Religous debates and questions [2]

Frogs on the other side of the Pond?

In this forum it really just comes down to Norwegians, Aussies and Brits.  NABs?

BTW:

Hillbilly wrote:
Well it's back to work.  Remember, todays taxable income is tomorrows drone, and those civilians aren't going to bomb themselves.

   I feel myself taking a real shine to you...

I found that last line quite funny too.

Agreed, Halfy.

Hillbilly: You might be the only evangelical Christian here (I'm honestly not sure, although I know for a fact that you're not the only Christian, even if the irreligious tend to be more vocal here in the Big Bad Serious Forum), but your sense of humor seems to fit right in. I'm glad you decided to join and seem to be having fun so far!

Don't worry about taking a while to respond to posts either, I have a backlog of stuff I was/am going to do around here that would probably take months to get through.

I think you could call us all wannabe americans... like the dude in full metal jacket.

'Inside every gook is an American trying to get out'

NABs sounds ok to me

NAB's That's brilliant. I mean: Hey!  

I listened to that Dawkins interview with the Priest- a fascinating interesting discussion, but I do feel the priests logic is constructed (as he admits himself) on some pretty shaky ground at points that wouldnt stand too much scrutiny or prodding (particularly on the miracles).

Hillbilly- no worries on taking your time- looking back through those posts its longer than I thought, but not as long as it might seem as there are pages of,um, 'Forumshire discussion', inbetween posts.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I listened to that Dawkins interview with the Priest- a fascinating interesting discussion, but I do feel the priests logic is constructed (as he admits himself) on some pretty shaky ground at points that wouldnt stand too much scrutiny or prodding (particularly on the miracles).

I got to watch about half the Dawkins interview last night while I was near a high speed connection. That's a man I can respect as both a scientist and a theologian, and he's charming as well. I'm putting him on the list of people I'd like to have a dinner with someday.

As to the shaky bits, every discipline has them. Mathematics still has it's holes. So does physics (just go back to the quantum physics discussion thread for some of the easy ones.) Even the most rigorous science has to make a leap of faith when it's applied to the Real World (...well it worked in the lab, so it must......) That doesn't discredit any of them. Life just works better when seasoned with faith.

Well to his credit he doesnt try to defend it on any grounds other than those of belief. As close as he comes to trying to fit it alongside his scientific view is to effectively say God makes the odd exception the normal understood rules.

Also he had no argument to the question would he not believe something completely different had he born say in a Muslim family and not not a Catholic family.
That point seems to trouble him somewhat and although he returns to it on more than one occasion he doesnt have an answer to it.

He believes in the Virgin birth and that Jesus is the son of God for example but can offer no reason for doing so other than its his belief and its his personal history too.
When asked if he would still believe it if his personal history was Islamic not Christian he admits he probably would not.
Like Dawkins I find that telling as seems to imply faith is more about what you are raised to have faith in than anything intrinsic to the religion or the message itself.

There's no doubt that there can be a comfort in the faiths we're raised in, but many people do change faiths in their lifetimes. It also has to do with the communities we're in. Not many people have the conviction to hold to any belief if there's nobody who shares it with them.

But surely if Christianity were truth- actual truth- people would hold the belief regardless of social pressures or upbringing?
To admit you only believe something because thats how you were raised, and to then go on to admit had you been raised differently you'd probably believe something else- does seem to me to somewhat undermine any claim to an ultimate truth.

To be honest I go the distinct impression he doesnt believe in the virgin birth or resurrection either, no more than he does the other miracles he so casually dismisses, but you have to say you believe in those two to be a catholic priest or you lose the wage packet and pension!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But surely if Christianity were truth- actual truth- people would hold the belief regardless of social pressures or upbringing?
To admit you only believe something because thats how you were raised, and to then go on to admit had you been raised differently you'd probably believe something else- does seem to me to somewhat undermine any claim to an ultimate truth.

I thought he was very clear at the beginning that he was speaking about his own personal beliefs.
Where did a claim of ultimate truth come into it?

I meant the churches claim that the virgin birth and resurrection are true in the literal sense- something he supports in that interview on the section on miracles (although not very convincingly in my view)- if such a thing were ultimately true then one would not expect the need to believe in it to be based upon upbringing, as he admits his own belief was, but on the evidence for its truth.

My personal belief is we're all fumbling in the dark, with moments of illumination. The whole idea of an Ultimate Truth seems like a straw man.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Also he had no argument to the question would he not believe something completely different had he born say in a Muslim family and not not a Catholic family.
That point seems to trouble him somewhat and although he returns to it on more than one occasion he doesnt have an answer to it.

When asked if he would still believe it if his personal history was Islamic not Christian he admits he probably would not.
Like Dawkins I find that telling as seems to imply faith is more about what you are raised to have faith in than anything intrinsic to the religion or the message itself.

Clearly somebody both didn't listen carefully enough or pay attention to my own post on the subject.  

I earlier mentioned just how impressed I was with how he handled this. He noted that the tenure of current religion in human culture is actually vanishingly short when compared to the lifetime of human culture itself. He felt quite comfortable with the idea that the message of religion has to work its way into culture, and that in the end the various religious viewpoints will achieve a synthesis. This is a strikingly original viewpoint, and I'm surprised it was missed.

He appears to see the specifics of belief as just a path to deeper understanding. He accepts the differences as part of the different cultural pathways, and the individual tenets of faith are just different tools to achieve the same goal. But without the tool you don't get the job done, so he chooses to believe unconditionally and doesn't begrudge the Muslim for very different beliefs. It's a very ecumenical viewpoint.

I'm inclined to agree David, but it does not stop religious groups claiming to have the truth or scientists trying to find the ultimate unified theory of everything.

I mean look at just how many different factions Christianity has split into over disagreements about what stuff is true and what is not, or who has the truer approach to worshipping god.
It all seems mad to me.  

I cant remember who it was that said they liked to get all the worlds holy books and line them up on  one bookshelf because it amused them to have a shelf of books all claiming to be the one true version.

Halfy I thought he made a good point there as well- but then if he really believed that why would he stick to believing as truth (which he claims for the virgin birth, or Jesus's standing as God incarnate) a thing which he knows all other groups refute entirely- if they are struggling along to a general consensus surely he as a prominent priest should be involved in that and not be defending parts of the religion that rely solely upon interpretation and pure faith alone and is unique to only one religion?
That doesnt seem to make sense to me if he really believes they are all the same underneath.

They are fine words, but they dont seem backed up by the actual practise of his religion.

As I said, he feels that the belief is a tool to get deeper. He accepts the fact of different belief intellectually, yet still stands by his own as his individual approach.

It's a very subtle doublethink allowed by his ability to analyze the psychology of religion. It's sort of like the last book of hitch hiker's guide where Arthur Dent discovers he can fly by simply not hitting the ground: all the logic is against him, yet by believing he need only avoid hitting the ground he achieves his goal of flying. If he didn't believe this impossible thing, it wouldn't happen.

Its still doublethink though- which is a trick.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
They are fine words, but they dont seem backed up by the actual practise of his religion.

I think his words were backed up by his personal beliefs and practices. They also align closely with the beliefs a number of Catholics I know, particularly academics and people in monastic orders.

Are you possibly judging him by other Catholics you know? I know it's as much an issue of politics and sports as of religion in your part of the world.

Well I cant discount cultural influences, I try to guard against them, but they are such devious buggers one has to be always alert.

But I think I am judging purely on his own words- he at one point claims certain things are true and then admits all religion is converging in time to a consensus, but then insist on sticking to solely catholic elements and claiming them as truths.

That seems to contain a contradiction to me.

To me it seems a conundrum rather than a contradiction. It's an important distinction.

Maybe, but not one I see here. It just sounds contradictory to me.  

Thank you everyone for your kind words and welcome. It is good to know that sarcasm crosses cultural boundaries.

I've been reading petty's posts until my ass hurts, and quite honestly I'm not through with them yet, but I wanted to post something so as not to give the impression that I turned and fled to my local church for safety. As a side note, if anyone is waiting for me to produce a picture of the resurrected Christ appearing to Saul on the way to Damascus, I'm sorry, I lost it in the last move.

One of the reasons I believe the Bible is accurate is that I cannot reconcile how a single person (Paul as some have suggested), much less a group of people, could conspire together to create the book and have it be as inline with OT prophesy as the NT claims about Jesus and the events surrounding him occurred. For example, petty's post on page 12 claims Luke "invented a census" as a reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. Certainly this would have been an obviously fraudulent claim to people of the time if there was not at least some bit of truth in it. Why make something up that people of the time could easily disprove.

If the NT was manufactured as a means to paint a picture of Jesus as something he either was not or did not claim to be, why are there so many instances of what could be termed "bad press". For example, petty sited John the Baptist doubting Jesus' claims about himself. Why would a band of conspirators attempting to rewrite history include that? They could either have left it out or glossed over it, as has been claimed that they did with other events. Another example is Jesus' rejection in his hometown of Nazareth. In the desire to deceive, couldn't the early church fathers have left that out, or changed it to something more positive?

Another opinion that I disagreed with is that Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins was not blasphemy. Only priests could entreaty God and make offerings for the forgiveness of sins, which only God could grant. Regular shmucks had to provide a sacrifice that would be offered for them, which usually had to be purchased from the temple. When Jesus said "your sins are forgiven", he not only claimed to have the authority to do so, he implied you no longer needed the priests to approach God for you. This of course would greatly reduce the income of the church, no more "your money for your salvation", to this day one of the greatest forms of extortion.

For the most part, petty is very accurate with his portrayal of Jewish culture in the times of Jesus. He is obviously well read and has put much thought in to his opinions. It is some of the conclusions of course that I disagree with. One area that I believe you misinterpreted petty is on pg 18 where you refer to the young man who says he will follow Jesus but "let me bury my father first", to which Jesus says "let the dead bury their own". My understanding is the young man's father is still alive. He is saying he will follow Jesus after his father dies, after which he will receive his inheritance. The young man is basically saying "I will follow you when I am ready, which will be when I am old, am financially well off, and have had my fun." The response of Jesus to paraphrase is "let the spiritually dead bury the physically dead".

Thank you if you have taken the time to read this. Another one of the reasons I have been reluctant to post in the past is the time it takes to respond. These are deep conversations, and are difficult to jump into if you only have a few minutes. Any time I spend on the internet is meant to be mindless down time, which the lot of you are ruining.

I love the term NABs! Although it leaves petty out, I'm sure he has no problem affiliating himself with the motherland, the true center of civility and proper discourse.