoughts or opinions on this.

It seems to take the Middle-Man(The Church) out of the picture
and puts the individual 4-squre in front of the creator.

with this mindset I have know problem with THIS Trinity...

FatherGod
MotherEarth
and the Brotherhood of Man.

*edit*
I do realize that what I am saying here is just absolutely contradictory in it's nature.
~sigh~

Dear QuasiMojo,

Gnosticism is an interesting topic to me as everyone can see by know that I like to think about things and knowledge is the sine qua non of a gnostic.

For those not familiar with the term, the Catholic Encyclopedia defines gnosticism as:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour.


But in general, when I here "gnostic" I think (for better or worse) of someone who is attempting to obtain enlightenment or "salvation" (whatever that is) through the power of the intellect.

While this is appealing to my intellect, I think that it is lacking as an approach to God simply because I don't see where it allows those of lesser intellect to achieve the same closeness to the Diety as those with greater intellect.

Alternatively, I prefer Richard Hooker's (1553-1600) "Three Legged Stool" approach. In brief, this approach says that the best way to define and interpret one's faith is through a combination of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. As the legs on a stool, each is equally important and missing one causes the stool to be unbalanced and tip over (see link for more info if you're interested).

As to your "trinity", it is an interesting interpretation and I certainly wouldn't discourage you from it. I also suspect that we could make many interesting "trinities" that are equally thought provoking!

[Lebell]

Originally posted by illdeviant
OK. here it is.

I'm an atheist. My view on religion, specifically Christianity, is that it's merely a moral book which a group of people took way too far. And the fact that many people are fickle and weak. They want to personify the unknown, and further beleive that they have somewhat of a grip of their own lives by believing that this personification is indeed God who represents all good, etc. All in all, i think religion is just a big mental crutch to get us through our lives only to ascend into the heavens as afterlife. To give us something to believe in. A goal to strive for.

I mean don't get me wrong. I'm not attempting to knock any religion. I mean my girlfriend is a Catholic and we get along perfectly fine. I make an attempt to understand religion, specifically Christianity. I have many religious friends and we have occasional discussions. I am totally open to the idea of religion, but I guess I won't budge till I'm convinced.

I guess I'm just looking for feedback on my opinion. Is it valid? I don't know. I just htink that I have too much pride and refuse to believe that we don't have control of our lives, and that we're the most powerful people in our own lives.

Dear illdeviant,

The short answer is: yes, your opinion is as a valid as mine or any other. We simply do not, nor will not know until we're dead who's was correct.

Any person of faith who is worth their salt must acknowledge sooner or later the possibility that they are wrong and that their elaborate system of beliefs may indeed be nothing more than a 'crutch' as you put it to get through this life.

So why do it? Why believe as opposed to not?

Well as usual, I can only answer for myself. After pondering the pros and cons of believe/nonbelief for a couple of years, I came to the conclusion that in general, people are happier believing in something beyond themselves. This dovetailed nicely with other things I observed: Prayer in all its forms actually seems to work, there are phenomena in this world that seem to defy a scientific explanation (ghosts, near-death experiences, esp and other paranormal powers, etc.), and that there is a very real personal peace that the "deeply religious" seem to obtain.

Ultimately it was these things (among a few others), that convinced me I was better off believing than not believing. Could I still be wrong? Absolutely. But I feel that I am a better man for my faith.

(An interesting take on this very topic is C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity". Lewis was also an atheist but came to be a Christian by an interesting intellectual path. BTW, this is the same C.S. Lewis who wrote the "Narnia" books and was close personal friend of J.R.R Tolkien.)

edited to add:

I see I failed to address all of your question.

I don't think you are alone in wanting to "control" your life, nor do I think that it is all a bad thing, nor do I think that "control" is all God wants from you.

If you think about it, we only control things to a limited extent anyway. We can make some decisions (where to work, who to marry) while others we can't (losing hair, making someone love me). Oh there may be some wiggle room, but somethings are clearly in or out of our control.

If it helps, I see religion, TRUE religion, as giving control BACK to the individual by giving them an anchor in the maelstrom of life to which they can reach and recharge when things just seem out of control.

And ultimately, I believe God wants to empower us as well, the same way a parent may "control" a child but at the same time be teaching and raising them for something else.

[clavus]

Why do (most) Christians go to church on Sunday? The 10 Commandments tell us to keep the Sabbath Holy. Jesus Himself went to "church" on Saturday. Nobody argues that the Sabbath is actually Sunday, do they? What gives?

BTW- you started an excellent thread.

[QuasiMojo]

Lebell~ Thank you for your learned response. Aside from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found another definition of what Gnostisism means to me.

What is Gnosis?
Gnosis (Greek), root of: "to know" 1: knowledge by "direct perception" a: primary, personal intuitive or inspirational experience. b: also: empirical, though not necessarily social, verification.

What is Gnosticism:
Aside from anything you may have heard or read about Gnostic "doctrine", Gnosticism is not, catagorically a doctrine. It is, rather, an epistimology. This teaching stands in sharp contrast to the standard epistimology of both orthodox churches and cults, Pistis:
Pistis (Greek), root of: epistimology 1: believing by an "act of will", excluding all evidence to the contrary. 2: willing oneself to believe under threat of imminent and painful extinction or social ostracism. 3: to hold a position as true, against honest identification, in response to the aforementioned fears, or out of presumed inability.

The emblem, or insignia, of Pistic teaching is:

Believe and be Saved
The emblem of Gnostic teaching is:

Seek and you shall find.
Ask and it shall be given.
Knock and it shall be opened unto you.