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

[IndyEllis]

OCG, I thought you might be interested in reading the following.

Some research on the use of only "begotten" as it relates to historical English-language translations of the Bible...

http://www.iatis.org/newvoices/issues/2006/piotr%20paper.pdf

Next, a very brief introduction to the idea that more than a billion people in the world may believe that it was Ishmael who was the only son about to be sacrificed. (Given Ishmael is indicated to be about 15 years older than Isaac, he would have been the "only" during that period of time.)

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

And while we're talking about Jesus being the only [begotten] son of God, one maybe perhaps should wonder how the other "sons of God" of Genesis 6:1 fit into all this.

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

I believe the three most popular (ad populum!) explanations for Isaac being Abraham's "only son" are...

a) Extra scriptural footnote-based "what the author really meant to say" comments in lines with what you have indicated.

b) No, it was actually Ishmael who was the son of the sacrifice.

c) It's a myth and some degree of variance should be expected.

Regardless, the story about a prior birth from the wife's personal assistant, the telling to kings (and which and how many is yet another topic of discussion) that he could take the wife as his own, the favoritism among children, the saying God said to cut the penis a certain way, the saying God said to kill one's own son, and on. This would be put one on Jerry Springer today. If not in prison.

Do you see, just for a moment, why I'm thinking the myth explanation just might be a bit more sensible.

As a kid I sung and marched in place, many times, "Father Abraham, had many sons; many sons had Father Abraham" with a joyful heart.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I miss those days.

 

[IndyEllis]

I got a call just now.

Caller: "This is so-and-so from such-and-such and I wanted to know if you would be coming to our such-and-such [Christian fundraiser] auction?"

I went last year and made a decent purchase at the auction. It was a very open, vigorous event with all the excitement that an auction generates. Lots of running around and attention giving to the high bidders at the event.

Me: "Actually I won't be able to make it to the event due to a prior commitment." True indeed.

Caller: "That's great..."

Me: "And one more thing."

Call: "What's that?"

Me: Recalling the scriptural reference on the spot, "I can't reconcile your event with what Jesus said in Matthew 6. You might be interested in taking a look at that."

Caller: After a bit of silence and maybe a gulp. "OK." And a bit more silence. "Thank you very much."

Me: "You're welcome."

More than likely she has a Bible at her desk and she will pick it up and read...

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. ~ Matthew 6:1-4

in recognition that their fundraising techniques are in possible conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

Upon hanging up I think of I John 2:3-6...

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

Do Christians not read the Bible?

Sometimes I wonder if I read it too much.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

OCG, I thought you might be interested in reading the following.

Some research on the use of only "begotten" as it relates to historical English-language translations of the Bible...

http://www.iatis.org/newvoices/issues/2006/piotr paper.pdf

Next, a very brief introduction to the idea that more than a billion people in the world may believe that it was Ishmael who was the only son about to be sacrificed. (Given Ishmael is indicated to be about 15 years older than Isaac, he would have been the "only" during that period of time.)

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

And while we're talking about Jesus being the only [begotten] son of God, one maybe perhaps should wonder how the other "sons of God" of Genesis 6:1 fit into all this.

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

I believe the three most popular (ad populum!) explanations for Isaac being Abraham's "only son" are...

a) Extra scriptural footnote-based "what the author really meant to say" comments in lines with what you have indicated.

b) No, it was actually Ishmael who was the son of the sacrifice.

c) It's a myth and some degree of variance should be expected.

Regardless, the story about a prior birth from the wife's personal assistant, the telling to kings (and which and how many is yet another topic of discussion) that he could take the wife as his own, the favoritism among children, the saying God said to cut the penis a certain way, the saying God said to kill one's own son, and on. This would be put one on Jerry Springer today. If not in prison.

Do you see, just for a moment, why I'm thinking the myth explanation just might be a bit more sensible.

As a kid I sung and marched in place, many times, "Father Abraham, had many sons; many sons had Father Abraham" with a joyful heart.





I miss those days.

Very good links. I am truly honored you would think of me.

There is no denying that option C may be the most accurate. What if it were shown that the Abraham story of Isaac / Ishmael sacrifice is truly a myth intended to show Abraham's faithfulness? What difference would it really make? For that matter, where is the proof outside the Hebrew Bible and New Testament that Abraham ever existed?

Why do you miss those days of singing "Father Abraham"?

For the sake of argument, let's say that you decide all religion is a myth and that you are going to chuck it all. How do you think your life will be different aside from the obvious lack of church participation and attendance? Do you think you will behave any differently? Treat people any differently? If so, how and why?

Understand, I am not enocuraging you to abandon all faith, but I suspect you have already pondered these questions.

Curious as always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[OldChurchGuy]

I got a call just now.

Caller: "This is so-and-so from such-and-such and I wanted to know if you would be coming to our such-and-such [Christian fundraiser] auction?"

I went last year and made a decent purchase at the auction. It was a very open, vigorous event with all the excitement that an auction generates. Lots of running around and attention giving to the high bidders at the event.

Me: "Actually I won't be able to make it to the event due to a prior commitment." True indeed.

Caller: "That's great..."

Me: "And one more thing."

Call: "What's that?"

Me: Recalling the scriptural reference on the spot, "I can't reconcile your event with what Jesus said in Matthew 6. You might be interested in taking a look at that."

Caller: After a bit of silence and maybe a gulp. "OK." And a bit more silence. "Thank you very much."

Me: "You're welcome."

More than likely she has a Bible at her desk and she will pick it up and read...



in recognition that their fundraising techniques are in possible conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

Upon hanging up I think of I John 2:3-6...



Do Christians not read the Bible?

Sometimes I wonder if I read it too much.

I would venture that Christians do read the Bible. However, I think many tend to read those passages or books that fit with our preconceived notions and ideas (myself included). For example, reading poetry has always been hard for me, so while I have read the book of Isaiah, I cannot say I have studied to where I can talk with even a little intelligence about it. So, I leave it alone. History is my great love, so you can imagine how much fun I have with everything from Genesis through to Nehemiah.

I don't think you read the Bible too much. Rather, I see you at a crossroads on what to do with the knowledge and understanding you have of the Bible. That, in turn, allows you to see others more clearly than you would have otherwise.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for you to pursue the evidence for faith only to find time and again, the evidence tends to be circumstantial at best or misconstrued at worst.

I think of you often, believe it or not, worrying if I am pushing you away from what faith you have left or if I am being of any help. In all selfishness, I truly enjoy these exchanges. And I also enjoy reading your posts as you share more about this voyage of discovery you are on. I am truly confident that, regardless of the final outcome, you will find that peace which passes understanding.

Enough preaching.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[IndyEllis]

Very good links. I am truly honored you would think of me.

I'm actually quite thankful you're thinking of me. I'm appreciating the time and thought you are taking.

But I'm also a little disappointed nobody else is joining in on the conversation.

Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. ~ 2 Timothy 4:2

These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you. ~ Titus 2:15

I think it's kind of a fun conversation and of a bit more personal honesty and depth than a number of the posts I've seen in a number of the other forums around here. If this is truly life and death stuff, I struggle to understand why so many people take it all so superficially. I'm kind of embarassed I did myself for so many years.

Anyhow, I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others as well.

There is no denying that option C may be the most accurate. What if it were shown that the Abraham story of Isaac / Ishmael sacrifice is truly a myth intended to show Abraham's faithfulness?

In some regard, it relinquishes the story's role to just that of yet another ancient myth. Albeit, perhaps the world's most popular one given such a high percentage of the world's population follow Abrahamic religions.

What difference would it really make?

I am reminded of the following C. S. Lewis quote...

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. ~ C.S. Lewis

That said, I don't know exactly for sure. I used to be shocked at the evidence-less absurdities (at least as I had thought) that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus and nearly all Christian cults and non-Christian adherants staked their futures on.

For that matter, where is the proof outside the Hebrew Bible and New Testament that Abraham ever existed?

Now this is a very, very interesting question.

You might be interested in reading up on Ebla for some possible evidence for the historicity of the patriarchs.

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

Why do you miss those days of singing "Father Abraham"?

Nostalgia of an innocence of youth. Nostalgia of a simplicity of faith.

For the sake of argument, let's say that you decide all religion is a myth and that you are going to chuck it all. How do you think your life will be different aside from the obvious lack of church participation and attendance?

My worldview, quite different. My behaviors, minimally different. I think I would still go to church with my wife. I would like to hope that to be the case. It has been hard though. Feeling so deceived by it all. All of these unsupported and unevidenced assertions being tossed around so casually. I suppose at church I would just keep mentally cross referencing what other Bible passages said about a topic, what has been said by various leaders throughout church history about a given topic, and the scientific evidence as well.

Do you think you will behave any differently?

No, not much. So far it seems it has been easier to be more moral. Knowing that I am accountable for me. Period.

No "devil made me do it" or "I don't feel the Lord..."-type excuses.

No reliance on a almost magic-like chance of a response in prayer.

I remain who I am.

I am accountable for me.

Richard Dawkins has an interesting section in the God Delusion asking whether or not we really get our morality from a revealed book.

We've talked about the Jerry Springer-esque (Christian?) values of the patriarchs a bit, but there's also a good number of verses that, to me, just seem stumping.

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions. ~ Ezekiel 23:19-20

I can imagine a near pre-historic goat herder writing something like that down. Just I struggle to see how that stuff really points to Jesus as the way, especially in the context of our daily modern lives.

So, while I lived, and will continue to live, a "Christian" life according to [modern, American, Protestant, Christian] cultural mores, my reading of the Bible has made it quite clear that I never really did live a Biblical life. Never. And that nobody really does in the modern world. It seems a lot of what people toss around casually as "Christian values" are actually modern conservative values and only partially based upon the ordinances of the Bible.

In this context, many, many times I have struggled with the question, well then, who actually could not be going to hell for eternal torture. For a long time, I inserted the "who am I to judge God" even to the point of "if he has to let be eternally tortured 99 out of the 100 billion or so people who have ever lived to have relationship and communion with a few, that's His call." "Who am I to judge the mind of God."

So I guess, in short, I'll believe I'll behave the same un-Biblical, [modern, American, Protestant] Christian way.

Treat people any differently? If so, how and why?

Pretty much the same.

Maybe a bit more "treasuredly" if you will, knowing that this life might just be the only life, the only time I get, and that I really need to value those who are important to me each and every day, knowing how truly finite those days may be.

Understand, I am not enocuraging you to abandon all faith, but I suspect you have already pondered these questions.

I have pondered many of these "mysteries" over the last few years.

But doesn't most everybody. Really. At least to some degree. At some point in one's life. Otherwise, how does one's faith ever get established above even a minimal child-like level of gullibility to whatever tradition they have happened to have been exposed to at a tender age or at a psychologically vulnerable point in life.

I just feel that I have been trying to face it all with pursuit of truth, expectation of evidence at a level higher than any mumbo-jumbo religion, and with full expectation that if I seek, I would find.

Just that it seems, I'm struggling to find it.

And that's why my heart breaks in all this.

I would venture that Christians do read the Bible. However, I think many tend to read those passages or books that fit with our preconceived notions and ideas (myself included).

Interesting.

Greeting card/bumper sticker/poster theology I suppose.

A beautiful sunset. And an inspirational God-is-Love-ish verse.

Never a mention about the depth of things we've discussed here. I have a number of such posters up in my house. They really make me think more than they used to though. I suppose this is good. Maybe my Christian wife never really looks at them or thinks about what they say, but I do.

Anyhow, I can't believe I was ever actually feeling satisfied by such shallowness of study of what the Bible actually did say.

For example, reading poetry has always been hard for me, so while I have read the book of Isaiah, I cannot say I have studied to where I can talk with even a little intelligence about it. So, I leave it alone. History is my great love, so you can imagine how much fun I have with everything from Genesis through to Nehemiah.

I love reading history too. I especially love big picture history.

Nicolas Wade's Before the Dawn is very interesting.

As is everything by Jared Diamond.

But then again, I also like Ambrose and McCullough.

If anyone has read anything by Diamond or Wade, I would love discussing here. I struggle with seeing how some of very well collaborating archaeological, genetic, and linguistic combined fits in with the ancient historical accounts and events in the Torah.

I don't think you read the Bible too much. Rather, I see you at a crossroads on what to do with the knowledge and understanding you have of the Bible. That, in turn, allows you to see others more clearly than you would have otherwise.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for you to pursue the evidence for faith only to find time and again, the evidence tends to be circumstantial at best or misconstrued at worst.

Or even worse. Conflicting. Conflicting internally within the Bible. Conflicting with scientific evidence. Conflicting with personal experience.

I think of you often, believe it or not, worrying if I am pushing you away from what faith you have left or if I am being of any help. In all selfishness, I truly enjoy these exchanges. And I also enjoy reading your posts as you share more about this voyage of discovery you are on. I am truly confident that, regardless of the final outcome, you will find that peace which passes understanding.

A very nice turn of phrase. I incidentally mentioned Ambrose above in this post and you had slipped in a "voyage of discovery."

Tying a lot of what we have talked about over the last number of weeks is this interesting article...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html

Many posts ago I had mentioned I had read Dawkins, Collins, and a number of others.

Collins is a Christian evolutionist and author of the popular The Language of God.

The TIME article includes:

Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, he headed a multinational 2,400-scientist team that co-mapped the 3 billion biochemical letters of our genetic blueprint, a milestone that then President Bill Clinton honored in a 2000 White House ceremony, comparing the genome chart to Meriwether Lewis' map of his fateful continental exploration.

I really do like that phrase "voyage of discovery." Because that is what it is. As I learn more, I learn more.

Anyhow, the Collin's book only served to incrementally push me away from confidence of belief a bit. While his chapters on genetics were of extreme interest, I found his apologetics sadly simplistic. I was really sad after reading this book last year.

However, if anyone wonders how it might be possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist and a bit of the actual science tying evolution with genetics and DNA, it might be an interesting read. Collins is one of the few influential scientists who, at least publicly, affirms his Christian faith.

But back to your point. I too feel a twinge of guilt that my posting of the honest details of my struggles might affect the faith of others. I suppose I only take a degree of comfort in two things. First, everything I have posted was already "out there" if someone were to do some serious truth-seeking research, in the lines of mine anyhow. The musings of one of six billion people has no affect on what the truth actually is and it really shouldn't have that much affect on any other person's faith. I'm just trying, with as much time as I have outside the busy-ness of career and family and other responsibilities, to find it for myself. Second, given my potential soul and eternity rest in the balance, I am doing whatever it takes, without fear of man, to continue in earnest in my pursuit.

Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.

Patience is the companion of wisdom. ~ Saint Augustine.

And I continue on my voyage of discovery as long as it need take.

Enough preaching.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

The highest worship of God is the preaching of the Word. ~ Martin Luther

As a professing Christian, you probably shouldn't be doing otherwise.

Keep in touch. I wish others would join in too.

 

[Mobiosity]

I'm sorry you lost your faith.
I know there are some things that can't be proven, I accept that.
I always figure that if a person says or writes something it is prone to error and is filtered through their POV. Preachers are human and prone to error just like anyone else.
Science can't explain everything because science hasn't discovered everything.
Losing your faith because of the writings of man is a sad way to go. Don't get me wrong, losing your faith for any reason is sad. People have tragedies occur and lose their faith; they don't get what they want and lose their faith; that's sad too, but they are reacting to what has happened to them. Turning away because of what all too fallible man has said/written is taking someone else's word for it.
My .02.

 

[IndyEllis]

I'm sorry you lost your faith.

Me too.

I know there are some things that can't be proven, I accept that.

Me too. I think I now truly, deeply accept that for the first time ever.

I always figure that if a person says or writes something it is prone to error and is filtered through their POV.

I concur. I used to make an unresearched assumption that this wasn't really true for the tenets of the Christian faith as well as the Bible. Not so much anymore.

You all affirmed the Nicene Creed. I honestly, truthfully, can't attest that I have reason to believe each and every one of those points. I'm thinking it too has been substantially been the product of imaginations and significantly prone to such error and filtering.

Preachers are human and prone to error just like anyone else.

And Biblical authors too it appears. And creed debaters and writers too.

Nobody's perfect.

Everybody's just seems to be doing their best to get it all figured out. At least some are, I should say. I think a lot of people just aren't putting all that much into what could be of life-or-death significance. I feel embarassed I didn't for so many years.

Science can't explain everything because science hasn't discovered everything.

Couldn't agree more. Fortunately science though has a critical review process. An ability to, in time and through evidence, discard that which was rubbish, and build on understanding and wisdom. Revealed religion doesn't really. At least not without a new dispensation, canon, or prophet so it seems.

But a lot of those look like just a man. Joseph Smith being an example and perhaps being so close to the present time, it just seems a bit easier to surmise he might have had active imagination going on. Maybe even the influence of, natural and naturalistic, ambitions.

Losing your faith because of the writings of man is a sad way to go.

Is this in specific reference to the Bible?

Don't get me wrong, losing your faith for any reason is sad.

You have no clue how truly sad it is.

People have tragedies occur and lose their faith; they don't get what they want and lose their faith; that's sad too, but they are reacting to what has happened to them.

That's sad too. Bible's clear that God's not there for everybody (Midianites and Amalakites being poster children). That He even choses who He reveals Himself too.

But anyhow, this is one of the key things that many people seem to have trouble reconciling the Bible with their personal experiences. Up toward the top of the list would be the promises of the Bible with unanswered prayer. I think a lot of people struggle with this one.

However, "reacting to what has happened" is not a bad thing necessarily. People learn through primarily two channels. Experience and example. Most every parent knows experience is the best teacher. To not increase or adjust one's understandings based upon new experiences is to not learn, to arrogantly think one had it all figured out long ago, to assume many other men have their theology wrong but to not apply the same critical thought to their own beliefs. Almost as if it is delusional. No, we have to learn from what we learn.

Turning away because of what all too fallible man has said/written is taking someone else's word for it.
My .02.

Are you specifically referring to Eusebius of Caesarea? Because if there was any one man's word I was taking for it, I think it would have been him. And quite unknowingly so.

I think that has been one of my key themes in all of this. I want the truth, not just somebody else's guess at it.

I struggle in seeing how the Bible, with it's internal conflicts which we've discussed a few, with it's conflicts with observations of the natural world which we've yet barely touched upon, with it's conflicts with many people's personal experiences, I struggle seeing how it is demonstrably the myth that is not just a myth.

Christianity is a revealed religion. Revealed to man. Mostly to ancient men. Written down.

Take care in shaking away at the ever-present fallibility of the writings and words of man Christian friend. I struggle in seeing how other than the very foundation of the Christian tradition rests upon it.

 

[Mobiosity]

Is this in specific reference to the Bible?

No a general reference to anything written.

That's sad too. Bible's clear that God's not there for everybody (Midianites and Amalakites being poster children).

I disagree with that. He may not have given them what they wanted or what they felt they deserved, but we can't say with any degree of certainty that He wasn't there with them when they died.

But anyhow, this is one of the key things that many people seem to have trouble reconciling the Bible with their personal experiences. Up toward the top of the list would be the promises of the Bible with unanswered prayer. I think a lot of people struggle with this one.

Garth Brooks is no prophet, but I like one of his verses "Sometimes God's greatest gift is unanswered prayer." The only way I can reconcile what goes on in the world is that someone is benefiting from it. Not necessarily financially or emotionally, but someone somewhere got something good out of it.

Are you specifically referring to Eusebius of Caesarea? Because if there was any one man's word I was taking for it, I think it would have been him. And quite unknowingly so.

I am not.

I think that has been one of my key themes in all of this. I want the truth, not just somebody else's guess at it.

We all want the truth. But on this side of the grave all we have is someone else's guess at it.

I struggle in seeing how the Bible, with it's internal conflicts which we've discussed a few, with it's conflicts with observations of the natural world which we've yet barely touched upon, with it's conflicts with many people's personal experiences, I struggle seeing how it is demonstrably the myth that is not just a myth.

You had me until the last. I don't understand what you meant by "I struggle seeing how it is demonstrably the myth that is not just a myth."

Christianity is a revealed religion. Revealed to man. Mostly to ancient men. Written down.

All religion is revealed.

Take care in shaking away at the ever-present fallibility of the writings and words of man Christian friend. I struggle in seeing how other than the very foundation of the Christian tradition rests upon it.

Christian tradition is not canon. It is tradition. If your faith works in your life than you are indeed blessed. If you want proof of the truth of your beliefs, you will be disappointed.

 

[IndyEllis]

Then let's just accept it for what it is. A cultural tradition.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Then let's just accept it for what it is. A cultural tradition.

Egad, you are an interesting person who makes most interesting points.

A couple of questions popped into my head that I would like to ask you.

First, from your studies, what is the difference between a religion and a philosophy? Are there any ways they paralell each other?

Secondly, (and totally unrelated to the first) in your studies, has anyone come up with a challenge to Kathleen Kenyon's archaeological dig of Jericho about 50 years ago? She concluded that previous digs were inaccurate and concluded that Jericho was uninhabited at the time of the Israelite Exodus into Canaan. Her explanation of the carbon ring at a certain strata was that there had definitely been a great fire, but it was a couple of centuries earlier.

While it would be nice to have more active participation, it seems a lot of people are at least reading this discussion even if they are not adding anything. I see that as a good sign that perhaps you are at least in some way helping people deepen and strengthen their faith.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[didot]

Indy,
My, my. Where there are many words, sin abounds! How true. I had your problem once, but in reverse. Then, after a life of questions, Christ found me. As His witness, let me say, this walk is a relationship--you talk and listen to God. Though you mention your Christian occupations, this is missing and can not be found in the material you're reading. In fact, it provokes confusion.

 

[Mobiosity]

Indy,
My, my. Where there are many words, sin abounds! How true. I had your problem once, but in reverse. Then, after a life of questions, Christ found me. As His witness, let me say, this walk is a relationship--you talk and listen to God. Though you mention your Christian occupations, this is missing and can not be found in the material you're reading. In fact, it provokes confusion.

That's the truth! Or maybe I should say those are truths.

 

[ineedUtoloveMe]

Hello and thank you for your question.

You asked what do you do when you don't believe anymore?

Have some one with faith pray over you.

I will pray over you and keep you in all my prayers friend.

I am very glad you came here asking for help.

God bless you and have a wonderful day

Jesus is always with us

a friend,
ineedUtoLOVEMe

 

[Crazy Liz]

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..

This Christian wouldn't.

 

[IndyEllis]

Indy,
My, my. Where there are many words, sin abounds! How true.

Where are you getting this specific maxim from? I searched multiple versions of the Bible and searched a couple different commentaries. I also Googled another 10 minutes trying to find the the source of your notion.

The best I could come up with was Ecclesiates 5 with the anchoring verse on "many words" being...

For the dream comes through much effort and the voice of a fool through many words. ~ Ecclesiastes 5:3

Reading it in context, this is about people who blab away on something when they don't know what they're talking about.

Ecclesiates 5 then continues with letting your word be your word.

This is not too different from what Jesus taught in Matthew 5.

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. ~ Matthew 5:33 - 37

This is indeed good stuff.

Other than this, what specifically are you referring to by the phrase "many words?"

You might need to clarify this quite a bit more. After all, the [Protestant] Bible has about 770,000 words while the Qur'an has only around 77,000.

Please clarify what you mean and cite a Biblical or other source for this idea (assuming it's not something you just kinda made up on the fly then we're back to Ecclesiates 5).

I had your problem once, but in reverse.

I think we all have to work through similar issues.

Then, after a life of questions, Christ found me.

Ah, predestination. Several pages ago, I wanted to see if anybody was interested in discussion. Over the centuries it seems most of the "how is one saved" discourses have centered significantly around the three big ideas of predestination, faith, and works.

I've read on the early church fathers, the Catholic catechism, Luther, Wesley, as well as number of modern authors.

If you're interested in having a discussion on predestination or these three in aggregate and helping me understand proper soteriology, that would be great.

Anyhow, I'm glad for you you believe he found you.

However, why doesn't He find most? By some estimates, around 100 billion people have lived. In context with that possible discussion on soteriology, I wonder what the eternal fates of most of those are.

What do you think?

Anyhow, you should feel very, very privileged "Christ found you" as by nearly all but the Universalists beliefs, one would think at least 70 to 90 (how knows, maybe 99) billion souls are bound for eternal torture.

Of the billions, why do you think God found you?

As His witness, let me say, this walk is a relationship--you talk and listen to God.

And specifically how do you know, really know, that it is THE VOICE OF THE ALMIGHTY talking to you and not just a nice idea somewhere from your own conscious telling you what's really the right thing to do, your subconscious bringing something to the foreground, your own imagination simply influencing you based upon what you hope to be so?

How do you know? Seriously, I mean really know.

It just seems like a lot of people, sometimes even with best of intentions, come up with the most mumbo jumbo ideas about God and about reality when they listen to the voices in their heads.

Though you mention your Christian occupations, this is missing and can not be found in the material you're reading. In fact, it provokes confusion.

I'm not quite clear what you mean here, but I've read the Bible through, I've read numerous books by C.S. Lewis, by Strobel, by McDowell, and on.

But yes indeed, I have read lots on science and I don't apologize at all for that.

The fact that "it provokes confusion" is a very, very interesting concept.

It sounds like you might be willing, when confronted with a variant, or even conflicting, idea, you are willing to quickly discard the "new input." I struggle with see how this can be done safely. What if I was wrong before? Rather than arrogantly thinking I "had it all figured out," I have enabled myself to take in new ideas and see what happens. Good ideas should survive just fine.

If you recall from my original pages on this post, this pursuit, this quest of mine was to find the TRUTH and I fully expected my prior theology to somehow (almost magically?) fall perfectly, or at least sufficiently closely, in line with what I would be finding. Unfortunately, not everything has been affirmed. And that's part of why I came to this site. To seek more input.

Most of the quotes I have given in this thread have been scriptural and a few here and there from church fathers over the years. On this topic, I think I go with something a bit more modern. In the 1950s, Supreme Court Justice Douglas said...

Free speech has occupied an exalted position because of the high service it has given our society. Its protection is essential to the very existence of a democracy. The airing of ideas releases pressures which otherwise might become destructive. When ideas compete in the market for acceptance, full and free discussion exposes the false, and they gain few adherents. Full and free discussion even of ideas we hate encourages the testing of our own prejudices and preconceptions.

Words, words, words.

Words are very interesting. I love words. I love the study of linguistics. In the earliest phases of my voyage of discovery, I even went down the path a while to understand the development of human languages, in part to try to reconcile with Babel. A personal favorite was John McWhorter's The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language. I find it incredibly interesting how the evolution of words and of language over the course of human history so well parallel the genetic footprints as well as the archaeological record, each pointing to a common Out of Africa story.

I enjoy the study of language and words. Words are the means by which we share ideas.

And perhaps, at the heart of it, it is really about ideas.

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Didot, bottom line, I'm not interested in having a faith based upon ignornance, let alone intentional ignorance. I struggle to see why anybody would.

Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. ~ Proverbs 4:7

 

[IndyEllis]

Hello and thank you for your question.

You asked what do you do when you don't believe anymore?

Have some one with faith pray over you.

I will pray over you and keep you in all my prayers friend.

I am very glad you came here asking for help.

God bless you and have a wonderful day

Jesus is always with us

a friend,
ineedUtoLOVEMe

Ineed,

Thanks for stopping by.

And thanks for being nice.

And thanks for your encouragement.

I appreciate it sincerely.

 

[IndyEllis]

Egad, you are an interesting person who makes most interesting points.

You're quite interesting yourself my friend.

A couple of questions popped into my head that I would like to ask you.

First, from your studies, what is the difference between a religion and a philosophy? Are there any ways they paralell each other?

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. ~ Anonymous; quoted in Dennett, Daniel C. (2006).

Secondly, (and totally unrelated to the first) in your studies, has anyone come up with a challenge to Kathleen Kenyon's archaeological dig of Jericho about 50 years ago? She concluded that previous digs were inaccurate and concluded that Jericho was uninhabited at the time of the Israelite Exodus into Canaan. Her explanation of the carbon ring at a certain strata was that there had definitely been a great fire, but it was a couple of centuries earlier.

I'm familiar with it a bit.

For anyone who's interested in these(sinful?) WORDs, the following is from the Wikipedia entry on Jericho...

The Biblical account of the destruction of Jericho is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. The exodus is usually dated to the 13th century BC (based on Ussherian calculation) − according to interpretation of archaeological evidence from the Merneptah Stele followed by new settlements in the next century. At that time the Pharaoh of Egypt would be Ramses II. Alternatively, the exodus is dated to the 15th century BC − according to a prevailing Christian reckoning of biblical chronology, which is synchronized with several ancient calendars with astronomical observation. At that time the Pharaoh would be Thutmose III (1490-1430). Neither biblical chronology matches the popular interpretation of the archaeological evidence at Jericho.

A destruction of Jericho's walls dates archaeologically to around 1550 BC in the 16th century BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, by a siege or an earthquake in the context of a burn layer, called City IV destruction. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible.

That said, on a lighter side there's this great scene in the Veggie Tales movie, Josh and the Big Wall where the peas are playing the part of the residents of Jericho and they say to the Israelites in this really cute voice, "Children of Israel, Now go away." It's really cute. My kids love this movie.

While it would be nice to have more active participation, it seems a lot of people are at least reading this discussion even if they are not adding anything. I see that as a good sign that perhaps you are at least in some way helping people deepen and strengthen their faith.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

Yeah, but I think some might even be comfy with a faith resting on the foundation of intentional ignorance. I struggle seeing how anyone could knowingly, intentionally, do this. I suppose at least Veggie Tales has not to many words. And they're funny. Like the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything.

And I suppose there we can wrap it up, with a bit of Silly Songs with Larry. With Larry, in fear of losing his lips, on the couch of a Freud-like Dr. Archibald being the our bridge back between philosophy and religion. At least in a most superficial way.

 

[IndyEllis]

This Christian wouldn't.

Liz, You're kind and thanks for stopping by. I hope all is well with you.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

Quote:
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. ~ Anonymous; quoted in Dennett, Daniel C. (2006).

Interesting response to the question on the difference between philosophy and religion.

Does this mean our entire discussion has been more of a philosophical discussion? It seems to me we are wrestling with a question that may never be answered, i.e. what evidence is there for the existense of God?

As for the definition of religion, for some people that definition is probably very accurate. But, I think for many people, the philosophy viewpoint is what we struggle with at least once or twice in our life.

Changing the subject (note the smooth transition ), I was in the public library and thought of you when I saw a book I read a few years ago. It is entitled, "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?". It is a debate between William Lane Craig and John Crossan. Have you read it? If so, what did you think of it? If you haven't read it, see if you can find a copy. I enjoyed it simply because it was a discussion by two theologians.

Granted, there are those who would label Crossan as more of a heretic or blasphemer rather than a theologian, but I see Crossan as a theologian.

I will be out of town for a few days and the laptop given to me by my new employer allows me to see this website, but the icons for doing a response do not appear even when I move the cursor over the area where they should be. So please do not think I am ignoring you.

May your days be filled with joy.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[jak]

IndyEllis,
Read your Mithras articles, and then some more. Thinking it over, there are probably still more ancient legends or myths about people coming to life again. Hindu myhtology, for instance, has stories about about Ganesh being brought back to life; and Satyavan, husband of Savitri returning from the dead.

However, I syill think there is a difference between these stories and Jesus' resurrection. They are fairly obviously myths, with no attempt to place them in a time frame, or historical setting. They have some kind of geographical setting, sometimes, but thats all. Also, the tales are very vividly coloured with a strong bizarre element which precludes literal belief. Ganesh, for instance, is the son of Parvati, created from the dust of her body. She sets him to guard her door while she bathes. He refuses admission to her husband, Shiva, which enrages Shiva so much that he brings a lot of gods and chariots, and finally knocks off Ganesh's head. Parvati is enraged and to placate her, Shiva orders that his servants bring the head of the first creature they find. They find an elephant and bring back his head, so Ganesh is "re-born" with an elephant's head.

The significance of this story to Hindus would not be in the literal truth of this tale, but that Ganesh is faithful, helpful, (he is revered as the "remover of obstacles") intelligent (thats why he has a large head), light-footed and light-hearted (he rides a mouse) ...and so on.

Jesus' resurrection, though, is quite different. Apart from the admittedly fantastic coming to life of a dead body, the rest is so down-to-earth, so realistic. As someone said it, or remmebered it. The gospels even record the part of Mary's eyes brimming over, as she looks in to the cave, of John and Peter running to the grave, when the women say it is empty, and John running faster than Peter, but stopping, a little intimidated by death, as a young person would be, outside; while Peter, spontanous as ever, rushes in when he reaches. They see the cloths..and they wonder. And they go away.

It just seems so.... different. From the old tales, certainly.

I wonder if you get what i mean?