How Many Christians Are There?

[luke warm]

I happen to see it [belief in Jesus being necessary for salvation] as two things, a corollary of I and the father are one and the possibilty that this could occur on a universal timetable 1000 years after physical death.

perhaps you'll find this article interesting

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle2.html

Is it possible that whomever originated this interpretation [faith the size of a mustard seed] did so because the meaning of the words themselves did not fit with his or her theology?

i don't think so... we're talking about greek scholars for the most part...

This is no surprise - it [the faith a mustard seed has, in and of itself] is a conclusion I came to by myself.

those aforementioned greek scholars must have missed this

In fact I would say there is no such thing as faith without action.

you've mentioned martin luther twice (i think)... the book of james says "faith without works is dead"... did you know that luther wanted james and revelation taken from the canon? james for many reasons, but mainly because he tended to mix legalism with grace and revelation because he viewed it as apocalyptic in nature and having nothing to do with salvation...

 

i would tend to agree with you that a saving faith results in action (works), but you aren't saying that... you are saying "If anything, it is the actions that bring about faith, not the other way round." ... and that theology is, i believe, unique to you... if true, why did Christ die? why did he live? who do you say he was?

[Al_U_Card]

And the smart person, commandeers the car and drives away...

[Winstonm]

those aforementioned greek scholars must have missed this

 

Scholars at one time said the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat. This is not an impressive argument.

 

My brother happens to hold an Ph.D. in religion from Boston University, and has read the documents in question in their original language - he has told me that his opion is that the old testatment is moral poetry and not meant to be taken literally.

 

That goes along with my concepts that I came to myself, unaided by ancient greek scholars - that the old testament is legend, truth, and folklore mixed together.

 

you've mentioned martin luther twice (i think)... the book of james says "faith without works is dead"... did you know that luther wanted james and revelation taken from the canon? james for many reasons, but mainly because he tended to mix legalism with grace and revelation because he viewed it as apocalyptic in nature and having nothing to do with salvation...

 

i would tend to agree with you that a saving faith results in action (works), but you aren't saying that... you are saying "If anything, it is the actions that bring about faith, not the other way round." ... and that theology is, i believe, unique to you... if true, why did Christ die? why did he live? who do you say he was?

 

I may have mentioned Luther twice, but I'm sure it was accidental or incorrectly applied between luther and gutenberg - couldn't remember who had done what and was too lazy to look it up - a debating sin, but not very original.

 

I know there was great debate about what would and would not be included in the bible, insomuch as the roman catholic version is different than the protestant - that in itself points out it is flawed as a holy and believable canon.

 

I would have to agree my beliefs are unique to me - why did christ die? The romans put him to death. Why did he live. He was born and survived. Who do you say he was? I guess the only honest answer is I don't know. History tells us he was a jew and a religious teacher. If we can believe the words that he spoke were factually represented by his followers and transcribed without interpretation, then we can conclude that he had wisdom seemingly beyond ordinary man. That would make him extraordinary, but does not prove deity.

 

I can only state it this way, Jimmy. My religious unbringing caused my untold heartache and psychological damgae. I could not free myself to find god until I destroyed the concept of god of whom I had been taught. This involved, literally, a night of yelling at the ceiling how much I hated him, wanted him out of my life, and would not ever kiss his sorry ass again.

 

This destruction of a false god allowed me to establish a connection wtih what I believe to be a true higher power - whoever he is - and that is enough for me. It brought serenity into the chaos that was my life.

 

Previously, I had been a floorman in a Las Vegas casino; I am now a registered nurse working in hospice. Which vocation has the most godlike qualities? And I did not chose this path - the doors simply opened and I labored as best I could to take care of what I could on a daily basis. The rest I turned over.

 

So if there is a necessity to know who jesus is, I am confident that sometime in the next million years or so I will find out - or it may be that knowing this higher power turns out to be jesus. I don't know and I don't think he cares.

 

I have not gone into a church since I was 18 - and I never again will. I reject - for me - religion. I respect that others may need religion. To each his own.

 

For me, what was lacking in my life was spirituality - and that is what I found.

 

I am not trying to explain how you should believe; rather, I am only pointing out the reasons I do not believe as do you. My rather odd argument is that we both may be right - because I happen to believe god is too big to allow only one avenue of approach. Perhaps for the devoutly religious that is the only way they can find god - not everyone could do the intraspection that I did, I know.

 

So if you want to know what I believe, I can only say that I believe in a higher power who can be approached on a one-on-one basis without need for introductions. After that, I'm clueless.

[luke warm]

fair enough, winston... i sincerely hope you never stop seeking, cause i know that if you don't everything will turn out just fine

[helene_t]

i don't think it's quite fair to let plantinga's belief in creation enter into the validity of other subjects he's written on, but that's just me... i wouldn't simply dismiss big bang simply because hawkin is an atheist

[....]

but i ask you to *try* to read this (if you have time and of a mind to do so) as a fellow (to plantina) scientist

Well I have no problems with his belief in Creation and certainly don't think it invalidates his view on theology. What I do have problems with is this ID thing which is religion (nothing wrong with) marketed as science (somewhat dishonest, IMHO. But ok, I'm biased, after all, Dawkins (a biologist) is my main source of biblical history).

 

Anyway, it's a well-written text and he asks an important question about the meaning of "rationality".

 

When I say that the acceptance of some idea (or the thought process that lead to that acceptance) is "rational", I mean that it is based (to the extent possible) on the generally accepted criteria for "good" science, i.e. Occam's Razor and Popper's criteria, and that it makes use of widely accepted and/or reproducible evidence. The word "rational" is intentionally value-loaded, but not (IMHO) in a moral sense. I have no "obligation" (Plantinga's word) to strive to think rationally. I'm not a psychologist so I may very well be wrong, but I think most of our decision making is intuitive anyway so that it doesn't matter much for most practical purposes whether the "knowledge" we use to motivate our decision is (derived in a) rational (way). For example, holistic therapeuts motivate their healing techniques by reference to an irrational view on the human body. This does not, however, prevent them from being succesful in some areas, it could even be argued that their view on the human body sometimes make them succesful (while evidently making them unsuccesful at other times). Maybe something similar could be said about the impact from spirituality on society (I'm rather negative towards the role of religion in present American politics, but it's possible that a broader historical perspective would give me a more nuanced opinion. As I mentioned, I grew up in an environment with an atheistic (Marxist) school and a theist (secular Lutheran), the latter of which I consider morally and intellectualy superior to the first).

 

Finally, as I read Platinga's text, I see it above all as a case for intellectual relativism. He says that God meant him to believe in God, but obviously God (or Gaia or Zeus or Wodan or Winsnu or whoever it was) meant some of us to believe in UFOs, others to believe in Nessy etc. It doesn't really help me. But as said, I don't believe in "obligations" (other than in the legal and the ethical sense) so even if I believed in God I wouldn't care what he meant me to do.

[Al_U_Card]

No need to even look as far as the nose on your face.....human nature is what it is all about. If you understand our nature, you know everything you need to. Whether it is a piece of the "true cross" or the apocryphal gospels or old testament writings or Isaac Asimov's Foundation or Larry Niven's Ringworld or any other "fact". Information can and will be used by people to gain dominance over others in order to have security and well-being. Religion is just one archetype of this technique, bullying and con-artistry being others. They have lots in common.

 

As for your own being and its level of consciousness relative to having a place in the universe? To each their own but keep it to yourself and if you become a better person, the universe will be a better place. No need to convince, proselytize or coerce, the universe is infinite so it has room for everyone.

[pclayton]

And the smart person, commandeers the car and drives away...

The really smart person is watching the traffic from a higher floor in the building B)

[Impact]

As regards proselytising atheists or those who exhibit contempt for the religious: with the exception of Dawkins I am unaware of many of the former but admit to acquaintace with a number of the latter.

 

However to assume that all atheists hold such views (or exhibit them) is at least as bad as branding all religious-believers as fundamentalists.

 

I think that I am not alone when I say that lgic interferes with my acceptance of any religion: in many ways it would be a for more comfortable life to believe in a benevolent God who might be satisfied by my performing certain rituals and maintaining a belief.

 

It is my failure that I am unable to accept such: in fact human history is such that on the grounds of probability alone the Ancient Greek version of a plethora of Gods playing with humans as with puppets is more credible (to me).

 

I don't believe in that either, but the theory fits the existing evidence better than a benevolent God - and that is before I engage in the whole theory of creation (which effectively renders unlikely in the extreme the existence of a single God-creator: after all who created the creator etc). Again a more logical argument would be the acceptance of worlds or universes continually orders of magnitude in size so that a "world" for us may be an atom for another - but that does nothing to solve the creation problem.

 

Regardless of whether a particular group of beliefs is accepted, I find fascinating that highly intelligent persons can differ so greatly in these beliefs without recourse to logic. The question I ask my religious (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist) friends is what precisely it is that resonates with them beyond upbringing to allow/warrant the faith that tehy exhibit?

 

Not one has had or quoted to me a personal supernatural experience or vision, but each has acceded to faith as a determining factor.

 

When I query why the faith should relate to the particular formula of belief espoused, the majority tend to admit to effective tribalism (my word and interpretation).

 

Interestingly, many of the religious query how atheists can live "moral" lives...but the answer lies in applying practical principle for communal living without the necessity for either a belief in divine reward - or retribution.

 

If you possess the relevant faith, perhaps you could practise noblesse oblige (from your own viewpoint) with those who do not.

 

If you lack the relevant faith to be religious, perhaps you could practise manners to avoid a display of intellectual arrogance with those who do !

[helene_t]

What if we conducted the following experiment:

 

We take 100 new born babies.  We raise them in a completely controlled environment and create a brand new society out on a deserted island somewhere.  We ensure that there is absolutely no contamination with any information related to Jesus, Christianity, what have you.  We allow this society to grow and flourish for 100 years.  At the end of 100 years, we conduct extensive interviews with all the inhabitants and poll them to determine whether they have independently developed the concept of a personal saviour who died for our sins.

Children spontaneously develop belief in all kind of weired things. I used to believe that I could control my own body weight by mental power (later, I discovered that a subtle displacement of my center of mass relative to the bath weight, probably unconsciously related to my metal-power effort, could bias the scale). I invented reincarnation. I strongly thought time-space was discrete and for that reason I at first dismissed Newtonian mechanics when I learned it at school (discrete time-space seemed to require Archimedian mechanics). I found patterns in the excact numbers of leaves of young trees and developed my own numerology. I thought I could register the appearance of other people with a sixth sensor. I thought I was the only sentient being and the rest of humanity were zombies.

 

Sometimes, children will share their belief with their peers. Some of this belief ("you must pay for the funeral if you kill someone") survives for generations.

 

Whether this is (part of) the root of religion, I duno. But the Abrahamian religions are the products of large communities and thousands of years of post-scripture evolution. So a better model for your experiment is probably Haitian woodoo cult.

[Al_U_Card]

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

[luke warm]

Regardless of whether a particular group of beliefs is accepted, I find fascinating that highly intelligent persons can differ so greatly in these beliefs without recourse to logic.

i don't quite understand what this means... are you saying that a belief in God is illogical? i know of some apologists who believe that even attempting a logical proof is to be frowned upon... they believe his existence is self-evident, and they make a good case... that aside, i think there is a logical construct that can be built

If you possess the relevant faith, perhaps you could practise noblesse oblige (from your own viewpoint) with those who do not.

again i'm not quite sure what you mean... i've done nothing (or little) more than answer questions asked of me

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

you've made several assertions along these lines without attempting a proof... is it because you haven't been asked to defend your assertions? if that's the reason, i so ask

When I say that the acceptance of some idea (or the thought process that lead to that acceptance) is "rational", I mean that it is based (to the extent possible) on the generally accepted criteria for "good" science, i.e. Occam's Razor and Popper's criteria, and that it makes use of widely accepted and/or reproducible evidence. The word "rational" is intentionally value-loaded, but not (IMHO) in a moral sense. I have no "obligation" (Plantinga's word) to strive to think rationally.

you say "good science" is that which is widely accepted and/or reproducible... just trying to clarify here, but are you speaking in material terms (i.e. would metaphysical and/or transcendental entities qualify)?

 

as for having an obligation to think rationally, you can deny that you are under no compulsion to do so, but if that's the case you can hardly criticize anybody for thinking irrationally, don't you think?

[Al_U_Card]

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

you've made several assertions along these lines without attempting a proof... is it because you haven't been asked to defend your assertions? if that's the reason, i so ask

Hi J

 

Making assertions, moi? Seems like the people who ascribe diety to a humble Jewish rabbi are making the assertions. I guess that having faith is a sort of assertion or at least the assertive part of testifying to that faith.

 

I make no assumptions but I do confirm that if you support a position that defies both logic and reason then it must be your faith that provides the underpinning of your statements related to that position.

 

Had we been there, we would know who and what Jesus was. Deepak Chopra is a very sage man that many people feel has a quality of person and an understanding of life that merit adherance to his position. Should he become a guru and after death become larger than life....should we describe his divine nature (the one that we all share but that most misuse, abuse or defuse) as actual divinity (the possession of supernatural powers for lack of a better definition) then a cult of personality could develop and then become a creed for people to emulate. Next, the avaricious and devious will use this to dupe some into "titheing" to an organization that they head and of which they will be the main beneficiary. Sound vaguely familiar? It should.

 

I find that the perversions that have been brought into this world under the guise of "Christian" philosophy merit only contempt and disavowal.

 

The transmutation of universal love to brotherly love has a great deal of merit. That we could more perfectly espouse this would provide us with a true paradise on earth and no need for promises of salvation or heaven awaiting.

 

Respecting your faith and your person as I am sure you do mine, thanks for comtemplating this as that is the first step towards real enlightenment.

[luke warm]

I guess the real answer to the question is none. They all died after having lived with and experienced their relationship with the physical being from Nazareth. What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon.

you've made several assertions along these lines without attempting a proof... is it because you haven't been asked to defend your assertions? if that's the reason, i so ask

i'd say when you state with authority that "What is left are the warped vestiges and fanatical imaginings of the people who tried to capitalize in one way or another on an interesting cultural and philosophical phenomenon." you are strongly asserting something, and i don't see how you can logically deny it...

I make no assumptions but I do confirm that if you support a position that defies both logic and reason then it must be your faith that provides the underpinning of your statements related to that position.

well al, you can assert that your assertions aren't really assertions all you want, but i'm pretty sure your posts are the definition of assertions... it's all well and good to defend yours by pointing to ones made by others, but i've never been a fan of the pee wee herman style of debate (i know i am but what are you?)

Should he (Deepak Chopra) become a guru and after death become larger than life....should we describe his divine nature (the one that we all share but that most misuse, abuse or defuse) as actual divinity (the possession of supernatural powers for lack of a better definition) then a cult of personality could develop and then become a creed for people to emulate.

i'm not familiar with him... are there reports that he has performed miracles? who does he say he is? who do you say he is?

I find that the perversions that have been brought into this world under the guise of "Christian" philosophy merit only contempt and disavowal.

me too, but i suspect you and i have a different idea of what a christian is

The transmutation of universal love to brotherly love has a great deal of merit.  That we could more perfectly espouse this would provide us with a true paradise on earth and no need for promises of salvation or heaven awaiting.

man stop sinning, you mean? i agree, if there is no sin there is no need of salvation (assuming that's what you meant)

Respecting your faith and your person as I am sure you do mine, thanks for comtemplating this as that is the first step towards real enlightenment.

what faith do you have that i'm to respect? and i do truly hope i can attain "real enlightenment," as you have, by contemplating what you've written

[helene_t]

you say "good science" is that which is widely accepted and/or reproducible... just trying to clarify here, but are you speaking in material terms (i.e. would metaphysical and/or transcendental entities qualify)?

Not sure what a metaphysical or transcendental entity is. Maybe the Technologist in my lab-mouse alegorism counts as such? I would say that if the existance of the Technologist provides a valid scientific explanation for established real-world facts (such as mouse feces suddenly being removed from the the cage while the mice are sleeping), it's a rational idea (per defintion). But in that case, the Technologist is a physical entity. The fact that the Technologist hasn't been directly observed it not important. Quantum waves haven't been directly observed either.

 

Winston's God sounds more like something metaphysical or transcendental. As such I think that the predicate "rational" doesn't apply. I might be wrong, though.

 

as for having an obligation to think rationally, you can deny that you are under no compulsion to do so, but if that's the case you can hardly criticize anybody for thinking irrationally, don't you think?

Of course I can't critizise anybody for thinking irrationaly. Winston's God sounds (to me) like a very healthy sort of belief and I sometimes find myself envying people who are able to expirience such things. But selling irrational believes as "science", such as I.D., is discusting.

 

Among spiritually minded people that I know, spirituality seems to stick to spiritual problems (whatever that is - it's hard for me to decipher as I don't know what they are talking about when they use words like "God", "energy", "force", "soul", "spirit" etc.). That's probably fine as long as it makes people feel good and doesn't impair their ability to make rational decisions whenever a such is called for (once I worked at a biodynamic farm. We had to get up in the middle of the night to pick tomatoes because astrological principles said it was the right time. That's an example of an irrational decision made when a rational decision was called for).

[Winstonm]

Of course I can't critizise anybody for thinking irrationaly. Winston's God sounds (to me) like a very healthy sort of belief and I sometimes find myself envying people who are able to expirience such things

 

Helene, when you and others start showing your intellect, I realize I am way out of my league trying to post with you guys. As far as my beliefs, the only way to quatify them is personally and over a great deal of time. It is not a scientific quantification. Because the results are non-provable, it is a waste of time to try to convince anyone else of their validity. What led me to my spiritual beliefs was desperation - a quest for personal serenity that superceded all other needs.

 

As I believe I have expressed before, the basic substance of my beliefs stemmed from the ideas of Al-anon and AA, groups who are used to having members who are either agnostic or atheist. This is the reason AA does not speak of god in their 12 steps, but a higher power - with the teaching that each individual is reponsible for determining his own concept of higher power. It could be a person's own subconcious - but the thrust was to create something, anything, that was greater than self - a voluntary diminishing of arrogance, you might say.

 

Then you conduct what is essentially a personal experiment - say these exact words, take these actions - without faith or belief - and discover for yourself over time whether your life improves.

 

All it takes, according to this guideline, is a willingness to investigate.

[Al_U_Card]

what faith do you have that i'm to respect? and i do truly hope i can attain "real enlightenment," as you have, by contemplating what you've written

Why, faith in humanity, of course, what other kind is there?

 

btw, striving for enlightenment is not enlightenment just like rhetoric is not proof nor denial.

 

The nature of man is to know himself (I believe that is one of the tenets of your favourite Son) in order to achieve enlightenment. This implies that the answer lies within, n'est-ce pas?

[hrothgar]

also, you are more than qualified to read and understand dr. craig's work in this area, although i can fully understand if it holds no interest for you

I just read the transcript for the debate between Dr Craig and Dr Ehrman from their debate at Holy Cross.

 

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf

 

I didn't find his arguments convincing.

why not? he has had many debates, and is a worthy foe (some would say feared)

As an interesting aside, I just ran into the following article this morning:

 

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/j..._the_crypt.html

 

I don't want to make any comments regarding the validity of Cameron's claims. I have no idea how the scholars that he's working with could conclusive prove whether this "Jesus" is the "Jesus". None the less, I felt that this discovery / movie has some bearing on those claims of Dr Craig's that I found so unconvincing...

 

More specifically, the core of Dr. Craig's arguement is that the ressurection must be true since there is no other credible explanation for the events in question. I don't believe that Cameron is will be able to make any kind of conclusive proof. However, I do suspect that his explanation may be more credible than positing the existing of a divine being. it will be interesting to see if Dr. Craig persists in using his same probably caluculus in future debates.

[DrTodd13]

All the scholars are mocking this James Cameron documentary. He obviously has an agenda and is trying to push it. The names were very common in that era. Others ossuaries have been found with these same names. You can't prove anything based on the existence of a few common names.

 

Scholars say that if that family had a tomb it would have been in Galilee and not Jerusalem. Moreover, the family was poor and would not have been able to afford such a tomb.

[Al_U_Card]

But Rabbi's usually had some wealth and the Rabbi's family did have influence in the community. A controversial populist might well be able to get support (both moral and financial) from many interested parties. We won't go into the other issues concerning his siblings etc.