Living with christianity as a non-christian.

[Quid est Veritas?]

the Magi, they were Zoroastrian priests. I won't go too much into this as it's a whole other topic. It definitely is interesting, though!

I will go into it though, out of sheer pedantry.

Strictly speaking, the Magi were the priestly tribe of the Medes. As they were closely related to the Persians in Achaemenid times, they were therefore often Zoroastrian priests. So the term came to be extended to any Iranian priest in classical times.

From there, it evolved into any religious figure of the non-Greek East of the Levant, so Chaldean Astrologers also became termed Magi. It then became extended to any wonderworker and soothsayer, on strength of association with Astrology, giving a meaning in the end of essentially 'magician'. This is the sense in which Simon Magus, of Simony fame, was deemed thus.

So the biblical Magi could be any of these - Medes, Zoroastrian Priests, Chaldean Astrologers or just a Magician/Astrologer in general.

 

[Galdrun]

Yes, I to know many nice Muslims. Islam is very much a work-based religion and even though they believe “God can forgive almost anything”, there is a need to be deserving of that forgiveness through works or to pay back the forgiveness.


The Holy Spirit would not have allowed misleading doctrinal information to be pasted down to us. We know we are missing letters from Paul and most likely others, which the Holy Spirit must feel could be misleading.

John the Baptist did not write anything, but only some of his words are recorded.

Paul will say sometimes this is from me (my ideas for the particular group). Paul is not ever addressing us directly in any of his letters so we are reading other people’s mail carried to them by a spirit filled individual (one of Paul’s companions or friend). You have to keep the context in mind anytime you read Paul especially when he writes to new members he sees as his children almost and they look upon him as their father almost. I do not have a big issue understanding Paul, but it does take a lot of pray meditation and allowing the Spirit to help me.

The plagues in Egypt could easily have occurred as stated and I would not expect the Egyptians to put it in their history.

The flood might have been “regional” with the reference to the world being the world of the Bible at that time. God seems to be working with other people outside the Bible area differently. This gets “complicated”, because we today will not be able through studying artifacts to know the God of the Bible exists. We need to have faith in the existence of God for the benefit faith can produce, while using our “knowledge” to proof God’s existence would make us even more reliant on knowledge and less dependent on faith (we would avoid faith). God will not allow us the proof His existence through learning facts and proofing there was a whole earth flood would be scientific proof of God’s existence.

We need the humility faith in the existence of God can produce.

Errr... You know the Egyptians recorded MANY more insignificant disasters their empire(s) faced.

Look at here in America. After 9/11 where more than 3000 people died horrifically... There are segments of the twin towers in every city around here. There's a segment as well as a memorial within walking distance of where I live. We remember Pearl Harbor. We remember the revolutionary war. These, in contrast, are tiny when compared to 5 plagues that enveloped an entire EMPIRE, not the least of which would be the death of a massive portion of the population (when almost every first born child was killed). We are talking about empires (because ancient Egypt contained many different empires through the ages) that were obsessed with record keeping and major events, and were obsessed with the previous empires that existed before them (which is one reason why we know so much about the earliest days of ancient Egypt).

I have a hard time believing that they just forgot or didn't bother to record it.

While I appreciate your point of view, I do have a hard time comprehending your thought process. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Galdrun]

I will go into it though, out of sheer pedantry.

Strictly speaking, the Magi were the priestly tribe of the Medes. As they were closely related to the Persians in Achaemenid times, they were therefore often Zoroastrian priests. So the term came to be extended to any Iranian priest in classical times.

From there, it evolved into any religious figure of the non-Greek East of the Levant, so Chaldean Astrologers also became termed Magi. It then became extended to any wonderworker and soothsayer, on strength of association with Astrology, giving a meaning in the end of essentially 'magician'. This is the sense in which Simon Magus, of Simony fame, was deemed thus.

So the biblical Magi could be any of these - Medes, Zoroastrian Priests, Chaldean Astrologers or just a Magician/Astrologer in general.

Very interesting. =) I will say that when it comes to ancient Persia, there really is a lot of misinformation as one not only has to navigate through prevalent interpretations of a very few select people who were interested in the subject at the time (the early 1900s, mostly), but also because there's a lot of misinformation spread through propaganda. That subject, I notice, is especially hard to get to the bottom of. I'm not sure if you're aware of the different sects of modern Zoroastrianism (Iranian, Parsi, and Gathic), but this misinformation has lead to very, very distinct differences in their religion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Errr... You know the Egyptians recorded MANY more insignificant disasters their empire(s) faced.

Look at here in America. After 9/11 where more than 3000 people died horrifically... There are segments of the twin towers in every city around here. There's a segment as well as a memorial within walking distance of where I live. We remember Pearl Harbor. We remember the revolutionary war. These, in contrast, are tiny when compared to 5 plagues that enveloped an entire EMPIRE, not the least of which would be the death of a massive portion of the population (when almost every first born child was killed). We are talking about empires (because ancient Egypt contained many different empires through the ages) that were obsessed with record keeping and major events, and were obsessed with the previous empires that existed before them (which is one reason why we know so much about the earliest days of ancient Egypt).

I have a hard time believing that they just forgot or didn't bother to record it.

While I appreciate your point of view, I do have a hard time comprehending your thought process. Maybe I'm missing something.

Egyptians believed in the power of words. Writing something down made something more Real than it was otherwise. Hence they had spells and incantations written on mummies and etched on temple walls. Disasters were recorded usually as preambles to Restoration or Pharoah overcoming them. This is what we see in Ramses III and the Sea People, or Ramses II at Kadesh, or driving out the Hyksos, or Mentuhotep and the desecration at Thinis. Recording a disaster with no silver lining is unlikely, so for instance we have no Egyptian source for the Assyrian Conquest of Egypt - while well attested otherwise. So having no written record on imperishable stone or so is perfectly understandable. Writing was holy, powerful, magical, which is why it is Hiero(meaning priest) - glyphics. The Egyptian word from which the Greek was derived, is closer to 'the signs of the gods' or 'Holy words'.

What should be remembered is that we are rebuilding Egyptian history based on monuments. This would be as if writing US history based on a partial Washington Mall. It is estimated that we have less than 2% of Egyptian inscriptions. Arguing for a negative is difficult on these grounds. We do have no clear evidence for it on the traditional chronology though, but that has significant problems - alternate chronologies can be argued to support it better, but they have arguibly worse inconsistencies and problems. Fascinating to debate the pros and cons, but not as clear cut as often presented.

One of my favourite poems is apropriate here:

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Very interesting. =) I will say that when it comes to ancient Persia, there really is a lot of misinformation as one not only has to navigate through prevalent interpretations of a very few select people who were interested in the subject at the time (the early 1900s, mostly), but also because there's a lot of misinformation spread through propaganda. That subject, I notice, is especially hard to get to the bottom of. I'm not sure if you're aware of the different sects of modern Zoroastrianism (Iranian, Parsi, and Gathic), but this misinformation has lead to very, very distinct differences in their religion.

I am fond of Zoroastrianism. One of my favourite religions. I am very aware of the differing interpretations, with some arguing for a primeval Dualism, others for a more essential Monotheism from Zoroaster onwards - often back pollenised by well-meaning Orientalists into the Parsee community leading to a circular confirmation thereof. Not even mentioning whether or not Zurvanism was more prevalent in Sassanid times or not, how much the Sassanids redacted the Avesta, dating the Gathas etc. It is refreshing to find someone else with an interest therein.

That isn't really relevant to the term Magi though, as its use in Hellenistic writings is what we are talking about - and that is well attested. The Gospels are clearly writing from within a Hellenistic mileau rather than an Iranian one.

 

[Galdrun]

Egyptians believed in the power of words. Writing something down made something more Real than it was otherwise. Hence they had spells and incantations written on mummies and etched on temple walls. Disasters were recorded usually as preambles to Restoration or Pharoah overcoming them. This is what we see in Ramses III and the Sea People, or Ramses II at Kadesh, or driving out the Hyksos, or Mentuhotep and the desecration at Thinis. Recording a disaster with no silver lining is unlikely, so for instance we have no Egyptian source for the Assyrian Conquest of Egypt - while well attested otherwise. So having no written record on imperishable stone or so is perfectly understandable. Writing was holy, powerful, magical, which is why it is Hiero(meaning priest) - glyphics. The Egyptian word from which the Greek was derived, is closer to 'the signs of the gods' or 'Holy words'.

What should be remembered is that we are rebuilding Egyptian history based on monuments. This would be as if writing US history based on a partial Washington Mall. It is estimated that we have less than 2% of Egyptian inscriptions. Arguing for a negative is difficult on these grounds. We do have no clear evidence for it on the traditional chronology though, but that has significant problems - alternate chronologies can be argued to support it better, but they have arguibly worse inconsistencies and problems. Fascinating to debate the pros and cons, but not as clear cut as often presented.

One of my favourite poems is apropriate here:

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."


I am fond of Zoroastrianism. One of my favourite religions. I am very aware of the differing interpretations, with some arguing for a primeval Dualism, others for a more essential Monotheism from Zoroaster onwards - often back pollenised by well-meaning Orientalists into the Parsee community leading to a circular confirmation thereof. Not even mentioning whether or not Zurvanism was more prevalent in Sassanid times or not, how much the Sassanids redacted the Avesta, dating the Gathas etc. It is refreshing to find someone else with an interest therein.

That isn't really relevant to the term Magi though, as its use in Hellenistic writings is what we are talking about - and that is well attested. The Gospels are clearly writing from within a Hellenistic mileau rather than an Iranian one.

Extremely well said, and very good points.

That said, when it came to massive events like those plagues would have been, they would have said SOMETHING, it seems. Look at the way the sea peoples were depicted. The bronze age collapse itself, though largely mysterious, can be seen in the effect it had on the world at the time. Though I'm sure there are many major events that have gone unrecorded, one that killed 1/10th of the population of an entire empire (conservatively), consisting of mostly young children, is hard to believe for me despite how difficult it is to reconstruct the past from what little fragments we have. It's true that there could be various clues still buried somewhere, or locked away in someone's private collection, but it is a tough pill for me to swallow. =/ Maybe that's on me, heh.

It seems to be a common theme when concerned with biblical miracles of the like. That said, there are also plenty of other biblical events that can be confirmed via artifacts we've found (such as the Cyrus Cylinder).

Would you happen to have any ideas for reading material for biblical miracles that were confirmed via third party accounts?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Extremely well said, and very good points.

That said, when it came to massive events like those plagues would have been, they would have said SOMETHING, it seems. Look at the way the sea peoples were depicted. The bronze age collapse itself, though largely mysterious, can be seen in the effect it had on the world at the time. Though I'm sure there are many major events that have gone unrecorded, one that killed 1/10th of the population of an entire empire (conservatively), consisting of mostly young children, is hard to believe for me despite how difficult it is to reconstruct the past from what little fragments we have. It's true that there could be various clues still buried somewhere, or locked away in someone's private collection, but it is a tough pill for me to swallow. =/ Maybe that's on me, heh.

It seems to be a common theme when concerned with biblical miracles of the like. That said, there are also plenty of other biblical events that can be confirmed via artifacts we've found (such as the Cyrus Cylinder).

Would you happen to have any ideas for reading material for biblical miracles that were confirmed via third party accounts?

Third party accounts? Not much that I can point to there - third parties aren't interested in someone else's miracle. I mean, I can't give a third party account of Marcus Aurelius' Miracle storm during the Germanic Wars or a non-Roman account for a Vision of Constantine (though we do have pagan and Christian versions of that one).

There are vague-ish Jewish sources though, like Josephus quoting the Egyptian historian Manetho on the figure Osarseph - which he connects to Moses. Or Roman sources like Pliny the Younger's letters for Christian claims on Jesus.

I could also point you to Sennacherib: Jerusalem never appears amongst his conquered cities in his palace reliefs, and Herodotus records how his campaign against Egypt came to naught when mice destroyed his chariots by divine intervention. Hezekiah was obviously allied to Egypt, so this is likely the same event as the biblical plague on his armies (though Mice, got to love Herodotus).

Difficult to get such sources, but there are a few roundabout ones like these. Much of them are somewhat debatable, but much pre-classical history is. As I always point out, the fall of Nineveh has been redated four times in a 150 years. Remember, Judaea was an unimportant backwater to everyone - only mentioned in reference to someone or something else, such as Egyptian campaigns against Hittites or Assyrians, or only important to Rome to hold Syria's flank against Parthia and defend Egypt.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Extremely well said, and very good points.

That said, when it came to massive events like those plagues would have been, they would have said SOMETHING, it seems.

It would seem like that would be the case, wouldn't it? But then again, I'm not sure about this myself. I was watching that National Geographic program on 'God' hosted by Morgan Freeman a few weeks ago, and they made reference to how the Egyptians actually seemed to have "erased" the ideas of one of the upstart Pharaohs by defacing his tomb, or something to that effect, literally scrapping a good chunk of his 'memory' away so as to be lost forever. We might also consider how holding the "position" of Pharoah might be prone to fits of megalomania through which the accurate, historical recording of reality might not have been done exactly in Walter Cronkite style. [.....and if by chance you don't know who Walter Cronkite was, he was an American journalist/reporter for CBS news who WAS known for saying upon finishing a newscast, "And that's the way it is!"

When we look at the Historiographical praxis of Ancient Civilizations, it's probably rather anachronistic to assume they'd just write their history with the same kinds of scientifically inclined intents, conceptual proportions and contexts in which we'd do it today. So, it's also probably best (IMO) to take a good dose of both the History of Historiography and the Philosophy of History into account in our assessment of how and what we 'think' the various Egyptians would have written into their histories.

 

[bling]

Errr... You know the Egyptians recorded MANY more insignificant disasters their empire(s) faced.

Look at here in America. After 9/11 where more than 3000 people died horrifically... There are segments of the twin towers in every city around here. There's a segment as well as a memorial within walking distance of where I live. We remember Pearl Harbor. We remember the revolutionary war. These, in contrast, are tiny when compared to 5 plagues that enveloped an entire EMPIRE, not the least of which would be the death of a massive portion of the population (when almost every first born child was killed). We are talking about empires (because ancient Egypt contained many different empires through the ages) that were obsessed with record keeping and major events, and were obsessed with the previous empires that existed before them (which is one reason why we know so much about the earliest days of ancient Egypt).

I have a hard time believing that they just forgot or didn't bother to record it.

While I appreciate your point of view, I do have a hard time comprehending your thought process. Maybe I'm missing something.

A Southern writer wrote about the civil war calling it “the War for Southern Independence” and show a lot of Northern atrocities.

The Egyptian historians poorly records some periods in Egyptian history and there is just a whole lot to fill-in on the Egyptian history 3500 years ago.

You have this: Moses apparently belonged to a group of Semitic settlers whose ancestors had arrived in Egypt from the land of Canaan. People from Canaan had settled the delta since the middle of the Twelfth Dynasty (the Middle Kingdom). Remains from the settlement at Tell el-Dab'a in the Delta, confirm that the settlers were Semitic nomads and pastoralists, like the Hebrews. This settlement grew and developed into the Hyksos capital of Avaris, and was later swallowed up by Piramesse.

You have: The Tempest Stele was erected by the Pharaoh Ahmose I (orthodox dates1570-1546 BC) the founder of dynasty Eighteen and the New Kingdom. The stele describes the great storm that struck Egypt during his reign. 'now then ... the gods declared their discontent. The gods [caused] the sky to come in a tempest of r[ain], with darkness in the western region and the sky being unleashed without [cessation, louder than] the cries of the masses, more powerful than [...], [while the rain raged] on the mountains louder than the noise of the cataract which is at Elephantine.'

Proponents further suggest that the phrase "his Majesty began ...to provide them with silver, with gold, with copper, with oil, and of every bolt [of cloth] that could be desired. Then his majesty made himself comfortable inside the palace" refers to Pharaoh giving Moses the material to build the ark. Thus, Moses becomes a Hyksos leader accepting goods from the Egyptian Pharaoh as part of a deal which would result in the Hyksos leaving Egypt. Manetho alleges that the Theban Pharaoh laid siege to Avaris (the Hyksos capital) and the outcome was a treaty by which the Hyksos agreed to leave Egypt. Manetho also claims that the Hyksos settled in Jerusalem!

Manetho tells the story of Osarseph, a rebellious Egyptian priest, Pharaoh Amenhotep and his son "Ramesses also called Sethos" (of the New Kingdom). Apparently, Osarseph took control of Egypt for thirteen years. He defiled the temples and terrorised the people. Pharaoh fled from Egypt to protect his infant son, but the son returned to Egypt and threw Osarseph out of Egypt. According to Josephus, Manetho believed that Osarseph was Moses, and many have pointed to the similarity between these events and the rule of Akhenaten. Akhenaten certainly rejected the gods and imposed a form of Monotheism.

When Thera exploded it effectively destroyed the Minoan civilisation and caused huge tidal waves and a huge pillar of black smoke. Many commentators have noted that the ten plagues of Egypt can be explained with reference to the environmental effects of such a huge volcanic eruption. The eruption is estimated (by carbon dating and supporting environmental evidence from a number of sites around the world) to have occurred around 1640 BC. So who was the pharaoh when Thera exploded?

All I am trying to point out is the lack of good historical evidence we do have and there are lots of historians using the little evidence out there coming up with lots of alternatives.

We do know this: History was not written independent of the ruling body in Egypt and in all other ancient world civilizations. After paper became cheap, more people had time and more people could read and write history could come from multiple sources. The Pharaohs after Moses would not have allowed the recording of a Pharaoh being overthrown by slaves and a slave’s God.

A lack of evidence does not proof something did not happen.

I cannot "proof" the Old Testament History and for the most part do not care if you feel it is just a story with lots of good moral lessons.
There is in the Old Testament prophecies about Christ which were also recorded in the OT copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls carbon dated back to before Christ.

 

[Galdrun]

It would seem like that would be the case, wouldn't it? But then again, I'm not sure about this myself. I was watching that National Geographic program on 'God' hosted by Morgan Freeman a few weeks ago, and they made reference to how the Egyptians actually seemed to have "erased" the ideas of one of the upstart Pharaohs by defacing his tomb, or something to that effect, literally scrapping a good chunk of his 'memory' away so as to be lost forever. We might also consider how holding the "position" of Pharoah might be prone to fits of megalomania through which the accurate, historical recording of reality might not have been done exactly in Walter Cronkite style. [.....and if by chance you don't know who Walter Cronkite was, he was an American journalist/reporter for CBS news who WAS known for saying upon finishing a newscast, "And that's the way it is!"

When we look at the Historiographical praxis of Ancient Civilizations, it's probably rather anachronistic to assume they'd just write their history with the same kinds of scientifically inclined intents, conceptual proportions and contexts in which we'd do it today. So, it's also probably best (IMO) to take a good dose of both the History of Historiography and the Philosophy of History into account in our assessment of how and what we 'think' the various Egyptians would have written into their histories.

Some very good points. With Egypt being as deeply entrenched as it was, it absolutely did rewrite it's history at many points during it's different reigns. Hell, so have we. All one has to do is look at America's history and how we have rewritten a lot of our own historical events in the short time we have existed as a nation (case in point, the alternate versions of the Civil war that are being taught depending on where you live in this country even today).

History is fascinating, but it is also an incomplete puzzle that people have tampered with deeply.

Hmmm... With this fact, how does one trust the bible as a flawless historical record, let alone as an infallible work of god?

 

[Galdrun]

A Southern writer wrote about the civil war calling it “the War for Southern Independence” and show a lot of Northern atrocities.

The Egyptian historians poorly records some periods in Egyptian history and there is just a whole lot to fill-in on the Egyptian history 3500 years ago.

You have this: Moses apparently belonged to a group of Semitic settlers whose ancestors had arrived in Egypt from the land of Canaan. People from Canaan had settled the delta since the middle of the Twelfth Dynasty (the Middle Kingdom). Remains from the settlement at Tell el-Dab'a in the Delta, confirm that the settlers were Semitic nomads and pastoralists, like the Hebrews. This settlement grew and developed into the Hyksos capital of Avaris, and was later swallowed up by Piramesse.

You have: The Tempest Stele was erected by the Pharaoh Ahmose I (orthodox dates1570-1546 BC) the founder of dynasty Eighteen and the New Kingdom. The stele describes the great storm that struck Egypt during his reign. 'now then ... the gods declared their discontent. The gods [caused] the sky to come in a tempest of r[ain], with darkness in the western region and the sky being unleashed without [cessation, louder than] the cries of the masses, more powerful than [...], [while the rain raged] on the mountains louder than the noise of the cataract which is at Elephantine.'

Proponents further suggest that the phrase "his Majesty began ...to provide them with silver, with gold, with copper, with oil, and of every bolt [of cloth] that could be desired. Then his majesty made himself comfortable inside the palace" refers to Pharaoh giving Moses the material to build the ark. Thus, Moses becomes a Hyksos leader accepting goods from the Egyptian Pharaoh as part of a deal which would result in the Hyksos leaving Egypt. Manetho alleges that the Theban Pharaoh laid siege to Avaris (the Hyksos capital) and the outcome was a treaty by which the Hyksos agreed to leave Egypt. Manetho also claims that the Hyksos settled in Jerusalem!

Manetho tells the story of Osarseph, a rebellious Egyptian priest, Pharaoh Amenhotep and his son "Ramesses also called Sethos" (of the New Kingdom). Apparently, Osarseph took control of Egypt for thirteen years. He defiled the temples and terrorised the people. Pharaoh fled from Egypt to protect his infant son, but the son returned to Egypt and threw Osarseph out of Egypt. According to Josephus, Manetho believed that Osarseph was Moses, and many have pointed to the similarity between these events and the rule of Akhenaten. Akhenaten certainly rejected the gods and imposed a form of Monotheism.

When Thera exploded it effectively destroyed the Minoan civilisation and caused huge tidal waves and a huge pillar of black smoke. Many commentators have noted that the ten plagues of Egypt can be explained with reference to the environmental effects of such a huge volcanic eruption. The eruption is estimated (by carbon dating and supporting environmental evidence from a number of sites around the world) to have occurred around 1640 BC. So who was the pharaoh when Thera exploded?

All I am trying to point out is the lack of good historical evidence we do have and there are lots of historians using the little evidence out there coming up with lots of alternatives.

We do know this: History was not written independent of the ruling body in Egypt and in all other ancient world civilizations. After paper became cheap, more people had time and more people could read and write history could come from multiple sources. The Pharaohs after Moses would not have allowed the recording of a Pharaoh being overthrown by slaves and a slave’s God.

A lack of evidence does not proof something did not happen.

I cannot "proof" the Old Testament History and for the most part do not care if you feel it is just a story with lots of good moral lessons.
There is in the Old Testament prophecies about Christ which were also recorded in the OT copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls carbon dated back to before Christ.

A good point for sure. =)

Oh! And some things to research. Thanks! I'll have to look into them more deeply when I have the time.

You are right, though. A lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen for sure.

As for the dead sea scrolls, there were other texts in those scrolls that were extra-biblical, no? Books like pseudo Ezekiel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some very good points. With Egypt being as deeply entrenched as it was, it absolutely did rewrite it's history at many points during it's different reigns. Hell, so have we. All one has to do is look at America's history and how we have rewritten a lot of our own historical events in the short time we have existed as a nation (case in point, the alternate versions of the Civil war that are being taught depending on where you live in this country even today).

History is fascinating, but it is also an incomplete puzzle that people have tampered with deeply.

Hmmm... With this fact, how does one trust the bible as a flawless historical record, let alone as an infallible work of god?

..... I'm so glad you asked. As most people around here already know, I'm not one who asserts that we need a perfect Bible in order to have faith. IMO, if the Bible was meant to be "enough" for faith all by itself, let alone inerrant (as if it really needed to be), then it would be false due to what is implied by the Epistemological Indices that are unsystematically strewn throughout the Bible. Without elaborating too much in this direction, and to keep this short, I'd say that I have to side with Pascal and somewhat with Kierkegaard in saying that we have to make an existential leap of faith somewhere along the way during the time we're gambling over whether we think Jesus is Truly Lord and Savior, or not.

So, yes, I think you're right to call it all an incomplete puzzle, one that is and has been tampered with. But, even if this is the case, we'll each either take the Bull by the Horns and really stare it down, OR we'll capitulate to the dread and yawning maw of the Abyss. I'm prone to do the former, kind of like this :

 

[Galdrun]

..... I'm so glad you asked. As most people around here already know, I'm not one who asserts that we need a perfect Bible in order to have faith. IMO, if the Bible was meant to be "enough" for faith all by itself, let alone inerrant (as if it really needed to be), then it would be false due to what what is implied by the Epistemological Indices that are unsystematically strewn throughout the Bible. Without elaborating too much in this direction, and to keep this short, I'd say that I have to side with Pascal and somewhat with Kierkegaard in saying that we have to make an existential leap of faith somewhere along the way during the time we're gambling over whether we think Jesus is Truly Lord and Savior, or not.

So, yes, I think you're right to call it all an incomplete puzzle, one that is and has been tampered with. But, even if this is the case, we'll each either take the Bull by the Horns and really stare it down, OR we'll capitulate to the dread and yawning maw of the Abyss. I'm prone to do the former, kind of like this :

Hah! I like your philosophy. =)

You know, I haven't really read too much into philosophy. I should get into it, cause I think I might enjoy it. Maybe I'll have to take up a class or two when I get back to school.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hah! I like your philosophy. =)

You know, I haven't really read too much into philosophy. I should get into it, cause I think I might enjoy it. Maybe I'll have to take up a class or two when I get back to school.

Yes, it can open some additional venues of thought, even academic thought, that you can add to that anthropology and whatever other areas of expertise you're carrying around there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hah! I like your philosophy. =)

You know, I haven't really read too much into philosophy. I should get into it, cause I think I might enjoy it. Maybe I'll have to take up a class or two when I get back to school.

Have you seen the sitcom "The Good Place"? If not, you might check it out....it's not exactly Christian in its scope, but it's definitely a fun ride.

 

[bling]

A good point for sure. =)

Oh! And some things to research. Thanks! I'll have to look into them more deeply when I have the time.

You are right, though. A lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen for sure.

As for the dead sea scrolls, there were other texts in those scrolls that were extra-biblical, no? Books like pseudo Ezekiel.

Yes lots of other books, but again does that mean the group thought they were equal to the Bible.

You do not have to answer this but it is a question I ask agnostics or atheist after we have exchanged for a while: "If the Christian God of the Bible did make Himself unquestionable known to you how would you feel about having that knowledge and what might you change in your life?

 

[Galdrun]

Yes, it can open some additional venues of thought, even academic thought, that you can add to that anthropology and whatever other areas of expertise you're carrying around there.

Expertise! Hah!

I just like asking questions. Unfortunately, I don't have nearly as much time to devote to this stuff as I'd like to have. That's one reason I'm looking forward to going back to school. Research as a side interest is one thing, but learning directed by a teacher's insight helps to cut through a lot of the white static. Even teachers should be questioned (especially teachers), but at least it gives a clear and concise direction to work off of.

So, if I may ask, what got you interested in healthy eating? =)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Expertise! Hah!

I just like asking questions. Unfortunately, I don't have nearly as much time to devote to this stuff as I'd like to have. That's one reason I'm looking forward to going back to school. Research as a side interest is one thing, but learning directed by a teacher's insight helps to cut through a lot of the white static. Even teachers should be questioned (especially teachers), but at least it gives a clear and concise direction to work off of.

If only more people had the positive attitude toward (good) teachers that you have. Directed learning can help cut through the morass of junk and side-issues which students encounter when coming newly to a subject. That is true, but as you've wisely assessed, teachers should be questioned too; no one should just get a free lunch when asserting this or that claim, not even a PhD.

So, if I may ask, what got you interested in healthy eating? =)

My interest came from having a run-in with high cholesterol and the fact that heart problems tend to run through my family. So, when I encountered heart palpitations just over a decade ago due to a combination of common maladies, I got concerned. And that's the short of it. Now my wife and I are pretty conscientious of what we actually put into our bodies. Of course, we still splurge now and then, but we're much more careful and picky than we used to be.

 

[Galdrun]

Yes lots of other books, but again does that mean the group thought they were equal to the Bible.

You do not have to answer this but it is a question I ask agnostics or atheist after we have exchanged for a while: "If the Christian God of the Bible did make Himself unquestionable known to you how would you feel about having that knowledge and what might you change in your life?

Hmmm... That's a good question.

It depends. I would have to look at the things in the bible that I find questionable, and ask about them. There were many horrible things that happened, especially in the old testament, and I'd wonder how a good god could allow these things to happen, or in many cases, why he would orchestrate these events. It wouldn't be enough to know that god exists, as I'd have to also know that he was a good god (or at least, ultimately positive vs. negative). I can't be satisfied with "because I'm god and you are not" as an answer. I would have to know that I would be helping to make a positive impact, rather than to further aid in the efforts of an evil god. Not even threats of hell would make me bend the knee to a being I thought was ultimately evil (for the lack of a better word), IMO.

Now, if I found he truly existed, and that he truly was a good god without a shadow of a doubt, then that would give me a lot to think about. Would it cause me to change the way I live? Hmm... I would think god would make me the way I am for a reason, and that god had a plan for me according to the way he had made me (for example, I care about people's health, and already I want to make a positive impact in those regards). As for anything extra he would ask of me, I think I would do that as well. He would know best for how I could best utilize my own strengths.

With all of this said, the concept of an all good and perfect god is difficult for me, as we live in such a flawed and dog eat dog kind of world. I understand the biblical reasons for why this is, but those in turn bring all sorts of questions that I would have to wrestle with. It's a tough idea for me to grapple with, as I don't have an adequate understanding to compare it to, outside of my own narrow and biased ideas of what "good" and "perfect" should be.

 

[bling]

Hmmm... That's a good question.

It depends. I would have to look at the things in the bible that I find questionable, and ask about them. There were many horrible things that happened, especially in the old testament, and I'd wonder how a good god could allow these things to happen, or in many cases, why he would orchestrate these events. It wouldn't be enough to know that god exists, as I'd have to also know that he was a good god (or at least, ultimately positive vs. negative). I can't be satisfied with "because I'm god and you are not" as an answer. I would have to know that I would be helping to make a positive impact, rather than to further aid in the efforts of an evil god. Not even threats of hell would make me bend the knee to a being I thought was ultimately evil (for the lack of a better word), IMO.

Now, if I found he truly existed, and that he truly was a good god without a shadow of a doubt, then that would give me a lot to think about. Would it cause me to change the way I live? Hmm... I would think god would make me the way I am for a reason, and that god had a plan for me according to the way he had made me (for example, I care about people's health, and already I want to make a positive impact in those regards). As for anything extra he would ask of me, I think I would do that as well. He would know best for how I could best utilize my own strengths.

With all of this said, the concept of an all good and perfect god is difficult for me, as we live in such a flawed and dog eat dog kind of world. I understand the biblical reasons for why this is, but those in turn bring all sorts of questions that I would have to wrestle with. It's a tough idea for me to grapple with, as I don't have an adequate understanding to compare it to, outside of my own narrow and biased ideas of what "good" and "perfect" should be.

Thank you very much for an honest answer.

I have asked question like this of many agnostics and atheist with most giving the very same answer and none saying “That would be Good News”. All have like you a moral issue with God, so that has to be satisfied prior to believing in God.

My perspective on: God, what has happened and what is happening, prejudges my belief in a God even prior to becoming a believer (it was Good news for me). After becoming a Christian, the indwelling Holy Spirit assures me of God’s promises.

You say: “I understand the biblical reasons for why this is” so what do you see as the Biblical reason, because most people saying they are Christian do not understand the “reason” (objective) for the way things are?

We both do not have the time to go over every specific reason for everything in scripture, but we can take examples, so after you address the one question we can jump into Adam and Eve and go from there, unless you have something more pressing.

 

[Galdrun]

Thank you very much for an honest answer.

I have asked question like this of many agnostics and atheist with most giving the very same answer and none saying “That would be Good News”. All have like you a moral issue with God, so that has to be satisfied prior to believing in God.

My perspective on: God, what has happened and what is happening, prejudges my belief in a God even prior to becoming a believer (it was Good news for me). After becoming a Christian, the indwelling Holy Spirit assures me of God’s promises.

You say: “I understand the biblical reasons for why this is” so what do you see as the Biblical reason, because most people saying they are Christian do not understand the “reason” (objective) for the way things are?

We both do not have the time to go over every specific reason for everything in scripture, but we can take examples, so after you address the one question we can jump into Adam and Eve and go from there, unless you have something more pressing.

Hmmm... It's hard to see it as good news from the onset because of all of the things that are attached with the concept, I suppose. Not everything in the bible is sunshine and daisies, and it paints a grim picture of the world we live in - albeit, with a silver lining. Discussing these things are one reason I'm here, though. =)

As for my understanding for sin and why things are the way they are, this is from the particular version of christianity I was raised with. From what I remember, all evil in the world comes about from man's choice when he/she sinned and chose to disobey god. They fell from grace, and this separated them from god (both literally and figuratively, as they were removed from the garden of eden). We are now exposed to things such as suffering and satan's cruelty because of this separation.

From what I remember, the world we live in is now under satan's power. God is allowing him to rule this world for a time while he (satan) waits for the end times when he and his angels are cast into the lake of fire.

I guess I could ask why it's ok to be punished for the sins of our father, but in the nature of the reality we live in, this can be explained. For example, I'm hesitant to have children. I know that if I did, there would be a high likelihood of passing on certain traits to my children that they could possibly suffer with. One could also point out the unfairness of an ultimately powerful being cursing an entire species to such a horrible fate as well, but again, this is also reflected in nature - just look at what fate was in store for the dodo for simply having beautiful feathers. Life is unfair, though this doesn't really bode well for the argument that god is fair and just in the way he cursed mankind.

I suppose the thing that is most pressing topic in my mind as far as something an evil god would do is the concept that any folks who don't proclaim Jesus as their savior while having knowledge of him should suffer all eternity in torment (hell).

It seems like a tool to keep people in line, and an evil one at that. As I've told some here, my future mother in law cried to me about how she wants all of her daughters, and me, to be with her in heaven when we die. She's worried I will suffer an eternity in hell. Likewise, my mom (who suffers with mental illness), worries constantly for a family friend of ours because he converted to Wicca. If she ever knew I wasn't christian, I'm a bit worried that she would suffer a nervous breakdown.

Now, the way I was raised, god doesn't *actually* send people to hell. People choose that path when they reject god (as if it's their fault that they didn't pick the right team), and there's just no other place to be than to exist in hell.

(If you excuse the analogy) To me it seems a bit like being drugged, kidnapped, and to waken aboard a vessel out at sea. No one ever asked to be born, and no one ever asked to be out on this vessel. So, the captain (god) says, "You can do as I say, or you can swim in the drink... Sorry, but if you don't want to pledge allegiance to me, you can't be around me." Unfortunately, there isn't any other place to be but to be drowning in the ocean. Now, the captain could still take you to an island where you could live out the rest of your existence without drowning to death, or, he could even take you back to where he picked you up from - maybe even a different dock (via reincarnation). He won't, though. This doesn't sound like the actions of a very good person...

I guess, as a side note, what would make this even more confusing would be that it isn't even the captain that tells you this, but several letters from past crew mates compiled in a book supposedly inspired by what they felt the captain would have wanted to get across. It's supposed to tell you what you are supposed to do in such a confusing way that each crew mate on this ship has a different interpretation to what this book actually is trying to say. Moreover, there are plenty of other letters being passed around by people saying that *their* letters are actually from a different captain, or that there are more than one captains. Meanwhile, some say that there wasn't even a captain to begin with, and even if there was one, he isn't there now, and they should just steer the damn ship themselves before they crash into the shore.

(Edit: Now, the second paragraph above breaks from the analogy that the vessel is heaven. It's just to illustrate how unlikely it seems to me that the bible is the final end all be all holy text when there's so much competition from both "holy" and secular sources that it needs to compete with on a constant basis. Sorry for the side tangent!)

(back to the subject of hell) If the biblical interpretation that hell is a place of eternal suffering were a reality, however, this would be even worse. In my narrow and biased opinion, no one (not even serial killers) deserves to be tortured - let alone for all of eternity. What purpose does it serve? As a corrective action, to direct people into a positive path? What purpose could god have in making a place where people would forever suffer in unimaginable ways? Where is the good in this, let alone, how is this fair and just for a fair and just god?

(another edit: You know, on further reflection, I find it interesting that many people who are agnostic or atheist are so concerned with morals, and doing the right thing. It seems that while people are flawed, they do have an aspect of innate good in them, no?)