Jump to content

Nolose

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nolose

  1. Now that’s what I want too. But my life experience has got me lost.
  2. Rather than saying metaphor, maybe I should have said simile and analogy. In any case I was off topic. While I have a notion of something else or something more, it is not a particular notion of God. I grew up in a mainstream belief system where there was a particular notion of God. From my experience I think you'd be more like to get the response of "uh?" from some, while at the same time others would become suspicious of you. You are speaking a different language, you're sounding like one of the "others." This is a good question, if the person you are asking understands it. The likely response would be "well then, that's when God was creating the universe for us." There is a maximum I once heard, "we interpret the words of others as we would have meant them" I think that you are correct that while Christianity present it as if humankind exists for God, their actions demonstrate otherwise. I think that for most people the belief system they belong to is like clothing, they put it on in the morning and take it off at night. For others, when they go to church, they check their brain at the door, and pick it up on the way out. While for the totally committed it is "Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war ....." I wish it was not like this, it would be nice to be able to ask the questions I really want to, without causing confusion or suspicion. I am not just talking about religious belief systems, I am talking about nonreligious belief systems too. All you have to do to identify them is listen for the modern day synonyms of "heretic." Maybe you catch yourself using these synonyms too.
  3. I’ve been pondering this and not sure how to express my thoughts. My first thought was to separate the notions of evolution & god. I searched the phrase “is evolution fact, theory or hypothesis?” After reading a number of the results of this google search I decided my best response to the question is “evolution is an expression of the scientific method.” As for god, it is pure speculation, non-testable, non-discoverable. Therefore, religion is not an expression of the scientific method. So, your question & response to the question “God during evolution?” is a metaphor regarding the notion of god and the notion of evolution, both of which are abstract and complex. So, those are my thoughts …… not sure if I hit the target.
  4. Greeting Desmond, Welcome! What do you mean by Pentecostalism? I’ve always thought of Pentecostalism as being on the conservative side of the spectrum. Perhaps I’m out of date. The last time I interacted with Pentecostalism was ~40 years ago.
  5. I can think of some major metaphysical assumptions that I have to make in my existence, I was wondering what you might think my faith might be? Over the past several days I’ve been pondering how I might answer this question. First of all, I don’t know you well enough to answer this question about you. Sometimes, I’m not sure if I know myself well enough to answer this question about myself. This morning I started thinking that in the public, political, and social realms both science and religion can sometimes appear to be belief systems. I searched the internet to see what I could find on this topic. Below you will find 1) a definition of a belief system, and 2) an explanation of how science is an ‘open’ belief system versus religion being a ‘closed’ belief system. I fully understand and except the statement that religion is typically a ‘closed’ belief system. However, when I think of science, I am not so sure it is necessarily an ‘open’ belief system. Consider any social issue where we should look to science for guidance, now consider that this issue is somehow highly contentious, causing significant social unrest and disagreement, where each side is calling the other names. Now add to this mix a number of scientists that disagree (perhaps 49% to 51%, or perhaps 90% to 10%). Finally, add in the economic issues, cost/benefit analyses and profit motives. Is it realistic to assume that science will be an ‘open’ system within this highly politicised-social-economic issue? It would require an individual to have a very strong faith in science to think so. In summary, I would say that Science is an ‘open’ belief system in the “Ideal World.” Definition of Belief System: A belief system is an ideology or set of principles that helps us to interpret our everyday reality. This could be in the form of religion, political affiliation, philosophy, or spirituality, among many other things. These beliefs are shaped and influenced by a number of different factors. Our knowledge on a certain topic, the way we were raised, and even peer pressure from others can help to create and even change our belief systems. The convictions that come from these systems are a way for us to make sense of the world around us and to define our role within it. The difference between science and religion: This article posed the question “Science is empirical, open, evolving and objective, but is religion the opposite?” The attached PDF does a good job of identifying the difference between the scientific belief system and the religious belief system; the former is open; the latter is closed. Compare_Science_Religion.pdf
  6. You do realise, i hope, that none of us can escape science, in the same way that none of us can escape faith.
  7. Over the years we’ve hosted a number of exchange students, some were atheists from atheist countries. If the students were interested, we’d bring them to our church “for the experience”. Afterwards they were typically very candid, in fact we’d encourage them to be candid with us about what they thought of the church service. Their observations included polite synonyms of the word “crazy” like “that was different” or “very interesting.” 😊 No doubt, being raised in a mainstream protestant conservative Christian church, 40+ years ago I was guilty of such attitudes; for example, when considering eastern religions that had gods with animal heads, or other such unfamiliar things. However, over the past several decades my wife and I have, unintentionally, found that Mark Twain was correct when he said that "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." Having said that, I still find some things "crazy" like the preaching style of Paula White and others.
  8. Correct, and too often religious beliefs look at other beliefs as crazy. Thats the problem, the attitude that "you're crazy, I'm not" is crazy.
  9. Hi Jimmy, I was objecting to your assertions and judgements of another, not ending debate. In the past, when I have participated in discussions concerning faith, too often, metaphorically speaking, the three terms of “faith”, “belief” and “knowledge” are thrown into a blender, the blender is turned on to maximum speed, the result being the inconsistent use of each of these terms, by all participants, as a mushy synonyms of the other two. Or, to put it another way, we are all speaking to each other in different languages. Acknowledging that we do not “know” and admitting that we still have “faith” only demonstrates the strength of our faith. Is it possible for all of us to agree that if we “know” something is true, then there is no need for “faith”? Following is an outline of how we might define each of these words in order to have a meaningful discussion concerning our respective faiths, beliefs, and knowledge. Is it possible for all of us here to agree on the definition of these three terms? and other terms, such as Holy Spirit? Define your Terms “If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.” How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, Chapter 2, Aristotle and Greek Science, Part 3, The Foundation of Logic. Will Durant was an American writer, historian, and philosopher (1885-1981). What is Faith? Faith is the strong trust and confidence in something or someone. Faith specifically refers to something that cannot be proved by evidence; in other words, faith is not based on proof. What is Belief? Belief is based on trust and confidence. The Oxford Dictionary defines belief as the “acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof” and Merriam-Webster defines it as “a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true”. The phrase belief in refers to trust and confidence in something. Unlike faith is mainly used in religious contexts, belief can be used in a variety of contexts. Belief can refer to your trust in a person, your acceptance of some concept or ideal or even belief in God. Source: https://pediaa.com/difference-between-faith-and-belief/ What is Knowledge? Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Source: https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science Faith is not Knowledge Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Source: Hebrews 11:1, https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
  10. As you, I enjoy reading Bart Ehrman's books and listening to his debates with other Christian scholars. I also enjoy reading John Dominic Crossan and James Tabor. I remember hearing someone say that to be a Christian all you need to believe is how Jesus came into the world and how he left the world, what happened in between is not important. No doubt, this is an oversimplification with a touch of sarcasm, yet the idea does deserve some consideration. I found this article on Focus on the Family website, it starts off describing how “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ….. [that] we are not committed to a particular denominational understanding of what it means to be a ‘Christian.’ We’re an interdenominational ministry ….” At this point it sounds like Christianity, according to Focus on the Family, is ecumenical and inclusive. However, what immediately follows is a clarification that “….. we don’t necessarily believe that a ‘Christian’ is simply anybody who claims to ‘believe in Jesus’ and to ‘follow His teachings.’ If this were true, we would have to concede that the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Marcionites, the Docetists, and the first-century Judaizers were also faithful members of the fold. This is something that the writers of the New Testament and the Fathers of the early church were clearly unwilling to do.” Contrast the above paragraph to what James Tabor says about Christianity in the late Roman Empire as compared to the original apostles and followers of Jesus. “…late Roman Empire was heavily based upon the ecstatic and visionary experiences of Paul. Christianity, as we came to know it, is Paul and Paul is Christianity…. Its main elements are: 1) the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ, God’s divine Son, based on his sacrificial death on the cross; 2) receiving the Holy Spirit and the gift of eternal life guaranteed by faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead; and 3) a glorified heavenly reign with Christ when he returns in the clouds of heaven. The mystical rites of baptism and the ‘Lord’s Supper’ function as experiential verification of this understanding of ‘salvation.’ It is difficult for one to imagine a version of Christianity pre-dating Paul with none of these seemingly essential elements. Yet that is precisely what our evidence indicates. The original apostles and followers of Jesus, led by James and assisted by Peter and John, continued to live as Jews, observing the Torah and worshipping in the Temple at Jerusalem, or in their local synagogues, while remembering and honoring Jesus as their martyred Teacher and Messiah. They neither worshipped nor divinized Jesus as the Son of God, or as a Dying-and-Rising Savior, who died for the sins of humankind. They practiced no ritual of baptism into Christ, nor did they celebrate a sacred meal equated with ‘eating the body and drinking the blood’ of Christ as a guarantee of eternal life. Their message was wholly focused around their expectations that the kingdom of God had drawn near, as proclaimed by John the Baptizer and Jesus, and that very soon God would intervene in human history to bring about his righteous rule of peace and justice among all nations. In the meantime, both Jews and non-Jews were urged to repent of their sins, turn to God, and live righteously before him in expectation of his kingdom.” The situation we have up until the year 325 is a church that lacks an orthodoxy. Prior to 325 the church was comprised of Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Marcionites, the Docetists, the first-century Judaizers and those that are today considered to represent Orthodox Christianity (e.g. Nicene Creed). And how did today’s church become the Orthodox church; well, that’s like asking some “how did the winner become the winner?” The obvious answer is “Because he won!” Hence the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Marcionites, the Docetists, the first-century Judaizers are all relegated to being the losers, the non-orthodoxy faiths, the heretics. Here is an excellent 7 minute YouTube video that describes how the Nicene Creed was formed? This famous statement of Christian orthodoxy is recited all over the world today. But it was actually composed in the 4th century during a theological controversy. What was this controversy? And what can it tell us about early Christianity? https://youtu.be/T_QoPEaULgM
  11. When I was using the word context in my initial question, I was thinking of the challenge of how we must consciously try to understand and interpret the words and actions of another person, who comes from a very different time, place, and culture, from their perspective, not ours. By way of example, I remember when we hosted a student from another country in our home. The organizers of the program told us that we should make sure that she understands that if she finds herself in a challenging situation, then she should go to the police. Where she came from you do not go to the police when you need help. I remember when she was crossing the street in our hometown; the moment the cross light turned red she ran to the other side! In her country, cars do not slow down for pedestrians …... This is how I was using the word context. The student was coming from a very different situation, or context, then we were. I also remember a few conversations that I have had with others, over the years, where the person I am talking to suddenly laughs, or gets annoyed, and I am bewildered because I did not (in my mind) say anything funny or insulting. Obviously, from their perspective, I said something different from what I meant. I believe that some people tend to interpret the words of others as they would have meant them, i.e., they interpret your words from their context. More generally speaking, we tend to interpret others as we are, not as they are. It takes effort to do otherwise. When it comes to beliefs systems, committing the error of interpreting others as we are becomes more vigorous and deliberate. For example, some people consciously and deliberately study other beliefs from within the context of their own beliefs. No wonder they think that other beliefs are silly. How would we respond now if we heard someone praying to Zeus. 🙂
  12. So would I. My understanding is that the first morphing was moving from a Jewish sect to a non-Jewish organization. The Apostle Paul and the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 ce facilitated this transition. The next 2 centuries saw the Hellenization of the belief system with Greco-Roman philosophy; one by-product being the Trinity resulting in, what might be described by some as, a soft monotheism. The following century we see a merger of Christianity with the Roman Empire (325 ce) which eventually morphed into the Holy Roman Empire. The objective and result being one Rome, one emperor, one faith, one pope; hence, exclusivity towards other faiths ...... all of which does not fit into my notion of who Jesus was.
  13. Hello, Given that I know the guy, my question was in some sense was rhetorical. Your explanation of what mindfulness is, is what I would want to hear …. i.e. how does the Buddhist understand it. When I hear some people say Christian context, I hear them say “my” Christian context, not the other 29,999 other Christian contexts. Some 20 years ago I was explaining to someone that I was reading some new age books (for example, The Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav). I could hear the concern in their voice when they said “Oooooh …. blah, blah, blah …..” It was as if I was reading something from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I’ve always been interested in learning about other beliefs, cultures, philosophies etc. A person can get a deeper understanding of their own beliefs & perspectives by learning about others. Over the past number of years, I’ve read a fair number of books by different authors, theists, atheists, and agnostics alike. My favorite being John Dominic Crossan with his “matrix” approach to understanding historical context. Doing so has at times caused me concern as I began to doubt, modify & change some of my beliefs, but it has certainly been a good for me. My attention to these issues has always been a solitary one, resulting in my wife having to put up with my ramblings on topics she’s not particularly interested in ….. though she says otherwise. 😊 Forums like this are very rare.
  14. I was talking to someone who told me he was taking a class on Mindfulness. I responded “oh, that comes from Buddhism” he responded “ya, but I’m learning it from a Christian context.” I asked him what he meant by “Christian context” considering there are more than 30,000 Christian organizations (groups, branches or denominations) worldwide. I got a vague response. What does it mean to learn something from a (or the) Christian context?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service