 |
| |
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
The Mediteranean or the Rift Vally?
The Rift Valley is something you can see on the map. It goes from the Dead Sea through the Horn of Africa. It may be quiescent at the moment. Sometimes rifts start and then stop and never start again. It appears to be the same kind thing as caused the split between the Americas and the rest of the world when it was one single continent. A splitting and then a spread of a continental plate. Ony the split is not finished and may never be.
Looking for links. I keep finding site only mention the Mediteranean event in passing when they are discussing the Black Sea Flood. Also Lambert Dolphin and other Creationist sites keep poping up for the same reason. Lambert by the way has his own timeframe for the flood but he can't really justify it biblicaly. He also into inconstant constants. Very inconstant. I allready have a link for Lambert though.
When I first found out about the Mediteranean flood the religous links hadn't yet been forged. So its a lot harder to find an actual science site on it now.
Even a porn site showed up in the search somehow but I can't find a real geology site that covers it from a geologist point of view.
This is about the best I can do for the Mediteranean at the moment.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aca...040/flood10.htm
And a link to a book on Amazon covering the research.
Now for The Great Rift Vally.
Basic summery
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0821681.html
This one is pretty good despite the claim at the start the the San Andreas fault is another example of a rift valley which it is not. The San Andreas is a North-South slip fault and not a spreading zone. I live close enough the thing to be aware of it as all Californians are. Anyway all the rest looks accurate. I guess someone just got carried away by the famous nature of the San Andreas fault. After all how many faults have been in as many movies? Or delayed a World Series?
http://www.marekinc.com/GeoOverviewGreatRift.html
Sure was a lot easier to find something on that wasn't loaded with Biblical comments. |
Thank-you but I still don't understand how the Great Rift would result in the flooding of the Dead Sea. I read the latter article and it mentions that the Horn of Africa might become an island but that is all I could ascertain about a phenomenon akin to the Black Sea Flood.
Did you mean Red Sea?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Thank-you but I still don't understand how the Great Rift would result in the flooding of the Dead Sea. I read the latter article and it mentions that the Horn of Africa might become an island but that is all I could ascertain about a phenomenon akin to the Black Sea Flood.
Did you mean Red Sea? |
Dead Sea. Its my own personal speculation. If the rift widens enough the Dead Sea would eventually open and extend all the way to the Red Sea. That might however only create a salt water river rather than a waterfall. The Rift Valley extends from Africa to at least the Dead Sea. I am not sure what is the northern most extent. That may be the Dead Sea.
A similar but less extreme flood could happen in California if the land between Death Vally and the Gulf of California should drop much. Not the Death Valley itself as it has some high land between it and the Gulf but the Salton Sea is also a little below sea level and the land between it and the Gulf isn't much above sea level. Only a small drop would be need for Gulf to extend to the Salton Sea. There would be no waterfall though as there isn't enough difference in height.
The Salton Sea is sorta artificial yet natural. It was intially formed early in the 1900s by a overflow of the Colorado River but is maintained now by agricultural runoff. Unfortunatly salt is accumulating and if something isn't done to remove it the fish there will start dieing fairly soon.
I am going to ignore you larger post for today. I don't see a lot to say about it anyway. Maybe tommorow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Dead Sea. Its my own personal speculation. If the rift widens enough the Dead Sea would eventually open and extend all the way to the Red Sea. That might however only create a salt water river rather than a waterfall. The Rift Valley extends from Africa to at least the Dead Sea. I am not sure what is the northern most extent. That may be the Dead Sea.
A similar but less extreme flood could happen in California if the land between Death Vally and the Gulf of California should drop much. Not the Death Valley itself as it has some high land between it and the Gulf but the Salton Sea is also a little below sea level and the land between it and the Gulf isn't much above sea level. Only a small drop would be need for Gulf to extend to the Salton Sea. There would be no waterfall though as there isn't enough difference in height.
The Salton Sea is sorta artificial yet natural. It was intially formed early in the 1900s by a overflow of the Colorado River but is maintained now by agricultural runoff. Unfortunatly salt is accumulating and if something isn't done to remove it the fish there will start dieing fairly soon. |
Thanks.
quote:
I am going to ignore you larger post for today. I don't see a lot to say about it anyway. Maybe tommorow. |
No problem. You don't even have to respond. It's more just a personal reflection than anything argumentative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Ethelred: Did you read this article, linked from the website you gave me?
http://www.varchive.org/itb/rift.htm
It's interesting. What do you think of it? |
Wouldn't surprise if much of it was true. It would effect the idea that the Pillars of Salt in the Sodam and Gomorah story were based on the real pillars that are found near the Dead Sea. That could of course have been added to the story later as I think the part with Abraham meeting Jehovah was.
I don't know enough about the geology to be sure on that. I had thought the Dead Sea was quite old. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it has been and gone several times as well if the Jordon is shifting enough. The whole area is very active geologicaly. More so than California really. Maybe not on as frequent a basis but it seems to have more of a variety of geologic movements than California does.
It has the Rift opening or at least it did. Africa is moving north as well. The Mediteranean is squeazed between Africa and Europe. There is mountain building because of this so there are both forces moving land down, the Rift Zone, and forces moving land up, the compression from Africa which extends to causing earthquakes in Turkey. Its pretty complex so I guess all that stuff is possible.
I have my own idea on Sodam and Gomorah as you may recall. Not saying its the right idea but a split and fragmented meteor does fit the descriptions and such things have happened. I simply think the moral came later. People alway want a reason for things happening and if they can come up with a reason that will let them off the hook so much the better.
Try listening to motorcyle riders convincing themselves that if they are good enough riders they won't have an accident. You can see that sort of conversation in the movie The Right Stuff between the test pilots. Its the same basic thinking involved. I used to ride a motorcycle and I sure did recognize that conversation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
To what do they point? Are miracles something mysterious yet absolutely natural, or are they supernatural? Science has never posited it has found out everything there is to find out about nature, naturally there are things that are poorly understood. |
Like I said, for the non-believer, they point to very little, except perhaps that the world is a little more unpredictable than science lets us imagine. For the believer, miracles and cures can take on deeper significance as they may see the hand of God at work. It is subjective; I understand that.
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is this a god-of-the-gaps argument? If event A cannot be explained by science, is it evidence for your god?
Remember this argument has been in use for aeons, yet science has been advancing. The gaps are being filled. What we didn't know twenty years ago are very likely part of the body of knowledge today. |
It's not an argument and it's definetly not a god-of-the-gaps argument. Personally, I believe God is the active sustainer of all things. As such, I believe every day, every moment is a miracle of his design. When people are cured by modern science, I believe it is as much the result of the physical elements as it is God's design.
Anyways, as I quite obviously pointed out, I'm not providing evidence for the existence of God. I've indicated that apart from an experience with God; it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.
Just some food for thought: What alot of people also do not realize is just how much science does not know and just how tenuous some of its widely held theories are.
Last edited by ckweb on 02-09-2002 at 03:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
No offense Ckweb but this comment makes me laugh:
How can you have an experience with god if you don't even know if he/she/it exists or not? |
Because the existence of God is not dependent on your knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch X
Who the hell cares? |
About what?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
My point of view on this matter, shared by a growing consensus of scholars, is that the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are midrash--a genre previously not understood by many scholars because of latent, or sometimes explicit, anti-Semitism that existed in the field. (Midrash is largely a Jewish genre). Midrash requires reading the text somewhat differently and the historicity of certain events would not be necessary. |
Yes, I've heard of midrash. The Jesus-Mythers have suggested that whole Jesus story began as midrash: an allegorical story of a divine being descending to a lower realm (but not Earth) and ascending to Heaven again, but later treated as a literal account and fleshed out with details that later became the biography of Jesus in the gospels.
Personally, I suspect a fusion of this sort of myth (which appears in other religions of the region) and the story of a real person: it's common enough for stories to get combined like that.
However, I mentioned them in the context of bad prophecies, and the author of Matthew seems especially prone to ham-fisted attempts to make Jesus fulfil prophecies. I think it's pretty obvious that the prophecy he cites was not intended to apply to Jesus.
What do you think of Farrel Till's theory that the author of Matthew was not a native Hebrew speaker? In PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED he blames Matthew's bizarre version of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem astride two animals (scroll down to the heading "Jesus Christ, Stunt Rider") on the author's unfamiliarity with the Hebrew habit of parallel emphasis.
Till also points out another incompatibility between the two gospels which mention the nativity: it took place in the reign of Herod (died 4 BC) and the governorship of Quirinus (appointed 6 AD).
I think it's pretty obvious that the whole Nativity legend was invented and added later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Yes, I've heard of midrash. The Jesus-Mythers have suggested that whole Jesus story began as midrash: an allegorical story of a divine being descending to a lower realm (but not Earth) and ascending to Heaven again, but later treated as a literal account and fleshed out with details that later became the biography of Jesus in the gospels. |
Your use of terms is imprecise.
Midrash is a Jewish method of interpreting Scripture. The Rabbis would employ midrash to elucidate the meaning of difficult passages or alternatively, in order to demonstrate the significance of contemporary events in light of Scripture. In the case of Matthew, it is argued by a growing consensus of scholars that midrash is employed by the author in order to demonstrate the significance of Jesus in light of the Old Testament.
The author accomplishes this objective in several different ways. One way is employing Old Testament passages to show that the God who acted in past events is the same God active in the events of Jesus' life. The author therefore cites passages from the OT that in some way resemble an event in the life of Jesus. The author does not intend to convey a simplistic one-to-one prophecy and fulfillment. Rather, as I've indicated, the purpose is to show the same God at work. For instance, when Matthew quotes "Out of Egypt I have called my son," Fundamentalists try to argue that the original passage in Hosea was a prophecy. However, it is clear that it is not prophetic but rather descriptive of God's activities in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt during the Exodus. Matthew's aim is not to show a direct prophetic fulfillment but rather to key on the similarity in the activity: i.e., as it happened in the past so it is happening now.
Another way Matthew employs midrash is to demonstrate how Jesus was like Moses, or more accurately, to argue that Jesus is a new Moses. He does this by structuring his narrative in five distinct units (akin to the five books of Moses, known as the Torah). The Sermon on the Mount also figures prominently in this objective, wherein Jesus reinterprets the law received by Moses. Other elements continue this objective.
Midrash has little to do with the "Jesus-Mythers" as you call them. Rather, the Jesus-Mythers, if I understand you correctly, build on the History of Religions School. By analyzing extra-biblical myths and religions, they argue for the influence of these contemporary religions on the development of the Jesus material. Rudolf Bultmann was one of the most noteworthy of the proponents of this method. In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Bultmann argues that the author of John was influenced by proto-Gnostic and Mandean redeemer-myths in his reconstruction of the life of Jesus. This is the descending-ascending myth you are referring to. Bultmann's commentary was a landmark in its time but since that time it has come under heavy criticism, particularly in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Central to Bultmann's theory was that the ideas and theology of the Gospel of John could not have arisen within the Palestinian milieu and therefore, must have been influenced by religions outside of Palestine. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that ideas similar to those found in the Gospel of John are found in the Palestine of the period. Furthermore, when put against the backdrop of the DSS rather than Bultmann's Hellenistic religions, the Gospel of John makes more sense. Suffice it to say, the history of religions school has suffered a significant setback. Increasingly, scholars have shown that the influence of non-Palestinian myths is minimal at best; the ideas are anathema and contradictory to the thoughts expressed in the Gospel of John despite whatever superficial similarities seem to exist.
I could go on but I fear I'd write a book . . . if I wasn't clear about something or you'd like further explanation on a point, do not hesitate to ask.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Personally, I suspect a fusion of this sort of myth (which appears in other religions of the region) and the story of a real person: it's common enough for stories to get combined like that. |
There is no doubt that the Gospel writers attempted to understand the significance of the Jesus events in light of the world around them. And they obviously used ideas and concepts that were familiar to their readers in order to convey their message. However, such interpretive techniques should not lead to the assumption that their stories are mythical or legendary. Jesus must have accomplished something to invite the comparisons and arguments the Gospel writers make concerning him. There is no doubt that Jesus was a real person. It is still a common-place technique to explain the conduct of a real-life figure by making allusion to a legendary or even fictional character, i.e. allusions to Captain Ahab, or Robin Hood, or etc. etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
However, I mentioned them in the context of bad prophecies, and the author of Matthew seems especially prone to ham-fisted attempts to make Jesus fulfil prophecies. I think it's pretty obvious that the prophecy he cites was not intended to apply to Jesus. |
I explained the problem of Matthew above. Like I said, Matthew is not attempting a simplistic one-to-one prophecy and fulfillment. His arguments have more depth than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
What do you think of Farrel Till's theory that the author of Matthew was not a native Hebrew speaker? In PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED he blames Matthew's bizarre version of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem astride two animals (scroll down to the heading "Jesus Christ, Stunt Rider") on the author's unfamiliarity with the Hebrew habit of parallel emphasis. |
It is quite obvious that most of the NT writers were not native-Hebrew speakers. The common language of Palestine at the time was Aramaic. The second language would have been Koine Greek. If they knew Hebrew, it was only in order to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew. NT writers often quote from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, contemporary to that time.
RE: Matthew again. To add about Matthew's characteristics . . . Matthew shows a fascination with numbers, particularly significant numbers such as two, three, seven, and ten. Matthew often reconstructs narratives in order to fit them into a numerical system. The passage of which you are referring is a quote from Zechariah. I'm not sure whether the mention of two donkeys is the result of an error in the LXX translation of the Hebrew or Matthew's misreading/self-attempted translation or Matthew's fascination with the number two. I'd have to look into it again. It has been some time. But, certainly the original Hebrew in Zechariah is an example of "parallel emphasis."
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Till also points out another incompatibility between the two gospels which mention the nativity: it took place in the reign of Herod (died 4 BC) and the governorship of Quirinus (appointed 6 AD). |
There are certainly chronological problems in dating the birth of Jesus, due to incongruities between Matthew and Luke as well as incongruities in Luke alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I think it's pretty obvious that the whole Nativity legend was invented and added later. |
That's a bit of a jump. Some confusion in the precise dating or precise political situation by the authors of Matthew and Luke does not necessarily invalidate their whole stories.
There is certainly no doubt that the infancy narratives were late additions to the Jesus story. Mark and Q, as the earliest Gospels, do not discuss the infancy of Jesus. John doesn't either. Paul, in his letters, shows no familiarity with any of the infancy material. Only Matthew and Luke are concerned with this material. Matthew has clear midrashic interests while Luke has typological interests. Even so, Luke obviously has some historical interest as well and so might Matthew. Both authors undoubtedly relied on second-hand information in the form of written documents or interviews. Some of their information was probably suspect and it shows. Nevertheless, certain details are probably reliable, i.e. whenever Matthew and Luke agree on something, the detail is probably reliable given that Matthew and Luke's stories are so different. In addition, there may be some other details that are true but they would have to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
If you have an interest in the infancy narratives, you might enjoy my controversial paper on the virginal conception of Jesus:
http://anduril.ca/christian/essays/index.html
Choose the essay entitled, "A Matter of Conception."
Last edited by ckweb on 02-09-2002 at 05:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Oh really? |
Is this a surprise Fez? Or is everything that exists only in existence because you have knowledge of it? You'll understand if I disagree, won't you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
What I believe is in nothing. There is no higher being to direct what can be logically explained by the processes of science and logic. Fundamentally, I don't see any reason for a higher being. |
Okay. I know this already; it's very similar to the first thing you wrote in this thread.
I have a different belief.
So, what's your point?
Anyways, it is totally irrelevant to the objection you've raised above where you seemed to indicate that your knowledge of something was a prerequisite to the existence of that thing. Are you squirming out of your earlier objection? Or, trying to deflect attention away from it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Say what? If I were you I would work on the clarity of sentences and try not to sound like you are typing up a political speech because people will not listen to you. Believe me. |
Fez it would help a lot if you learned the diference between between clear and being clearly wrong.
The existence of a god or the non-existence is not related to your belief. Or Ckwebs either. It either exists or it doesn't barring some sort of Schroedinger's Cat type superposition that is being sustained by the absence of evidence in either direction.
quote:
Knowledge is attained by visual and abstract findings. Proving god is neither visual nor abstract nor can it be accomplished. |
Are atoms visible? Are they absract?
They are in fact neither. They are real and they are inhereintly non-visible due their size and the frequencies of light that we see in. You can't make god disapear in a puff of illogic any more than Ckweb can make one appear by claiming some sort of completly undefined experience.
Of course some have claimed to have seen god which would mean that god is visible. Then someone claimed to have spoken to the devil through his dog Son Of Sam. I don't he actually did that any more than I think Abraham met Jehovah but both a claimed to have happened by at least one person each. I cannot disprove either of them. Not even the serial killer despite the fact that he was obviously schizophrenic. Maybe the devil and Jehovah both choose to only reveal themselves to the deranged.
Then again maybe there is a Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark on the other side of the Moon and its in charge of everything. I don't think we have anyone believeing in that around here but we do have someone that thinks there was a Cosmic Inspector #icantrememberbutithadalotofdigits. He got just as upset as the Creationist do when I pointed out the flaws in The Book of Urantia.
Much like how you got upset when Ckweb quite reasonably pointed out that gods existence is not dependent on your belief.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually you could a darn good job of proving that Jehovah was highly probable if you could prove the stories in Genesis were all real. Many of them entail physical impossibilities that even a highly advanced civilization would be extremely hard pressed to simulate.
|
I do believe that some of the miracles described in Genesis and other books happened. However, the nature of the miracles is such that I have no way of proving them, especially to your satisfaction, short of having a time machine. As I've argued in a previous thread, the strongest evidence that exists in favour of some of the most profound biblical miracles are usually sociological and anthropological in nature. But, I've found that people are unwilling to accept these arguments and instead rely upon their own, often uneducated, explanations to account for the data.
Perhaps give me some insight, how would I go about proving the plagues of the Exodus; or, God's providence in the life of Israel; or, the deliverance of Jerusalem from the hands of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E; or, the miracles of Jesus? What sort of proofs would you require? Doesn't the nature of these events allow you to propose an alternative explanation? What sort of physical evidence would remain of these events?
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
You can't prove god even to yourself soley through personal experience unless you have an exceedingly loose concept of proof. One person is not enough. Nor are the personal experiences of others any good in corroborating your experiences. Some degree of repeatablily and testing would be needed to qualify as actualy proof. Now you may feel that your experience is adequate to convince you but it really doesn't constitute proof in anything remotely resembling a formal sense.
|
While I see your point, and even to a certain degree agree with it, I put more weight on personal experience, whether my own or others, than you do. Personally, I have the conviction that much of what we take for granted as knowledge in this world is based upon our own experience or the experience of others. And as such, I am willing to give most people the benefit of the doubt in the absence of proof to the contrary. I do not think sufficient proof exists to invalidate the existence of God or the validity of the biblical text as an historical witness. You may say I'm putting the cart before the horse but I see it as putting a little bit of trust in the fact that the "fairly ordinary men" who wrote the Bible weren't out to mislead me but genuinely wrote their response to events that they had seen and experienced.
I find it interesting that you are asking for repeatable proof when we once had the following exchange:
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Not necessarily. Science can only test what can be reproduced. |
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
False. Science includes many things that deal with non-reproducible events. Forensics is the science of studying events that should not be reproduced as in murders. Anthropology is a study of human activity both physical, cultural, and archeological. Medicine often deals with statistical analysis of events that occured in the past when dealing with plagues that no longer plague us. |
In light of your views then, repeatablility should not be essential to your requirement for proof, right?
Anyways, I think to a certain extent the proof that consists of personal experience with God is repeatable, which is why I suggested you participate with a Christian friend in an attempt to gain the benefit of that experience. If I did not believe it were possible for you to have that experience to a degree sufficient to convince you of God's existence, I would not have suggested it.
Think of it this way . . . I know that my parents love me because as often as that question has been open to debate, my parents have responded in a way consistent with my understanding of love. Now, ask me to prove my parents love for me to you, and I would be very hard pressed. I have no objective basis on which to be certain of my claim; however, subjectively I am as convinced of it as I am of the objective reality of the existence of gravity. Likewise, with God, I can not prove the existence of God to you but my experiences, however much they might occasionally be open to debate and interpretation, convince me that in fact he does exist. It is a subjective truth I can not disavow any more than I could disavow the love my parents have for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I am only interested in proofs that can be tested by others. |
One of the problems in our increasingly post-modern world is that "proof" has become so highly subjective. People, scholars and lay-people alike, have become so skilled at questioning the assumptions and presumptions that go into an argument that it undercuts the reliability of the argument and therefore allows people to maintain their own subjective opinions. Even in science, scientists are now able to refute experiments on the basis of the assumptions and presumptions that underlie the methodology, objectives, hypothesis, and synthesis of the experiments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
If God doesn't exist why do people talk about Him so much?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
If God doesn't exist why do people talk about Him so much? |
Would this qualify as a Koan?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Actually you could a darn good job of proving that Jehovah was highly probable if you could prove the stories in Genesis were all real. Many of them entail physical impossibilities that even a highly advanced civilization would be extremely hard pressed to simulate.
|
I could provide strong evidence for the historical probability and authenticity of many biblical events, apart from the miracles and the early periods.
The patriarchs in Genesis are almost impossible to prove because they were nomads and hence no archaelogical evidence exists of their existence. Even so, many details in the narratives suggest their stories are authentically placed. The accounts are frequently used as starting points in all sorts of historical investigations: archaeological, geological, etc.
Again, the Exodus is difficult to prove. It involved a slave rebellion unsuccessfully put down by the Egyptian Pharaoh. It is not surprising no mention is made in Egyptian court records; empires of that time rarely if ever mentioned defeats. Although, interestingly, the Pharaohs do become more involved in Palestine after this time and the first mention of Israel is found in the Merneptah Stele (Merneptah was an Egyptian Pharaoh). In the stele, Merneptah boasts of his destruction of Israel and its seed.
The archaeological data for the conquest is all over the map; some supports the biblical account, some questions it, some appears to contradict it. There are all sorts of problems with the conquest. We'd spend tons of time arguing this one. Kenyon and Garstang are two of the most significant archaeologists to have done work on this topic.
There is no explicit archaeological data for the united monarchy. However, once you get below 1000 B.C.E., into the divided monarchies, archaeological data strongly supports the biblical record of the kings of Judah and Israel and its involvement with surrounding nations. I can provide examples if you want.
etc. etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
I guess I will comment on parts of this thing now. Don't know about all of it yet. If you get to bottom and don't see me commenting on something you think I should have just mention it.
quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
I have heard that Catholicism leaves a bad taste in the mouth of many people; my brother-in-law and his twin were Catholics (their from Quebec so it's no surprise). Both them have alot of contempt for the Catholic Church; they are now Protestants after a long period of disbelief/unbelief. Perhaps, the Catholic Church wasn't the right place to embark upon the experience. |
That sure is typical Protestant outlook. Frankly I have more respect for the Catholic Church than a lot of other christian religions. It has changed since Luther you know. I point this out because a surprising number of Protestants still rail away at the Church for things that haven't happened in since the Reformation.
Lots of ex-Protestants feel the same way about their former religions. Its normal. Thats why they quit in many instances. I think you will find a lot of Agnostics don't have those issues. Atheists maybe. Lots of them seem to have decided that god doesn't exist because they were inflamed about things in their former religions. I simply noticed that the main difference between Catholicism and ANY other religion is that I was raised in it instead the others. If the others were mere superstitions why Catholocism as well.
quote:
Transubstantiation (the host becoming the flesh of Jesus; the wine becoming his blood) is an exclusively Catholic tradition. Some Protestant Churches adhere to consubstantiation, which claims that both the original elements, the host and the wine as well as the flesh and blood, are present together. My tradition takes them for host and wine, nothing more (except perhaps a spiritual significance). Actually, we do not use the term "host" for obvious reasons; it's just the bread. |
Its seems to me that the original idea behind Communion was most likely symbolic. Somehow it became more than that to a lot of people. Why is another question. Blatantly wrong headed thinking is nothing unique to Catholics.
quote:
About miracles and cures . . . There have been many documented cases of miracles and cures unexplained by science. |
Poorly documented in almost all cases. People simply have a loose idea of what constitutes a miracle. Many people refer to the miracle of birth and really believe its miraculous. Low probability events do not constitute miracles. Wittness all the people claiming that Civ III is cheating when a tank is beaten by a spearman. Its the exact same kind of thinking. Something is unlikely so it must be caused by something other than the odds.
A real miracle is when something happens that is literally imposible not merely unlikely. Stopping the Sun in the sky would qualify. Raising the dead for real would qualify but we have no assurance that Lazarus was really dead even if the story is a real one. Considering other religions have the same basic story its quite possible it was grafted onto the Bible.
quote:
All miracles and cures demonstrate is that the world is more unpredictable than science sometimes lets us imagine. |
More often they only show that people have a loose idea of what a miracle is. And a strange idea about the accuracy of medical predictions.
quote:
I think that is a pretty skeptical take on religious experience. |
Considering that is based on reality and not on belief, I think its reasonable. If you want to think it an uwarranted degree of skepticism be my guest. I an fairly sure you would say the say things about other religions than christian ones. Are you not highly skeptical of them? I simply am skeptical to the same degree about yours as well.
quote:
Sure, the herd mentality is always present and at work in group settings but many Christians have searched themselves in earnest and come to a sharp, personal awareness that their beliefs are not rooted in that herd mentality but are heart-felt. |
Few if any would have come up with those conclusion if not for their constant exposure to that same herd. If you were raised in a no religion environment would you really accept Christianity on the physical evidence and why would accept it over other religions that have every bit as much backing them. Mostly nothing just a christianity mostly has nothing but belief backing it.
quote:
I'm a lone ranger too and an academic-type; I haven't been to a church in a very long time. I've spent a great deal of time in introspection but I simply cannot deny the efficacy of my personal experiences that led me to faith in God in the first place. Given that the majority of my friends are non-Christian, I can assure you that I have wanted to lay aside my convictions and in that vein, I have tested them thoroughly. They have changed to a certain degree, matured might be more accurate, but the core remains. |
I personally doubt that you have become a christian if you hadn't raised as one in the first place. Some do that but not many and even most of them were exposed to it to a fairly large degree all their life. I have found that most of the personal experiences are not really very convincing at best and that is one reason that most keep them personal.
People do have odd dreams and even hallucinations sometimes without drugs. They are not convincing to me. I get weird dreams if I am sleeping hot or dry. I now use a flourescent lamp and make sure I am adequately hydrated before I go to sleep. The proliferation of low heat lights will likely decrease the number of converts in the future.
Actually I am at least sort of seriuos on that. And on this as well, don't leave tungsten lights on over your bed if you have a problem with bad dreams.
quote:
 You might do us all a public service! |
Unfortunatly I think they prefer to work in relays. I can only go so long before I too am likely to start having hallucinations. I haven't stayed awake more than 48 hours yet and I sure hope don't do that. After thirty or so hours I start making a lot of mistakes. But my posts get funnier some of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
If the relationships claim that god is needed then it should be no surprise they often result in people accepting things that aren't real. |
quote:
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please clarify, sorry. |
If a persons relationships entail consistently dealing with an assertion that god is needed for the relationship than people are likely to accept that god as , if not actually real, as something to pretend is real. Peer pressure is a strong force on most. Especially the young. It even works on us Lone Ranger types occasionally.
Lots of men go to church just to keep their wives happy. Eventually they come to believe simply because their resistance is lowered through constant repetition over the years.
quote:
I can certainly understand your sentiment but the evidence comes through participating in the relationship. The relationship seems to develop best in daily life, prayer, and worship. |
That last bit clearly requires a predispostion to believe. How the heck could you expect to worship something that I think is likely non-existent. Pretty darn sure in the case of any god other than a deist type.
Worship IS self-hypnosis.
quote:
I don't think that my experiences are the result of group pressure, sleep deprivation, or self-hypnosis; and I think you've taken progressively extreme examples to evade my initial suggestion. Personally, based upon our interactions in this forum and a gut feeling, I think you have the ability and independent character to withstand group pressure and self-hypnosis! Moreover, you've already stated that sleep deprivation won't work. |
I could be kidding myself on sleep deprivation and you clearly don't know understand the self-hypnosis has nothing to do with others. Its deliberatly and intentionaly using suggestion on yourself. The classic is "Every day in every way I am getting better and better". Prayer of the rote kind may not do that but the personal kind you expressly recommend is EXACTLY the same process that is used in self-hypnosis except for the obvious relaxation parts.
A person can be hypnotized with going through the well known rituals that you see in movies and TV. It can be done subtly. Heck it can be done by accident. Can't remember the name but an entertainer used to do a fake hypnotism act. He told the subject to fake it when he got them up on stage. Not out loud of course. Then on one occasion a subject was bit easier to get under a real trance than most.
quote:
BTW, prayer, at least in my experience, is not self-hypnosis. In Protestant Churches, particularly the so-called low-churches, prayers are not recited. They are spoken personally and often individually. |
That is exactly how one does self-hypnosis. Its SELF.
quote:
And while trying to develop a relationship with God is not going to give you physical proof (unless of course God does something dramatic), your experiences may become more valuable than physical proof. |
This seems to be hard for you to deal with I can't see trying to devolop a relationship with the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark either. I have to have the proof FIRST before I will try the self-brainwashing route. It is self-brainwashing even if you don't like the term. Convincing yourself that something is real without any evidence that it is real can be nothing else.
quote:
Like I said earlier on in this thread, most Christians believe for two reasons: (1) the legacy of testimony in the Bible as well as family and friends that attest to God's activity in history, |
Believing in someone elses belief. Bandwagon stuff. Very popular in politics as well.
quote:
and (2) their own personal experience with that God. |
That is NOT their reason. I say that because belief MUST come first for that. You can't have a personal experience with something that most likely doesn't exist unless you allready believe.
quote:
It might take now precisely because you are not an impressionable child anymore and you won't be able to shrug it off as an adolescent experience. You did not know any better back then; now you are informed. You are skeptic, with a good mind, many resources, and lots of questions that would need answering. This is the reason the experience would benefit you now more than it did in the past. |
You really don't understand anyone not believing. I have no desire to engage in what looks exactly like brainwashing myself. I am more infomed now that is true. I see even more reason than ever to consider christianity just another superstition. If you ever look at it from the outside you may also see that. Your whole life and belief system is structured around a belief in something that is really no more evident than any other religion. Some are more savage. Some are less so. But all depend on a belief instead of evidence. Well some of the Eastern Religions are much more of a way at looking at things than they are like Western god based religion but they still have the idea of mystical things.
quote:
He "was" one. Did he pass away? If so, sorry to hear it. |
I just haven't seen him. Who knows maybe he is dead. He simply became someone that couldn't do anything without claiming that was proof of god. He even thought god controlled the dice when we played Dungeons and Dragons. He was always an extremist in whatever he did. Very odd for an engineer to be that way. They usually are very conservative.
quote:
Catholicism is an interesting breed of Christianity. It has so much history and strength; in some respects, it has a certain doctrinal integrity. But, on the other hand, it has a power complex that has led it to hold on to antiquated traditions and ideas that simply fail to add up. Even so, many people are profoundly served by Catholicism's positive traditions. God bless them. |
Well a lot of Protestants are still fixated on the Church's past problems anyway. Its no where near as stubborn as the Orthodox churches seem to be. They even finally admited that Galileo was right.
quote:
BTW, Catholicism attempts to mediate your relationship with God through the Priest and the Sacraments. Protestantism, particularly the low-churches, encourage a direct relationship with that God. |
Thats largely a Protestant fantasy. Not entirely but much of it still a holdover from the time of Luther. The Catholic Church is not the only religion that has a problem with adapting to the present.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ckweb
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
That sure is typical Protestant outlook. Frankly I have more respect for the Catholic Church than a lot of other christian religions. It has changed since Luther you know. I point this out because a surprising number of Protestants still rail away at the Church for things that haven't happened in since the Reformation.
Lots of ex-Protestants feel the same way about their former religions. Its normal. Thats why they quit in many instances. I think you will find a lot of Agnostics don't have those issues. Atheists maybe. Lots of them seem to have decided that god doesn't exist because they were inflamed about things in their former religions. I simply noticed that the main difference between Catholicism and ANY other religion is that I was raised in it instead the others. If the others were mere superstitions why Catholocism as well.
Its seems to me that the original idea behind Communion was most likely symbolic. Somehow it became more than that to a lot of people. Why is another question. Blatantly wrong headed thinking is nothing unique to Catholics.
Well a lot of Protestants are still fixated on the Church's past problems anyway. Its no where near as stubborn as the Orthodox churches seem to be. They even finally admited that Galileo was right.
Thats largely a Protestant fantasy. Not entirely but much of it still a holdover from the time of Luther. The Catholic Church is not the only religion that has a problem with adapting to the present. |
Don't get me wrong. . . I'm fine with Catholicism. I disagree with some of their doctrine but I'm not a Catholic-hater or anything nor even are my brother-in-law and twin (despite some of their contempt for their past experiences). In fact, I admire the integrity of the RCC on many occasions. Protestants have a tendency to be conformists while the RCC remains committed to preaching Christ at all times in all places. I think you are right for criticizing some Protestants in the failure to get over past grievances with the Catholic Church. However, what you call "a Protestant fantasy" is still often the case in the RCC. The Catholic Church has and continues to mediate one's relationship with God through the Priest and the Sacraments. There are some RCCs that are more charismatic and hence more likely to encourage a direct relationship with God but the traditionalists continue to hold sway.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Poorly documented in almost all cases. People simply have a loose idea of what constitutes a miracle. Many people refer to the miracle of birth and really believe its miraculous. Low probability events do not constitute miracles. Wittness all the people claiming that Civ III is cheating when a tank is beaten by a spearman. Its the exact same kind of thinking. Something is unlikely so it must be caused by something other than the odds.
A real miracle is when something happens that is literally imposible not merely unlikely. Stopping the Sun in the sky would qualify. Raising the dead for real would qualify but we have no assurance that Lazarus was really dead even if the story is a real one. Considering other religions have the same basic story its quite possible it was grafted onto the Bible.
More often they only show that people have a loose idea of what a miracle is. And a strange idea about the accuracy of medical predictions. |
Your point is well taken.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Considering that is based on reality and not on belief, I think its reasonable. |
I don't think your point of view is anymore less about belief than mine. You choose not to believe in God. I choose to believe in God. Belief affects us both. Small "r" reality is product of the lens through which each of us sees the world. Big "r" Reality is uncertain for both of us. So, perhaps, it is best that we avoid accusing each of other of being less attune to Reality than the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
If you want to think it an uwarranted degree of skepticism be my guest. I an fairly sure you would say the say things about other religions than christian ones. Are you not highly skeptical of them? I simply am skeptical to the same degree about yours as well. |
I detect a certain sly criticism of me in these comments. 
Actually, I don't think I would attempt to negate the religious experiences of others in religions other than my own. I believe their experiences are probably valid. My criterion for analyzing other religious movements are largely the same as those apply to Christianity. I examine the claims and the support for those claims. Many religions, such as forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and other Eastern religions, make few supernatural claims. They are primarily philosophical systems. In many cases, I accept the insight that these traditions have to offer. With respect to Hinduism and folk forms of Buddhism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions, I find the claims suspect and the support highly questionable. With respect to Mormonism, I again find the claims highly suspect and the support devoid of any support. With respect to Judaism and Islam, my position is quite involved and would take some time to explain. There are many other religions I'm sure that I do not know enough about to properly consider their claims. As I become more informed, I am always willing to consider them.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Few if any would have come up with those conclusion if not for their constant exposure to that same herd. If you were raised in a no religion environment would you really accept Christianity on the physical evidence and why would accept it over other religions that have every bit as much backing them. Mostly nothing just a christianity mostly has nothing but belief backing it.
I personally doubt that you have become a christian if you hadn't raised as one in the first place. Some do that but not many and even most of them were exposed to it to a fairly large degree all their life. I have found that most of the personal experiences are not really very convincing at best and that is one reason that most keep them personal.
People do have odd dreams and even hallucinations sometimes without drugs. They are not convincing to me. I get weird dreams if I am sleeping hot or dry. I now use a flourescent lamp and make sure I am adequately hydrated before I go to sleep. The proliferation of low heat lights will likely decrease the number of converts in the future.
Actually I am at least sort of seriuos on that. And on this as well, don't leave tungsten lights on over your bed if you have a problem with bad dreams.
|
That is questionable to say the least. Christianity, unlike other religions such as Judaism and Islam, has grown primarily through proselytization. The rapid growth of Christianity in Africa and Asia is the result of conversions not population growth. In fact, Christianity is declining in those places where you have the longest legacy of the tradition. So, my point, many people accept the claims of Christianity without the constant presence of that religious environment. Entire tribes have converted on only the testimony of one missionary. I can already anticipate the explanations you'll have but I'll wait for you to make them.
I have no desire to keep my experiences personal. I was merely saying they were personal and as such they are difficult to articulate. I can't really explain what the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit feels like or give it some sort of quantifiable expression. I can, however, attest that experience has happened and I can say it has changed my perspective on things. I have also experienced on a few occasions sudden insights that I think are uncanny. But, they will seem very ordinary to people who weren't in my shoes at the time so I don't bother trying to relate them and have people ridicule me for them. If there is something specific you'd like me to explain, I'll do my best.
quote:
That last bit clearly requires a predispostion to believe. How the heck could you expect to worship something that I think is likely non-existent. Pretty darn sure in the case of any god other than a deist type.
Worship IS self-hypnosis. |
I should have explained why italicized worship. You are right that it requires belief first. But, it was respect to this third one, that I would advise observation.
quote:
quote:
I don't think that my experiences are the result of group pressure, sleep deprivation, or self-hypnosis; and I think you've taken progressively extreme examples to evade my initial suggestion. Personally, based upon our interactions in this forum and a gut feeling, I think you have the ability and independent character to withstand group pressure and self-hypnosis! Moreover, you've already stated that sleep deprivation won't work. |
I could be kidding myself on sleep deprivation and you clearly don't know understand the self-hypnosis has nothing to do with others. Its deliberatly and intentionaly using suggestion on yourself. The classic is "Every day in every way I am getting better and better". Prayer of the rote kind may not do that but the personal kind you expressly recommend is EXACTLY the same process that is used in self-hypnosis except for the obvious relaxation parts.
A person can be hypnotized with going through the well known rituals that you see in movies and TV. It can be done subtly. Heck it can be done by accident. Can't remember the name but an entertainer used to do a fake hypnotism act. He told the subject to fake it when he got them up on stage. Not out loud of course. Then on one occasion a subject was bit easier to get under a real trance than most.
quote:
BTW, prayer, at least in my experience, is not self-hypnosis. In Protestant Churches, particularly the so-called low-churches, prayers are not recited. They are spoken personally and often individually. |
That is exactly how one does self-hypnosis. Its SELF. |
I understand that self-hypnosis has nothing to do with others. But, I do not see how prayer, not being rote and not having any specific objective other than attempting to enter a relationship, can be self-hypnotic. If anything, it can be frustrating as sometimes it feels as though you are talking to the four corners of the room you happen to be praying in.
quote:
This seems to be hard for you to deal with I can't see trying to devolop a relationship with the Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark either. I have to have the proof FIRST before I will try the self-brainwashing route. It is self-brainwashing even if you don't like the term. Convincing yourself that something is real without any evidence that it is real can be nothing else. |
I guess I just don't see it as self-brainwashing. Rather I see it as investigation or research.
quote:
Believing in someone elses belief. Bandwagon stuff. Very popular in politics as well. |
It's more than believing in someone else's belief. It is believing that they gave a accurate reporting of a particular experience. It might be bandwagon, I suppose, but I don't think it always necessary to act the rogue. If people repeatedly attest to something, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
That is NOT their reason. I say that because belief MUST come first for that. You can't have a personal experience with something that most likely doesn't exist unless you allready believe. |
I disagree. Belief does not necessarily come first; often it does not. The experience initiates the belief. Granted, often there is openness to the possibilities (although sometimes even this much isn't there). But is that a bad thing?
quote:
You really don't understand anyone not believing. I have no desire to engage in what looks exactly like brainwashing myself. I am more infomed now that is true. I see even more reason than ever to consider christianity just another superstition. If you ever look at it from the outside you may also see that. Your whole life and belief system is structured around a belief in something that is really no more evident than any other religion. Some are more savage. Some are less so. But all depend on a belief instead of evidence. Well some of the Eastern Religions are much more of a way at looking at things than they are like Western god based religion but they still have the idea of mystical things. |
I think Christianity has more to stand on than many other religions. I think I've made my position on that clear.
I understand unbelievers. Most of my friends are unbelievers and respect your and their right to choose your own path. I'm merely offering my experience. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-09-2002 11:31
|