What do you do when you don't believe any more?

[OldChurchGuy]

(BTW, that reminds me, how many begotten sons did Abraham have and who were they?)

Based on my research and understanding of Abraham, I will venture the following:

Ishmael - Genises 16 (mother was Hagar)
Isaac - Genises 21 (mother was Sarai / Sarah)
Zimran - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Jokshan - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Medan - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Midian - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Ishbak - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Shuah - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)

It is my understanding these children with Keturah happened when Abraham was about 140 years old. I have survived two daughters into adulthood and I am in my 50's. I can only say that for Abraham to be starting a new family at age 140, he is a better man than I.

Interesting to note that later battles with the Midianites as well as other descendants from above are battles among distant relatives.

OldChurchGuy

 

[Crazy Liz]

Crazy Liz, thanks for your interest and thanks for stopping by. I'm interested in as many informed points of view as possible.

I'm in the process of giving up on my faith in Christ and want to make sure I exhaust my resources.

Somehow I missed your detailed response to my post until today. Sorry.

What kind of ministry are you going into? I really wish I would have gotten a seminary degree (too). I love reading and study. I really wish I would have gotten several degrees in science as well. I am just such a curious bugger. Every time I read on something, I do my best to research it, to read the different points of view from the original sources, etc.

Probably hospital chaplaincy. Having been given or taken on a few pastoral care assignments, I found it came pretty naturally to me & was shocked other people found it so hard.

Way to go. I'm less a fan of Harris but I have to admit I kind of like Dawkins ascorbic witt. Sometimes it is a bit over the top but he makes me think as well as chuckle.

Anyhow, my favorite Dawkins book was Ancestor's Tale. Up until about a year ago, I didn't really "get" evolutionary biology. I just had a bunch of false impressions about it, mostly from non-scientists with other agenda. Anyhow, I read three or four books on the subject, but Ancestor's Tale was the key one that helped me get it.

Haven't read that one. I'll have to put it on the list.

But please do love her all the same. I'm sure she's very precious and special to you.

I do & she is.

Ouch, that felt a bit back-handed.



And exactly how is wanting to follow truth based upon evidence "brittle?"

Sorry. I didn't mean to offend. But what I see in Harris & Dawkins' critique of faith, in my son's process, and in yours, is this very modern scientific frame of reference, which seeks to prove or falsify everything on a factual level. You may have noticed my signature. The first part of it is a quote from a fundy, who thinks Genesis has to be 100% factual or the whole Bible is worthless, and if the Bible is not 100% factual, there is no basis for believing in God. I call that a brittle faith because it is so easy to destroy, whereas a more flexible faith can handle being mistaken on the details. There's a different kind of truth in poetry, that I think allows for both more richness and more flexibility, so it is more resilient.

Yeah, I had a fun conversation about the tooth fairy with my kids.

Wow, what a dangerous job he must have. Has to illegal sneak into peoples houses and up into kids rooms. I wonder if he has to worry about people's dogs? Or what about people who own guns and want to protect their homes? I wonder if he's ever been shot at?

And how expensive it must be? Do you think he has to get sponsors? Where do you think he gets the money from?

Obviously the kids were a bit older and they rolled their eyes and said, "stop it Dad" but they fulling understood how ludicrous and made up it seemed in the midst of so much evidence that denied and so little evidence that confirmed.

That Mom put a quarter under the pillow simply made so much more sense.

Occam's Razor in the mind of a kid.

Whether or not one "belives" the Bible is any "kind of Bible," the Bible says what it says for itself. What I "believe" it says is in the realm of my mind and, similar to one of my recent posts, has little to no causation with both what the Bible actually says and what the TRUTH in the world actually is.

God is not a liar, but God is a poet. God's inspiration led people to write stories and poems.

I hope you considering encouraging your son in his Biblical scholarship.

I am, but that doesn't seem to be his biggest interest at the moment.

Also, I, a bit, resent that you've called my posts "arguments." I am NOT putting forth a position. I am looking for evidence. I am struggling to find it. When someone put forth something as evidence that is based upon a logical fallacy, circular logic, or such, I need to explorer it further detail.

I'm sorry. I don['t consider "argument" a bad word. In my mind it doesn't imply hostility, but organized points that one finds persuasive.

I've noticed you frequently point out logical fallacies in certain forms of argumentation used by other people, so I didn't think you thought of argument as a negative word.

BTW, I think "logical fallacy" is a misnomer WRT some of the things you have pointed out. There's a difference between a strict fallacy and an argument supported by a weaker form of argumentation. For example, appeal to popularity. While that certainly is not a CONCLUSIVE argument, the fact that something is commonly believed has some persuasive weight. At the very least it legitimately raises the question of WHY it is believed.

Again, I go back to the post I made about NOT wanting to gullibly follow MYTH. Simply I want to KNOW the TRUTH.



But what about the archaeological or liguistic evidence with regard to the Book of Mormon? Yowsa. I don't think Joseph Smith even know of the archaeology or linguistics of his time.



I also acknowledge that the universe, life, and existence itself are indeed amazing, precious and awe-inspiring. In fact, more so when I know how numbered the sunrises and sunsets I get to see are.

However, there is a huge leap from "something mystical" to the Nicaean Creed or to the inspiration of the 66 book Protestant canon.

They are the myths of my culture and my faith. The intersection between myth and fact is important, but I just don't think it's a 100% overlap.

So if you left certainty long ago, how did you affirm your belief in the Nicaean Creed on this site?

Was it based upon that which you know to be truth?

Or that which you simply hoped to be so.

I didn't affirm my belief in the Nicene Creed in that way. I accept it as a symbolic formulation about one aspect of my faith, and I accept that if I expressly disagree with it, my disagreement will not be accepted by TPTB at this site, and agree not to outright contradict it.

My affirmation of the Creed is merely my acceptance of its use as a framework for discussing theology. I have no problem affirming the virgin birth or the resurrection because I believe in the incarnation. It's a different epistemological approach than to say someone believes in the incarnation because of overwhelming evidence for the virgin birth and the resurrection.

But again, I'm more postmodern than modern in my epistemology.

I think the Matrix has to be the most "theological flexible" movie. Everybody uses it. Anyhow, I loved the first movie.



Based upon exactly what though?

Anyhow, I would suggest that I generally do follow the teachings of Jesus in my daily life significantly more than many professing Christians.

That's exactly what I meant. If you're following Jesus, you are a Christian. Our reasons for following Jesus are may and varied.

Though I very skeptically doubt his divinity and accuracy of most of the mythical stories about him, whether Biblical or apocryphal.



I don't necessarily see that I've "turned back" when it comes to daily lifestyle choices.

So I would call you a Christian.

When Seebs calls himself an agnostic Christian, he is saying something about epistemology and about faith, and that the two are less dependent on each other than a lot of people believe. Again, I think tying faith so closely to one epistemological system can create what I call a brittle faith, because the faith is too dependent on a particular form of epistemology, when in fact, it doesn't have to be dependent on it at all.

Just that I don't believe it all and think it all about as mythical as Zeus, Thor, or Neo.

Maybe so, but since Zeus and Thor are not MY myths, they do not have the power for me or my community of the stories of Zeus and Thor. Neo may or may not be a myth of my community. It has some similarities, but it lacks the power of antiquity. Those of us who are steeped in the ancient myths of our culture see The Matrix as a retelling of some of these ancient stories. Those immersed in the youth culture are more likely to see it as myth in its own right.

Regardless, everybody "knows" apostates and heretics go to hell.

Really?

It does feel lonely. However, I suspet most all of us moderns struggle with this.

Yeah. I'm just not so modern anymore.

I used to not read my Bible in public. Now I do quite frequently.

If somebody tries to strike up a conversation, I usually just say, "I am struggling with disbelief." And usually, nobody gets all fakey preaching and that. Usually people open up and have a real conversation. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I usually just cut the converation short. I'm not ready to go there all that much yet, especially not to a stranger.



I appreciate you stopping by.

Thanks. I'll try to catch up & keep lurking.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Am sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to weigh in a little, if that's ok. Please feel free to ignore me entirely.

You keep writing "evidence" in a large red font, so I'd like to tackle that one first. What "evidence" would suffice for you? Realistically, what evidence do you expect? Jesus died for you; His followers died in His name; the church - while fundamentally flawed - at its heart exists to support your relationship with Him. It's a linear, rational concurrence of events, and certainly lends itself to being evidentiary support.

I don't have the biblical knowledge many of you more learnéd people do and, to be honest, am happy to sit at His feet with the understanding of a child, but I do know He and I have a peronal relationship. A living, breathing relationship and that to me, is where my faith comes from. Do I have "evidence" for it? No. But nor do I have "evidence" for any of my relationships.

Did you ever enjoy a personal relationship with Jesus? Did you ever spend time with Him and allow His presence to soothe you? If so, that's pretty conclusive evidence. I firmly believe truth is absolute, and there is no middle ground, but when we're discussing the truth of something as nebulous as relationships, your perception of it is truth, thus evidence.

Further, Richard Dawkins. An atheist with an agenda, very much of the world. I read The God Delusion, as I used to subscribe to his way of thinking, but what we overlook is his belief in both the Big Bang Theory and the multiverse theory. Dawkin's militant atheism is very much at odds with his supposition that there are hundreds of worlds - not a theory that can be tested, let alone proved. Even someone with expert knowledge of string theory and quantum mechanics is nowhere nearer to being able to give even a modicum of proof regarding the "multiverse" theory. So isn't he also going out on a limb of faith?

Without wanting to focus too much on Dawkins, you're basing a lot of what you're saying on scientific "evidence", but - and am sorry to keep it so simple - but science isn't as infallible as scientists would have us believe, is it? The world is flat; atoms are the smallest thing, etc etc. Science is evolving all the time - opinions are changed, new "proof" is found and refuted. It's an ongoing process which is in no way constant. But, again, having a relationship with Jesus is. That's not to say people are, or the church is, but Jesus is, and I'm not sure that's something Dawkins understands.

My fginal point is more of a personal thing so it may be irrelevant but, my former involvement in the occult and subsequent freedom from it is evidence. I used to cast spells, summon spirits - I was absolutely steeped in darkness, and it truly was Jesus that rescued me. When someone is that trapped in witchcraft, you can't just decide to stop because it stops being your decision to make. I can only tell you that, for me, Jesus turned the lights on and that's not something that has a scientific explanation. It is "supernatural". You can say that that doesn't necessarily denote the viability of Jesus, and that all miracles are ultimately natural, but what evidence do you have for that?

I think if you truly feel you're lost without firm, irrefutable evidence that you can't find the tiniest hole in, then you're compounding your own lostness. If, however, you say you're looking for enough evidence to kick-start your faith again, then that's been provided several times within this thread.

Am praying for you.

 

[IndyEllis]

Based on my research and understanding of Abraham, I will venture the following:

Ishmael - Genises 16 (mother was Hagar)
Isaac - Genises 21 (mother was Sarai / Sarah)
Zimran - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Jokshan - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Medan - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Midian - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Ishbak - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)
Shuah - Genises 25 (mother was Keturah)

It is my understanding these children with Keturah happened when Abraham was about 140 years old. I have survived two daughters into adulthood and I am in my 50's. I can only say that for Abraham to be starting a new family at age 140, he is a better man than I.

Actually I was more confused by Hebrews 11:17 calling Isaac Abraham's "only begotten son."

The greek word for only begotten offspring (probably just what we'd call an "only child") is μονογενη .

It is used nine times in the NT.

Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38 - describing specific only children who benefited from Jesus' miracles.

John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18 - describing Jesus as God's only son.

Hebrews 11:17 - describing Isaac as Abraham's only son.

1 John 4:9 - describing Jesus as God's only son.

Given the importance of the Trinity in Christian belief, given the importance of Abraham and of Isaac in their roles as patriarchs, given the importance of Jesus as God incarnate, in Jesus as the only way to God (John 14:6), I just can't figure out why this "loose end" never got tied up.

Interesting to note that later battles with the Midianites as well as other descendants from above are battles among distant relatives.

OldChurchGuy

Indeed they were. In fact we are all cousins.

Abraham as "father of many nations" is interesting, but there's some interesting science around here too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

You can assume that you don't have to go back that many generations to find a common ancestor with everybody.

Then to find a common ancestor with anybody, it is only back 30 generations or so.

For George Bush and John Kerry, it was only back about 400 years to Edmund Reade to find their most recent common ancestor. The two are only ninth cousins, twice removed.

What's interesting about the ninth cousins is that is getting real close to ten generations.

No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. ~ Deuteronomy 23:2

(And yes, "forbidden marriage" is referring to illegitimate birth.)

Anyhow, in ten generations, you me and everybody else has 2 to 10th power ancestors (ignoring incest and that for the moment). That would be 1,024 ancestors. None of which could have had one of your ancestors could have been born illegitimately (at least to be able to enter the "assembly").

While right now, four in ten children are born out of wedlock, things haven't always been so bad. In the 1940s, fewer than 5% of children were born out of wedlock.

However, there is also the issue of questionable paternity. Or at least things used to be more "questionable." In the age of DNA, we can know with very high certainty the truth about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings for instance.

Getting down to it, genetic analysis is indicating that over time about one in twenty, or about 5%, of births have "false paternity;" the biological father being other than who either the child or the social father thought.

So out of 1,024 ancestors in 10 generations, the average person should have about 51 cases of false paternity.

Statistically not that many should be able to make it into the "assembly."

But back to the deeper point, if we have to mince words about Isaac being the only begotten son of Abraham, should we, can we, must we also mince words about Jesus being the only way to the Father?

(Or maybe it just depends what the definition of "is" is as long as we're talking about Presidents.)

 

[IndyEllis]

Somehow I missed your detailed response to my post until today. Sorry.

No worries, thanks for stopping by. I was busy this weekend. Among other things my son went to a friend's rollerskating birthday party. It kind of embarassing when you're 40 years old and the best non-employee skater at the rink! I used to skate a lot as a kid and truthfully I still love it.

Sorry. I didn't mean to offend. But what I see in Harris & Dawkins' critique of faith, in my son's process, and in yours, is this very modern scientific frame of reference, which seeks to prove or falsify everything on a factual level. You may have noticed my signature. The first part of it is a quote from a fundy, who thinks Genesis has to be 100% factual or the whole Bible is worthless, and if the Bible is not 100% factual, there is no basis for believing in God. I call that a brittle faith because it is so easy to destroy, whereas a more flexible faith can handle being mistaken on the details. There's a different kind of truth in poetry, that I think allows for both more richness and more flexibility, so it is more resilient.

Or perhaps it's just the theology or religion itself that is brittle.

God is not a liar, but God is a poet. God's inspiration led people to write stories and poems.

Poetic license: Licensed used by a writer or artist to heighten the effect of their work.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/poetic license

I've noticed you frequently point out logical fallacies in certain forms of argumentation used by other people, so I didn't think you thought of argument as a negative word.

BTW, I think "logical fallacy" is a misnomer WRT some of the things you have pointed out. There's a difference between a strict fallacy and an argument supported by a weaker form of argumentation. For example, appeal to popularity. While that certainly is not a CONCLUSIVE argument, the fact that something is commonly believed has some persuasive weight. At the very least it legitimately raises the question of WHY it is believed.

That's a good thing to point out. Just because the crowd does it, doesn't mean it is right or that I should do it by default.

But as you point out, I should at least question.

And you're right that popularity is a form of (inclusive) evidence.

Top five religions around the world are:

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4. Hinduism: 900 million
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

An appeal to popularity would probably need to affirm each of those in corresponding percentages.

They are the myths of my culture and my faith. The intersection between myth and fact is important, but I just don't think it's a 100% overlap.

The Christian myths are also the myth of my (I'm struggling for the best word here, OK, how about...) family.

I didn't affirm my belief in the Nicene Creed in that way. I accept it as a symbolic formulation about one aspect of my faith, and I accept that if I expressly disagree with it, my disagreement will not be accepted by TPTB at this site, and agree not to outright contradict it.

My affirmation of the Creed is merely my acceptance of its use as a framework for discussing theology. I have no problem affirming the virgin birth or the resurrection because I believe in the incarnation. It's a different epistemological approach than to say someone believes in the incarnation because of overwhelming evidence for the virgin birth and the resurrection.

But again, I'm more postmodern than modern in my epistemology.

I don't think anyone's really possessing much of any evidence for either the virgin birth or for the resurrection.

You take it on faith. Others take it on faith. Truthfully, I can see no difference between how any follower of any religion does.

That's exactly what I meant. If you're following Jesus, you are a Christian. Our reasons for following Jesus are may and varied.

So I would call you a Christian.

Perhaps a Christian Atheist.

In addition to some rollerskating over the weekend, I also did 2006 taxes. Last year I gave 13.3% of gross income to church and other Christian charities (not to different from what I have done for almost 20 years). But because it has been so hammered into my head (and supported with a large volume of scripture too) that that it's not just belief that's the ticket (and maybe I did just boast that I wrote that percentage). The problem I have is just that so much of it all is in conflict with itself, in conflict what vast areas of contemporary scientific findings, in ugly conflict with modern ethics (especially including those of the "faithful"), that I just can not believe. And because I can not believe, if there is a Christian God "above" (and bear in mind I suspect that it might be about as likely as faries under the garden - OK, a good bit more as Christianity is so popular), my soul is damned.

So while I may be a Christian (as in general follower of Christ), nearly all forms of Christian would label me an apostate bound for certain eternal torture.

Seebs used to call himself an agnostic Christian until TPTB here tried to take away his cross badge for saying it. When he calls himself an agnostic Christian, he is saying something about epistemology and about faith, and that the two are less dependent on each other than a lot of people believe. Again, I think tying faith so closely to one epistemological system can create what I call a brittle faith, because the faith is too dependent on a particular form of epistemology, when in fact, it doesn't have to be dependent on it at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox

Maybe so, but since Zeus and Thor are not MY myths, they do not have the power for me or my community of the stories of Zeus and Thor. Neo may or may not be a myth of my community.

I hardly know what to say. Being the myth of my family just doesn't seem like enough. But I would suppose that's how it would have been to the ancients when the next tribe-down-the-road had a different, yet similar, set of myths to which they clung.

 

[IndyEllis]

Seebs, I greatly appreciate you stopping by and hope you will continue to follow up.

Hmm. You have interesting points, but I am not sure you are approaching this in the most useful way.

That could indeed be so. In fact, I assume as much.

Some kinds of inquiry are not really subject to evidentiary analysis; for instance, you can't offer evidence for a value judgement. You can show evidence that a given course of action aligns with a given value judgement, but you can't even make sense of the notion of physical evidence that a value judgement is correct.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this. I have some initial thoughts, but before I miss the mark, I would like to ask you to greatly expound if you don't mind.

I think I know what you're referring to as a "value judgement" but would like to be sure. Could you provide a few examples?

In some cases, we accept a theory, not because we can prove it, but because it is a good working model, and perhaps because we don't see any advantage to spending much time on the alternatives. I don't spend a lot of time trying to prove that my senses depict a world external to me; I have no interest in the alternatives, and I can describe no tests for the question.

I definitely agree on the "good working model" concept. I work in software and we use models all the time. Models, by definition, are a simplification of reality and how good of model they are usually can be judged by how greatly the reduce the complexity of reality yet provide utility despite this great simplification.

I also agree with the point on, for instance, "no trying to prove that my senses depict a world external to me."

Anyhow, as far as Christianity being a working model...

It is not a static model. People have changed it, shaped it, even twisted key tenets to meet specific needs at hand. Some tweaks still get labeled as orthodoxy. Larger ones as heresey. By a great degree twisting and turning, perhaps I could call myself a Christian (though this site wouldn't and perhaps most Christians around the world wouldn't). In the real world "models" or "theories" get challenged, get improved upon, even get thrown out.

Utility or usefulness implies a goal or an end. Models are used based upon their usefulness. This seems more humanistic than Christ centered. It also seems to imple a standard by which it is judged. (Or maybe I'm just heading down an ontological argument.)

I have found reason to evaluate other alternatives. As I have mentioned here before, mostly scientific in nature but also due to spending some time in Biblical scholarship.

I'm Christian because I find the overall paradigm compelling, and because it seems to have good explanatory and predictive power. Good enough.

Which begs the question, if it is "good enough" and you could make it "better," how could it be made better? And why not just go ahead and make it better? Haven't a number who have converted to Universalism done so on such a basis?

Seebs, I look forward to your reply. Thank you.

 

[IndyEllis]

But nor do I have "evidence" for any of my relationships.

Green, my wife is a very good woman as she shows herself to be, consistently, year after year.

 

[Joykins]

Anyhow, as far as Christianity being a working model...

It is not a static model. People have changed it, shaped it, even twisted key tenets to meet specific needs at hand. Some tweaks still get labeled as orthodoxy. Larger ones as heresey. By a great degree twisting and turning, perhaps I could call myself a Christian (though this site wouldn't and perhaps most Christians around the world wouldn't). In the real world "models" or "theories" get challenged, get improved upon, even get thrown out.

I know at least one person (online) who self-identifies as a Christian atheist.

What do you think of Dawkins's Atheists for Jesus essay?

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Green, my wife is a very good woman as she shows herself to be, consistently, year after year.

I'm not quite sure of the relevance...? I'm sure she is, and I can only apologise if you feel I somehow implied otherwise.

God bless. x

 

[IndyEllis]

I'm not quite sure of the relevance...? I'm sure she is, and I can only apologise if you feel I somehow implied otherwise.

God bless. x

I've known her almost 20 years. Though it is a "personal relationship," there has been lots of evidence that she is a wonderful person.

 

[IndyEllis]

I know at least one person (online) who self-identifies as a Christian atheist.

What do you think of Dawkins's Atheists for Jesus essay?

I believe I saw that essay before. Anyhow, it's paradoxical how much I walk-the-walk compared to many professing Christians I have known over the years.

 

[Mobiosity]

Luke 6:41 And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own?

 

[jak]

Hi, Indyellis. Have been reading your thread for sometime. May i participate?

I have struggled with my Christian faith off and on over the years, particularly since there are very few Christians where I live. I have also longed for some evidence that what I believe is real, since in a sense, I am basing my life and credibility on it, in front of so many.

I wish i could say I found hard-and-fast evidence, but the evidence that presently satisfies me (till my next bout of doubt? i wonder. I hope not) may not really stand up as hard scientific evidence. I'll share one part, if I may.

Whenever I wondered about the whole faith thing, whether it was real, or i was just fooling myself believing some trumped-up stories about a man who lived two thousand years ago...what I couldn't explain away were the resurrection stories.

It is such a strange, unique element about Christian belief. No other religion claims its leader rose again. And it is such a strange thing to amke up; and that too, unsophisticated tough fishermen like the disciples, how could they dream up such a story? And then stick to it persistently on pain, even, of death; and be willing to go far and wide telling this tale. With such conviction that the church grew exponentially.

I worked backwards from there. If jesus truly rose from the dead, and if the tomb was empty, then I could believe all the rest. God certainly exists, then. Other miracles are then child's play, and even the virgin birth is possible. And a God who could work death backwards (as lewis puts it) is trustable, dependable.

best wishes.

 

[IndyEllis]

Hi, Indyellis. Have been reading your thread for sometime. May i participate?

Of course you may. You needn't ask really. You affirmed the Nicaean Creed so you can tell me what you think in this forum. Folks who haven't, can't. Their posts get deleted.

I have struggled with my Christian faith off and on over the years, particularly since there are very few Christians where I live. I have also longed for some evidence that what I believe is real, since in a sense, I am basing my life and credibility on it, in front of so many.

Understood.

I wish i could say I found hard-and-fast evidence, but the evidence that presently satisfies me (till my next bout of doubt? i wonder. I hope not) may not really stand up as hard scientific evidence. I'll share one part, if I may.

Of course you may.

Whenever I wondered about the whole faith thing, whether it was real, or i was just fooling myself believing some trumped-up stories about a man who lived two thousand years ago...what I couldn't explain away were the resurrection stories.

Indeed. We haven't really talked about that one on this thread, but why not?

It is such a strange, unique element about Christian belief.

Perhaps you missed my ever-so-slight mention of Osiris and Dionysus in post #79.

You might be interested in learning about these mythological parallels between these Egyptian and Greek gods and their stories and the familiar story of Jesus.

He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world." 1
He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
After death, he descended into hell.
On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers
He later ascended to heaven.

No other religion claims its leader rose again.

If you're concerned about Greek belief in Dionysus being dead or Egyption belief in Osiris being dead and that not "counting," there is present-day Buddhism that might need to be looked at.

In the Buddhist tradition, an incarnation is a person believed to be the next rebirth of someone deceased, in most cases a lama or other important master/teacher. This concept differs however from reincarnation, since the Buddhist teaching of anatta implies that there is no fixed soul that could move from one life to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation

And it is such a strange thing to amke up;

That, it definitely is IMHO.

However, you might want to look into this Richard Carrier essay on this topic.

It begins...

James Holding asks: "Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?" Well, the Sumerians perhaps One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and "Queen of Heaven"), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ...

and that too, unsophisticated tough fishermen like the disciples, how could they dream up such a story?

I'm not sure the fishermen were the ones still around when the Gospels got written.

You might be interested in another Richard Carrier essay that details, from historical information and textual criticism, the gap between the fishermen and each of the Gospels.

And then stick to it persistently on pain, even, of death; and be willing to go far and wide telling this tale. With such conviction that the church grew exponentially.

The previously mentioned Richard Carrier essay also has some detail on this. You might want to take a look at the paragraphs after the following...

First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any reliable evidence of any kind. None of the Gospels or Epistles mention anyone dying for their belief in the "physical" resurrection of Jesus. The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts. But Stephen was not a witness. He was a later convert. So if he died for anything, he died for hearsay alone.

And again, there's yet another Richard Carrier essay that begins...

A common argument for the truth of the Christian religion is that its origins were too improbable for it to be false. This argument has appeared in many forms over the years, but most of the usual ideas are combined into a single popular effort by James Holding.

Coincidentally Carrier has covered a number of the topics you've identified.

I worked backwards from there. If jesus truly rose from the dead, and if the tomb was empty, then I could believe all the rest. God certainly exists, then. Other miracles are then child's play, and even the virgin birth is possible. And a God who could work death backwards (as lewis puts it) is trustable, dependable.

best wishes.

Trustable and dependable are two very interesting words. For a moment, I go back to the Carrier resurrection essay...

There is a heroic legend in the technology community about the man who invented elevator safety brakes. He claimed that any elevator fitted with his brakes, even if all the cables broke, would be safely and swiftly stopped by his new invention. No one trusted it. Did he get angry or indignant? No. He simply put himself in an elevator, ordered the cables cut, and proved to the world, by risking his own life, that his brakes worked.This is the very principle that has delivered us from superstition to science. Any claim can be made about a drug, but people are rightly wary of swallowing anything that hasn't been thoroughly tested and re-tested and tested again. Since I have no such proofs regarding the resurrection story, I'm not going to swallow it, and it would be cruel, even for a god, to expect otherwise of me. So I can reason rightly that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny backwater of the Earth, in a backward time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unknown person many times removed.

I would be curious as to what your thoughts are. This is the kind of stuff I have struggled with over the years.

Makes me think of Mark 9:24. Lord, I want to believe. But I can't. Can you help me believe??? Paraphrase mine.

 

[jak]

Any claim can be made about a drug, but people are rightly wary of swallowing anything that hasn't been thoroughly tested and re-tested and tested again. Since I have no such proofs regarding the resurrection story, I'm not going to swallow it, and it would be cruel, even for a god, to expect otherwise of me. So I can reason rightly that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny backwater of the Earth, in a backward time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unknown person many times removed.

I would be curious as to what your thoughts are. This is the kind of stuff I have struggled with over the years. Makes me think of Mark 9:24. Lord, I want to believe. But I can't. Can you help me believe??? Paraphrase mine.

I agree. It does seem a difficult tale; and my thoughts have sometimes reflected Carrier's pretty closely. Why did God come into history just once , and not leave a bigger mark of His presence?

I don't know the answer to that one!
But when there are people saying He did come into the world once, it is a claim that I found worth looking into. And Jesus holds upto what i would expect God to be like. And somehow the story rings true for me.


But maybe I am simpler than he is; he seems to think, for instance that the disciples of jesus were planning and plotting what would sell best. I find that very difficult to swallow. In Asia, we have a strong tradition that Thomas came to india and lived and died here. If so, what made him leave his home and his people to die an obscure violent death in a strange land? The church bearing his name still exists. Similarly, while yes, only one or two martyrdoms are recorded in Scripture (james as well as Stephen), historical traditions hold that most of the disciples met violent ends, and many far from their own homes. What could have driven them? A made-up story? A desire to sell a man who never existed? I really cannot think that likely. Such colaboration and conspiracy is more difficult for me to believe than the simple explanation that they believed what they were saying was the truth.

I have read a little about osiris and Mithras earlier, but will get back to you about that. When I said no relgion talks about resurrection i was refering to the major world religions as they exist today. Buddhist or Hindu beliefs in re-incarnation are IMO nothing like the resurrection story.

best wishes

 

[IndyEllis]

Jak, I appreciate your interest and thanks for your reply.

Are you in Chennai? I've been there several times. Last fall I even got a nice run in there along the Marina.

Take care and keep in touch.

 

[phoenixgw]

...or trying to get out of debt with a credit card, Indy.

Your faith is in thought processes, but who can think their way to heaven?

"God has put eternity in their hearts, except that no can find out the work that God does from beginning to end" (Ecc. 3:11b).

"Now (true) faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1).

Your faith seems to be a product of the so-called Enlightenment ("I think therefore I am" Descartes). What you call faith will die when you do. May you find God's strength in your weakness, Indy.

 

[IndyEllis]

Imagination is required to believe in the imaginary.

"I can only imagine what it will be like, when I walk by Your side...
I can only imagine, what my eyes will see, when Your Face is before me!
I can only imagine. I can only imagine.

Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
Will I sing 'Hallelujah!'? Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine! I can only imagine!
I can only imagine, when that day comes, when I find myself standing in the Son!
I can only imagine, when all I will do, is forever, forever worship You!
I can only imagine! I can only imagine!
Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
Will I sing 'Hallelujah!'? Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!
Surrounded by Your Glory, what will my heart feel?
Will I dance for you, Jesus? Or in awe of You, be still?
Will I stand in Your presence, or to my knees will I fall?
Will I sing 'Hallelujah!'? Will I be able to speak at all?
I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!
I can only imagine! Yeah! I can only imagine!! Only imagine!!!
I can only imagine.
I can only imagine, when all I do is forever, forever worship You!
I can only imagine."

Mercy me.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Actually I was more confused by Hebrews 11:17 calling Isaac Abraham's only begotten son.

The greek word for only begotten offspring (probably just what we'd call an "only child") is μονογενη .

It is used 9 times in the NT.

Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38 - describing specific only children who benefited from Jesus' miracles.

John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18 - describing Jesus as God's only son.

Hebrews 11:17 - describing Isaac as Abraham's only son.

1 John 4:9 - describing Jesus as God's only son.

Given the importance of the Trinity in Christian belief, given the importance of Abraham and of Isaac in their roles as patriarchs, given the importance of Jesus as God incarnate, in Jesus as the only way to God (John 14:6), I just can't figure out why this "loose end" never got tied up.

I've been out of town this week with a new job and this is the first time back to the post.

Funny about that verse in Hebrews. The very same phrase in the NRSV is used in Genesis when Abraham is asked by God to take Isaac "your only son" for a sacrifice. I thought at first the phrase was used as Abraham believed Ishamel was dead as he had given Hagar some water and sent her on her way. But a little later in Genesis, at Abraham's death, Isaac and Ishmael are present at his burial. It will be interesting to compare the phrasing in Hebrew with the Greek explanation you cited above.

I want to do some research on this and will get back with a follow-up "lesson" later this weekend.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Actually I was more confused by Hebrews 11:17 calling Isaac Abraham's only begotten son.

The greek word for only begotten offspring (probably just what we'd call an "only child") is μονογενη .

It is used 9 times in the NT.

Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38 - describing specific only children who benefited from Jesus' miracles.

John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18 - describing Jesus as God's only son.

Hebrews 11:17 - describing Isaac as Abraham's only son.

1 John 4:9 - describing Jesus as God's only son.

Given the importance of the Trinity in Christian belief, given the importance of Abraham and of Isaac in their roles as patriarchs, given the importance of Jesus as God incarnate, in Jesus as the only way to God (John 14:6), I just can't figure out why this "loose end" never got tied up.



Indeed they were. In fact we are all cousins.

Abraham as "father of many nations" is interesting, but there's some interesting science around here too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

You can assume that you don't have to go back that many generations to find a common ancestor with everybody.

Then to find a common ancestor with anybody, it is only back 30 generations or so.

For George Bush and John Kerry, it was only back about 400 years to Edmund Reade to find their most recent common ancestor. The two are only ninth cousins, twice removed.

What's interesting about the ninth cousins is that is getting real close to ten generations.

No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. ~ Deuteronomy 23:2

(And yes, "forbidden marriage" is referring to illegitimate birth.)

Anyhow, in 10 generations, you me and everybody else has 2 to 10th power ancestors (ignoring incest and that for the moment). That would be 1,024 ancestors. None of which could have had one of your ancestors could have been born illegitimately (at least to be able to enter the assembly).

While right now, four in 10 children are born out of wedlock, things haven't always been so bad. In the 1940s, fewer than 5% of children were born out of wedlock.

However, there is also the issue of questionable paternity. Or at least things used to be more "questionable." In the age of DNA, we can know with very high certainty the truth about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings for instance.

Getting down to it, genetic analysis is indicating that over time about one in twenty, or about 5%, of births have "false paternity." -the biological father being other than who either the child or the social father thought.

So out of 1,024 ancestors in 10 generations, the average person should have about 51 cases of false paternity.

Statistically not that many should be able to make it into the assembly.

But back to the deeper point, if we have to mince words about Isaac being the only begotten son of Abraham, should we, can we, must we also mince words about Jesus being the only way to the Father?

(Or maybe it just depends what the definition of "is" is as long as we're talking about Presidents.)

Genesis 22:2 in the NIV reads:

"Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mounts I will tell you about."​

The footnote in the NIV Study Bible for the above verse reads:

"In Hebrew Text 'Isaac' follows the clause 'whom you love' in order to heighten the effect: 'your son, your only son, whom you love - Isaac'. Isaac was the 'only son' of the promise (21:12)"​

And, for those who do not have the entire Bible committed to memory (such as me), Genesis 21:12 is the result of Sarah's jealousy over Ishmael now that she has given birth to Isaac. She declares that Abraham should get rid of Hagar and Ishmael because Ishmael will never share in the inheritance with Isaac. Abraham is distressed over this ultimatum regarding Ishmael. Verse 12 reads:

"But God said to him, 'Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."​

The footnote for Genesis 21:12 mentions reading Romans 9:6-8 and Hebres 11:17-19 for broader spiritual applications of this statement.

So, it seems that God told Abraham not to worry about Ishmael and that Isaac would be the one son that mattered so far Abraham's descendants are concerned. The writer(s) of Romans and Hebrews take this story and expand on it.

What do you think of this interpretation? Does it make sense? Is it full of holes? What other interpretations are out there?


Moving along:

But back to the deeper point, if we have to mince words about Isaac being the only begotten son of Abraham, should we, can we, must we also mince words about Jesus being the only way to the Father?​

It seems to me a response to this question hinges on the interpretation shown above and whether or not the interpretation makes sense.

OldChurchGuy