Yep. There have been many false starts and blind alleys, but then that validates the science.
Who wrote the gospels?
- Thread starter Godmachine
- Start date
Not your fault, and you used the term correctly, I think.
I know
Who wrote the gospels? I doubt if anyone's changed their opinions on that one, despite many of the objections being met and answered.I've got shelves sagging under the weight of books we buy as a family ... we've got the complete works of our favourite authors — M. John Harrison, John le Carré, Iain Banks, McEwan, McGrath, Murukami — yet I know St Luke and St John better than any of those.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
ACOT. I too do not understand where this thread has gone. By what I see, everything is a study and astrology and phrenology are just incorrectly-based ones. Is theology? Nay, I think not. Theology, cosmology, and other metaphysical endeavors seem (to me at least) the only ones worth undertaking.
Jayhawker Soule
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
A position that you are eager to promote using a computer linked to the internet - no doubt after eating your breakfast and taking your medicine. Parasitism comes to mind.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
ACOT said
"I call for definition of knowing and believing. I'm not speaking for Thomas now, but knowing in your heart that something is out there is more akin to what you would call believing. I would put down the glasses you use for the natural sciences when observing faith, because it generally know, even to Christians(!), that the divine can't be proven.
Thus I question what is flawed in his reasoning. A theologian dose not set out to prove God, in the way that a biologist desires to prove evolution. They are two different #o(&8!@."
Okay, so I have removed the word that caused all the trouble. And now I'll take a try at a response.
I agree that knowing something in one's heart is more analogous to believing. I will most certainly agree that not only should one put down the glasses of science, one must put down those glasses when the study turns to faith.
Where I disagree with you is the comment that theologians do not set out to prove God in the way a biologist desires to prove evolution. From my perspective, a majority of theologians most definitely want to do just that.
Having said all that, I for one, am done with the lot.
For what intrigues me most about your post is the concept of "knowing in one's heart". Now, obviously, hearts don't know anything. So ergo, ipso facto Columbo, Oreo, when it comes to the heart what we are really referring to are feelings and emotions. (Yeah those don't really come from the heart either. Do me a favor and go with the analogy for now).
We have long associated thought with the brain, feelings with the heart. It seems to me that faith in some entity beyond our existence does spring from our feelings. Our desires to wonder if this reality is all that there is? Is there nothing more? These are feelings that are obviously fundamental to most of the humans on the planet.
I say that because of all the variations on a theme that the world's religions have developed. Plus the extremely high percentage of the people on the planet who seem to have an overwhelming need to believe in some such entity.
There must be a reason(s) why this desire to believe is so universal. And not only of the now, but going back as far as we can historically go; always with us has been our need to attempt to believe in something beyond the reality that we know.
Why? What is it in our nature as humans that we have, and apparently always have, had these feelings to acknowledge some greater something? It obviously feels right to most of us. But why?????
"I call for definition of knowing and believing. I'm not speaking for Thomas now, but knowing in your heart that something is out there is more akin to what you would call believing. I would put down the glasses you use for the natural sciences when observing faith, because it generally know, even to Christians(!), that the divine can't be proven.
Thus I question what is flawed in his reasoning. A theologian dose not set out to prove God, in the way that a biologist desires to prove evolution. They are two different #o(&8!@."
Okay, so I have removed the word that caused all the trouble. And now I'll take a try at a response.
I agree that knowing something in one's heart is more analogous to believing. I will most certainly agree that not only should one put down the glasses of science, one must put down those glasses when the study turns to faith.
Where I disagree with you is the comment that theologians do not set out to prove God in the way a biologist desires to prove evolution. From my perspective, a majority of theologians most definitely want to do just that.
Having said all that, I for one, am done with the lot.
For what intrigues me most about your post is the concept of "knowing in one's heart". Now, obviously, hearts don't know anything. So ergo, ipso facto Columbo, Oreo, when it comes to the heart what we are really referring to are feelings and emotions. (Yeah those don't really come from the heart either. Do me a favor and go with the analogy for now).
We have long associated thought with the brain, feelings with the heart. It seems to me that faith in some entity beyond our existence does spring from our feelings. Our desires to wonder if this reality is all that there is? Is there nothing more? These are feelings that are obviously fundamental to most of the humans on the planet.
I say that because of all the variations on a theme that the world's religions have developed. Plus the extremely high percentage of the people on the planet who seem to have an overwhelming need to believe in some such entity.
There must be a reason(s) why this desire to believe is so universal. And not only of the now, but going back as far as we can historically go; always with us has been our need to attempt to believe in something beyond the reality that we know.
Why? What is it in our nature as humans that we have, and apparently always have, had these feelings to acknowledge some greater something? It obviously feels right to most of us. But why?????
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Nice switch!
What I do think we disagree on is how a theologian works. He/she is already working under the assumption that God exist, either because they don't think the divine can be proven intellectually or because they don't feel they need to, it is obvious. (there might be one or two exceptions of course)
What I want to get at is that their faith is 'of the heart' but the method of their study (whatever a theologian is studying) is through intellect and reason. They go over sources, formulate theories and discuss them with peers. They work within the field of humanities and not the natural #o(&8!@s (which I think you thought of when I said #o(&8!@) so what they derive is not testable and I wouldn't call it fact, but it could expand our understanding on a given subject. Perhaps Thomas could expand on my crude understanding of theology.
Yes this fascinates me as well, it's an impotent part of humanity and thus and important part of me. What does it say about me that I have no such longing myself? I have no idea!
Hard to quantify, yes? It might even be a European/American thing, I have no idea, never been on your side.
What I do think we disagree on is how a theologian works. He/she is already working under the assumption that God exist, either because they don't think the divine can be proven intellectually or because they don't feel they need to, it is obvious. (there might be one or two exceptions of course)
What I want to get at is that their faith is 'of the heart' but the method of their study (whatever a theologian is studying) is through intellect and reason. They go over sources, formulate theories and discuss them with peers. They work within the field of humanities and not the natural #o(&8!@s (which I think you thought of when I said #o(&8!@) so what they derive is not testable and I wouldn't call it fact, but it could expand our understanding on a given subject. Perhaps Thomas could expand on my crude understanding of theology.
With what, in what way?
As I understand it it's a western thing, other cultures have other sets of properties and they reside in different places.
Yes this fascinates me as well, it's an impotent part of humanity and thus and important part of me. What does it say about me that I have no such longing myself? I have no idea!
Hi GK —
I would say a theologian sets out to prove faith in God is reasonable, in the same way that faith in evolution is reasonable, or that belief in Black Holes is reasonable, or that Higg's Boson is reasonable ... where I get p••••d off with critics is their assumption that only empirically-verifiable data can be considered 'truth' or 'factual', for my reasons, see final comment.
As an aside, I had a discussion with a cosmologist about the various cosmological theories. At one point I asked, considering all the speculation on the topic, is it unreasonable to posit a creator God somewhere in there? His answer was no, not at all ...
... I mean, if you wanna talk about 'faith', then what's all this who-ha about extra dimensions? Some cosmo theories posit seven, some eleven, and some cosmo speculators say the who multi-dimensional thing is a nonsense ... I read New Scientist weekly, a constant source of inspiration.
But it's wrong to say that speculation about such an entity is based entirely on feeling. Greek philosophy encompassed the idea of God, and Hermeticism shows a profound insight into the psyche, and both those sciences evidence an exceptional intellectual rigour and discipline.
There are, after all, over two dozen intellectual arguments for the existence of God that reason and logic cannot refute ... but they don't move people half as much as a bloke coming down the mountain with two stone tablets ... it's the nature of the creature.
It's not a desire to believe, it's a desire to know, and a belief that nothing is beyond our knowledge. That underpins all the sciences, all the arts, all the humanities ... it's summed up when you ask someone why they climbed Everest, swam the Channel, flew to the moon: "Because it's there!"
The human capacity to know is unlimited, the scope of the mind infinite, that's the way we are. The question then is whether that is a by-product of a biological process, or because there's something out there ...
Where I get realy p••••d is with people who want to close down the debate, who refuse to entertain the idea of God or whatever, because it's impossible, because they can't conceive it. It reduces humanity to the merely empirical, the product of a consumer/materialist culture and don't even know it, a culture that reduces the value of human life and endeavour to a question of economics ... I don't think a culture so closed-minded as the West has ever existed in the history of humanity.
It's a betrayal of human nature, of human endeavour, of evolution ... it's bringing down an artificial curtain across the mind's horizon, and it puts up signs that says 'don't go there' ...
Interesting analogy.
I would say a theologian sets out to prove faith in God is reasonable, in the same way that faith in evolution is reasonable, or that belief in Black Holes is reasonable, or that Higg's Boson is reasonable ... where I get p••••d off with critics is their assumption that only empirically-verifiable data can be considered 'truth' or 'factual', for my reasons, see final comment.
As an aside, I had a discussion with a cosmologist about the various cosmological theories. At one point I asked, considering all the speculation on the topic, is it unreasonable to posit a creator God somewhere in there? His answer was no, not at all ...
... I mean, if you wanna talk about 'faith', then what's all this who-ha about extra dimensions? Some cosmo theories posit seven, some eleven, and some cosmo speculators say the who multi-dimensional thing is a nonsense ... I read New Scientist weekly, a constant source of inspiration.
Ooh, steady ... there's a fair degree of unexplained phenomena around the heart, and the bundle of nerve tissue attached to it ...
OK. But something makes the decision to up the amperage, as it were. I would say the will, but yeah, we're speculatin' here ...
OK. But I would say that's because most of us are moved by the sentiments, more than the intellect.
But it's wrong to say that speculation about such an entity is based entirely on feeling. Greek philosophy encompassed the idea of God, and Hermeticism shows a profound insight into the psyche, and both those sciences evidence an exceptional intellectual rigour and discipline.
There are, after all, over two dozen intellectual arguments for the existence of God that reason and logic cannot refute ... but they don't move people half as much as a bloke coming down the mountain with two stone tablets ... it's the nature of the creature.
Because we're wired that way.
It's not a desire to believe, it's a desire to know, and a belief that nothing is beyond our knowledge. That underpins all the sciences, all the arts, all the humanities ... it's summed up when you ask someone why they climbed Everest, swam the Channel, flew to the moon: "Because it's there!"
The human capacity to know is unlimited, the scope of the mind infinite, that's the way we are. The question then is whether that is a by-product of a biological process, or because there's something out there ...
Where I get realy p••••d is with people who want to close down the debate, who refuse to entertain the idea of God or whatever, because it's impossible, because they can't conceive it. It reduces humanity to the merely empirical, the product of a consumer/materialist culture and don't even know it, a culture that reduces the value of human life and endeavour to a question of economics ... I don't think a culture so closed-minded as the West has ever existed in the history of humanity.
It's a betrayal of human nature, of human endeavour, of evolution ... it's bringing down an artificial curtain across the mind's horizon, and it puts up signs that says 'don't go there' ...
As New Scientist said, religion will be there long after science has exhausted itself. It's what makes us human, and not machines.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Thomas, my friend, well put. Where did the Western Mind go so very wrong? I do not know... dualism and both hatred of the flesh (see the Cathars) and hatred of the mind (see 99% of XXth century science). The problem is always empirical ("what is real"?) in nature. Is mere material monism more real than idealism? Not really, it is just that one must look beyond both. To that core that religion (not a Religion) speaks to.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
ACOT said "Yes this fascinates me as well, it's an impotent part of humanity and thus and important part of me. What does it say about me that I have no such longing myself? I have no idea!"
In reference to the question of why the majority of people that are alive seem to need to believe in something beyond the here and now.
The first thing that shouted at me, my friend, was your slip of the finger (underlined above). My psychology professor from way back in the day would have thought that was a very interesting slip!
I do not know what it says about you that you have no such longing. But I have no such longing either. All I have been able to figure out about myself is that I do not perceive any divine intervention at work in this mortal realm from any deity of any religion.
The Gods if they exist, have a supreme indifference to what happens on this little ball of rock. My conclusion to that effect is based upon a lifetime of observing life and death.
So my decision is that if they cannot be bothered with me, I cannot be bothered with them. If there is an afterlife after all, I will deal with whomever meets me on the other side at that time.
Until then, Pffffft.
In reference to the question of why the majority of people that are alive seem to need to believe in something beyond the here and now.
The first thing that shouted at me, my friend, was your slip of the finger (underlined above). My psychology professor from way back in the day would have thought that was a very interesting slip!
I do not know what it says about you that you have no such longing. But I have no such longing either. All I have been able to figure out about myself is that I do not perceive any divine intervention at work in this mortal realm from any deity of any religion.
The Gods if they exist, have a supreme indifference to what happens on this little ball of rock. My conclusion to that effect is based upon a lifetime of observing life and death.
So my decision is that if they cannot be bothered with me, I cannot be bothered with them. If there is an afterlife after all, I will deal with whomever meets me on the other side at that time.
Until then, Pffffft.
I think that's a most honest response to the question.
OK, but that is your conclusion, and your experience. I'm not arguing that, simply saying I have heard people express a profound belief, based on the same observable data.
My conclusion is a rejection of the idea of God as someone who micromanages every detail of our lives; I do not accept that suffering fulfils some mysterious purpose (a favoured notion among Christians), but then some (for no religious reason) see humanity at its finest in its suffering...
OK, and I understand where you are coming from, but I would also caution you that philosophy would put a rather large hole in that argument. It rather assumes we have 'rights' and 'expectations' which ought to be fulfilled, that the obligation is on the gods to make themselves known to us ...
Israel tackled the issue in the Book of Job.
The Buddha tackled the same point and made it the cornerstone of the quest for enlightenment.
And, of course, it's what the Gospels are all about.
Jayhawker Soule
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Getting back to the original topic, Udo Schnelle's The History And Theology Of The New Testament Writings is an excellent resource.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
GK and Thomas. See, I have always experienced something different from GK. I experience myself, everything within my skin and going back to my earliest memories.
Then I experience what is "not-self". This is everything outside my skin back to my earliest memories.
Some of both types of experiences are physical (internal hemorrhoids or a bad lung infection in the first case versus a baseball racing towards my head or the control of a horse in a dressage movement in the second). Some are mental (thinking myself out of an anxiety or panic attack by breath or imagination control in the first case or responding to this post in the second). Some are spiritual (at-one-ment or going-beyond… a combination of both internal and external experience).
The last case is g!d. The experiences of the external (whether physical are mental) are “not-self” (of course, minus the spiritual experiences). The experiences of the internal are self.
If you, GK, have never experienced this spiritual side, I can only say I am sorry. I am relatively (say 99% or better) confident this aspect of reality exists due to intersubjective validation.
That is, you saying you have never experienced it is kind of like Ted Cruze saying he has never experienced global warming. A data point, but is it valid?
Then I experience what is "not-self". This is everything outside my skin back to my earliest memories.
Some of both types of experiences are physical (internal hemorrhoids or a bad lung infection in the first case versus a baseball racing towards my head or the control of a horse in a dressage movement in the second). Some are mental (thinking myself out of an anxiety or panic attack by breath or imagination control in the first case or responding to this post in the second). Some are spiritual (at-one-ment or going-beyond… a combination of both internal and external experience).
The last case is g!d. The experiences of the external (whether physical are mental) are “not-self” (of course, minus the spiritual experiences). The experiences of the internal are self.
If you, GK, have never experienced this spiritual side, I can only say I am sorry. I am relatively (say 99% or better) confident this aspect of reality exists due to intersubjective validation.
That is, you saying you have never experienced it is kind of like Ted Cruze saying he has never experienced global warming. A data point, but is it valid?
Don't know him, but I've just read a 10-page review, and it looks really interesting!
Actually, I think the touchpoints raised in the review are far more useful and fruitful discussion points, that actually go somewhere, than the trivia of biography, which achieves nothing.
Personally I think the quest for the historical authors is, as Schnelle (and others) declare of 'the Quest for the Historical Jesus', a silly and pointless pursuit.
What's that Buddhist aphorism about the finger and the moon? The quest is definitely looking at the wrong thing.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Radar, I do not understand. How can one possibly use intersubjective validation for a concept that cannot be proven?
Definition:
Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.
One correction, which I did not make clear. I do believe in a spiritual environment. I have had spiritual experiences. For me, spirituality is unrelated to Gods or religions. That doesn't mean Gods and religions cannot have spirituality as part of their faith. But it does mean that one can have a spiritual life and experiences without (what I consider) the religious baggage.
At some point I will have to explain in detail what spirituality means to me. For now allow me to sum it up with the explanation that the spiritual, I believe, is intimately tied to the life force on the planet. The concept that our supposed physical bodies are in actuality made up on billions of atoms. That there is no defining line between where the atoms that are us separate from the atoms around us that are not "us".
That our thoughts are electrical/chemical impulses that are not confined as some might think. That the life force that makes us who we are is a form of energy that pulsates beyond our supposed physical boundaries.
All of this I have experienced. Sometimes in subtle ways; sometimes in extraordinary ways. And these are just some of the most superficial examples.
Definition:
Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.
One correction, which I did not make clear. I do believe in a spiritual environment. I have had spiritual experiences. For me, spirituality is unrelated to Gods or religions. That doesn't mean Gods and religions cannot have spirituality as part of their faith. But it does mean that one can have a spiritual life and experiences without (what I consider) the religious baggage.
At some point I will have to explain in detail what spirituality means to me. For now allow me to sum it up with the explanation that the spiritual, I believe, is intimately tied to the life force on the planet. The concept that our supposed physical bodies are in actuality made up on billions of atoms. That there is no defining line between where the atoms that are us separate from the atoms around us that are not "us".
That our thoughts are electrical/chemical impulses that are not confined as some might think. That the life force that makes us who we are is a form of energy that pulsates beyond our supposed physical boundaries.
All of this I have experienced. Sometimes in subtle ways; sometimes in extraordinary ways. And these are just some of the most superficial examples.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
I do my best. I do my best.
Very true. I acknowledge that. I would point out that there are so many different beliefs based on the same observable data that it makes any one version as statistically irrelevant as any other. (Including mine!).
On the issue of suffering somehow being noble or divine, we are in agreement. Total hogwash. It seems to me that a divine entity worth worshiping would be most pleased to see our joy.
Rights and expectations? Hmmmm. I'll have to ponder that one some more. All I can say at the moment is that Gods may not have any such obligation; it seems to me that it would be their desire. But I could be making that up.....
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Ooops, I relay completely on firefox spell check, isn't it underline it's correct. I hope it won't bother you to much because it won't be the last mistake of mine.
I think you better expect a reaction from Thomas about separating religion and spirituality, I've seen it before. But I think he likes you so you'll be fine.
I don't know what to think of it myself, I haven't found a good context for the words yet.
OK. I'll bite.
Oh dear ... I suppose I can be a bit of a grumpy old dog ...
Hi GK —
The distinction between 'spiritual and 'religious' arose around the 17th century in Western Europe, more to do with politics than spirituality. There is no such distinction in the East, they regard it as false.
Orthodox Christianity finds such distinction totally artificial. In their view, there is 'spirituality' which is actually the psychic life of the individual, and there is the Spirit ... so when someone says 'I', spiritual but not religious', what they're talking about is personal psychism, not God, even though they might have an idea of God in mind.
And yet, the most remarkable aspect of humanity is its sense of self, for without that, none of this would be happening ...
OK, but is that not the same as our voice being heard at a distance, or our being able to see to the horizon.
The nature of the universe being what it is, if the physical boundary of bodies was supposed and not real, then I think creation could not happen, and bodies would cease to exist ... as an extreme example, supposing the physical boundary of your nervous or arterial system just began to blur away into the surroundings, surely a painful death would soon follow?
Supposing the materials that contained toxic gasses or chemicals began to diffuse into the environment ... or you skin just evaporated away ...
So I follow the idea, as an abstract idea that allows for a more holistic view of the world, but I think one has to distinguish between a way of seeing, and what is ...
A favourite analogy is the one of 'me' being a drop in the ocean ... the problem is that if 'I' experience one-ness with the ocean, how do I return to my prior state? Would I not just simply vanish? If a drop of ink is dropped into the sea, how would you recover the ink again?
I'm not arguing against you, as I say, I think the concepts are ways of seeing, ways of talking about things, but one has to counter that with the fact of what happens when you hit your thumb with a hammer.
There are some people making noises about the correspondences between a Platonic way of viewing the world, and the data of Quantum Physics as we currently perceive it — I would love that to be true — but I think it's actually over-stating the case.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
"intersubjective verification" is indeed, a methodology used empirical science. But one can apply the method to non-empirical topics (come to a Friends Meeting).
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Don't give hit a second thought. Lots off us relay on spill check and get tripped up never the less. And English is hour first language!
It was just an amusement to me thinking of an "impotent part of humanity" in this discussion. But then I am told I have a bizarre sense of humor.....