The God and it's Christians

[Ignoramus]

I attempt to not be religious, when I'm so inclined.

I periodically try to read the bible, but I have never finished it. I've gotten up to Deuteronomy, but I'll have to read again because that was a while ago. I've read Job and some other scattered bits and pieces. Last week I read John, to try to get a sense of what Christians are about.

So, far I don't really get what is so compelling. My favorite Jesus quote, about the prostitute and Jesus saying if there is one among you who has not sinned let you cast the first stone, according to my Jerusalem bible, it is written in a peculiarly different style, indicating that it was added later.

Aside from some basic humanistic ideas that I probably take for granted, and some particularly unconvincing accounts of miracles, not unlike things I would most likely hear about on just about any day of the week traveling outside of cities, or even inside cities, I take it the main point that people hang onto is the simple assertion that Jesus is the son of God and if you believe it then you will be a very good boy or girl or hermaphrodite.

Here is my impression of what is believed by Christians who take the bible literally. I'd be interested to read any thoughts about it.

Essentially, there's this entity, the God, that super-exists. Or rather, there neither is nor isn't the God, because it super-exists. If there were the God, then it would be natural, but it's super-natural, so it neither is or isn't. This is literally nonsensical, I suspect it could have a symbolic meaning, but I'm attempting to portray what I think people believe that believe the bible literally.

So, the God causes the phenomenon of existence, and all things and entities, and the forces and rules that govern their existence. The God creates people and some of the rules and forces that govern the people are possible to be disobeyed. Rules, like you can't be both 3 and 5 feet tall can't be disobeyed, but some rules like you mustn't kill your neighbor can be disobeyed.

Because the God is omnipotent and the sole cause and governor of all possibilities, there can be no reason for any rule other than the whim of the God. This is, in particular, not analogous to a parent laying down rules for children, because in that case there are reasons beyond the parent's whim (presumably) for the rules to exist. If a person where to disobey the God's rule it could only possibly be going against the God's whim, because there is no consequence possible beyond the whim of the God.

The God creates some rules according to it's whim which the people are not to disobey. The God has emotions and feels angry if the people don't obey it's whim and punishes them. If on the other hand, the people obey the God's rules, it feels happy and rewards them.

So, the God then creates a son and makes it live among the people and look like the people. The main point of creating the son is to have it convince people that it is the son of the God.

According to the God's whim the son is easily confused with the people and easily confused with multitudes of other people presumably claiming to represent a God. If the people correctly believe that the son is the son of the God and not the other's falsely claiming to be sent from or representing a God, then the God will be pleased and give the people a reward. If they believe incorrectly, then the God will leave them to misfortune.

[bloom]

1. Time Magazine has an interesting article this week

about Biblical accounts of Jesus - esp. his birth and all.

It would probably make more sense if you read the Gospel first - at least the beginnings of them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John. They are all quite different.

They all have different agendas - some with the Jewish angle - trying to have the Jesus story jibe with the Old Testament & others with other considerations.

Mentions how the Roman Emperor liked to be called the "Son of God", Lord of All and something about being responsible for Peace on Earth. How this is very similar to what one of the writers has the angles singing at the birth.


It made sense how various things were all written for a reason - just not the reasons usually given in church.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Try reading some of the articles

on my site http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm and the book "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus Borg. All guaranteed to tie the panties of literal legalists into knots. *l*

[pelagius]

3. Anything by Borg is worth reading...

...but, in addition to _The Heart of Christianity_, _Meeting Jesus for the First Time_ is an excellent place to start moving beyond the limiting "cultural Christianity" prominent in the US.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Yep... that was my first Borg book. :^)

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Ignoramus]

5. thanks

It looks like there are some interesting things there. I only read the liberal and progressive articles so far, but I'll read more.

The time magazine article someone else mentioned is interesting too, particularly the notion that there are opposing stories about the birth of Jesus in the Bible (they can't both be true).

Similarly, the editor's notes in the Jerusalem bible point out apparent edits made to the bible, and the conflicting stories about the creation of man (they can't both be literally true, right?).

So, what fragments of what Jesus and the other characters in the bible actually said are likely to still exist in the Bible, I wonder.

But, there was actually more to my post than just asking for tips on learning about Christianity. Do you find flaws in my portrayal of belief in a God? Do you have an interest in the notion of a God, or just a desire to believe something that you believe, and a desire to find other people to share your belief?

[RUDUing2]

6. thing is that most christians do not believe that the bible is supposed to

be accepted literally. It is a blueprint filled w/allegories.

We know that the Bible was rewritten several times..the first time being during the Babylonian exile..before that it is likely that there were both male and female deities and that judaism was not such a patriarchal society.

The Bible was rewritten again for the Council of Trent..

if you are interested in some of what was left out check out:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/lost_forgotten_books.htm

I cant defend against your statements because as a liberal catholic I do not believe that the Bible was delivered word for word from God on High and I do not believe that it is meant to be read literally.

I believe in God because I have investigated and have found nothing to disprove His existence...I believe in God because I believe..it is as simple or as complicated as that.

[Brentos]

7. Good questions

Coming from the standpoint of a believer who is a scientific-evolutionist and a skeptic, I like to approach the Bible from a scientific/archaeological approach.

To your point:

The Time article was interesting, but, as with Biblical scholarship, their is a lot of disagreement about how words, etc. have been translated, transliterated, and edited over hundreds and thousands of years. The important thing is to discern the meaning. On helpful point when reading the Old Testament, is that historians of pre-modern times were not date/literalists like we are now. They wrote from a viewpoint of importance. That is one reason stories jump around in the Bible, numbers are more symbolic, hyperbole is added to stories (read around David), and style and format are similar to the styles and formats of writings of nearby cultures.

Regarding the creation story, there are 2 different creation stories in the Bible. The first is the one we all know and love (day 1, day 2, etc.) The second takes a different approach to the story, a more Yahwistic or priestly view. I don't have the time at the moment to go into too much detail. (I don't believe in Bible literalism, one could argue for days as to the meaning of specific words, etc., so any literalist argument has troubles (look at all the differing translations, etc.).

One could also read this to being there were 2 creations. One was manking and the other Man. (mankind could be all of our close cousins, the evolutionary process that eventually gets to Man).

The importance, though of that story is to show the importance and difference of Man (in the unified sense, not the "male" sense), and his relation to God.

to answer your general questions, the nutshell of God (as I see it), is God created everything, including the supernatural (angels, etc.) and natural order. God wanted to be loved by choice (free-will), so he created mankind. When mankind turned away from God, they got trapped in non-God (sin, the Devil, etc.). God so loved his creation, that he kep giving him chance, after chance, after chance, ad infinitum to come to him by his own free will. Eventually, as mankind progressed as a race, he was able to fulfill his eventual redemtion plan for mankind by coming down to earth in human form (Jesus). This gave people hope in a time when they had none, and (watch several of the A&E or Discover Channel shows on early Christianity) the religion flourished in a time/place when it probably should have been destroyed (suppression).

This way oversimplifies, but kind of nutshells it. I would love to discuss more later, if you wish.

BTW: I love the Jerusalem Bible (not the New Jerusalem Bible, though).

Does this answer some of your questions?

Thanks,
-Brent

[Ignoramus]

8. The God

Thanks for your comments about the time article, I hadn't heard the idea about one creation story applying to pre-homosapiens before. I'll jump to the part about the God entity, because that is what I was anxious to test my ideas against.

I don't think the idea of a "human like" discreet God entity makes sense. I also don't think notions such as we being God perceiving itself allows for justification of specific taboos and cultural conventions. In other words, I don't think much that is "human like" can be applied to a notion of a divine consciousness. And, I think that the notion of a God entity is essentially creating God in one's own image.

First, there is the natural vs. super-natural issue. I'll use the term natural to refer to anything that exists. If the God isn't natural, by definition, it doesn't exist. The distinction between supposed angels and people would not be a distinction between natural and super-natural. If there are angels, then they are natural. If angels are not natural, then there aren't angels, by definition.

There is the notion of super-existing, as a special quality of something. For example, I've heard people talk about sub-atomic particles that have a probability rather than existence. The idea being that there is a varying likelihood of their existence, rather than a position in which they exist. Or, there is the notion that every possibility happens in separate universes.

So, in a sense like that, I can entertain the idea that there could be a super-existing entity that is distinct from what we normally talk about as natural, in some way beyond my comprehension.

This would run us into a language problem, because there would still be the concept that it is either valid or invalid to refer to the super-existing entity, and it would be analogous to the distinction between natural and un-natural.

In other words, if there were probable angels, it would still be either valid or invalid to refer to them, and that would put them in the realm of existence or non-existence and in nature.

The distinction between people and supposed angels that can perform "miracles", would not be the distinction between natural and "super-natural".

Take the idea of what happens before the beginning of time. It would be invalid to rationalize the idea by saying that there was a God that started time, because you are then describing something within your notion of time. You are allowing that the God existed, i.e. that within a notion of time there was a God supposedly starting time which you are suggesting already existed within time.

It can make sense to pose a mental construct describing 4 dimensions of space-time, as if there were something beyond it within which you can look at it. But this is described in a way that is conceived of in terms of 4 dimensions of space-time, and it only makes sense, because it is given that this is a mental construct.

It doesn't actually make sense that there is something before, after our outside of 4 dimensions of space time, it is only valid because it is fabricated in order to be able to talk about it.

To pose the idea of space-time doesn't make the notions of alternate universes or probable entities invalid to talk about. It is invalid to say that an alternate universe is outside or before or after space-time though.

The notion of a super-existing entity doesn't give weight to a theory I might have that there is a magic sea horse that brings me hostess twinkies whenever a budweiser commercial comes on TV. It's just as likely that my theory is naive and based on confused beliefs influenced by my social environment, whether or not we allow for atypical things being possible, such as the idea of super-existing entities or things that don't obey physical laws.

The typical notion of a God entity seems to portray it as existing within some context. This contradicts the premise that the God is omnipotent and the creator of all reality.

That there was a God that then did something, means that the God existed, which implies a context beyond it.

It is peculiar that the God has human like qualities, and in particular, emotions.

If you are lonely it is because you lack something that you had or expect to have that is external to you. The notion of a God that was lonely so he made some humans and sought to be pleased by having them love him of their own will, is described in terms of a human wishing to be loved by children.

If you are willing to use reason, I think it is more likely that there is not a Mr. God that coincidentally shares the morality that is typical of people interacting with other people.

It makes a lot more sense to me that the notion of a Mr. God was created by people in their own image. The God is very concerned about what people do with their genitals, because it is what the people that invented the notion of God were concerned about. The God has very parental concerns because it was invented by people with parental and communal concerns.

That said, there is a way that things are. There is time and space. Any "random" arrangement of things is in an order. So, there is something beyond us that is related to us and that we are part of, and so there is a something to respect. Doing something that doesn't harmonize with the way that things are could be described as unfortunate and a morality could be based on that.

[zeemike]

9. May I suggest something?

That you read the Bible like you would a book, fiction or non fiction it does not matter.

And don't get hung up on Genius which is a allegorical story that may describe the first million years or so of existence of man (or it could be even more than that, no one knows because there is a greater mystery that cannot be known by man)
The next 3 books are the history of Israel (not just the Jews as many believe the Jews were one of the twelve tribes.)
And the rest of the old testament is all historical with the exception of the Prophets which can be read as philosophical.
But the basic story of the history of Israel is this;
Moses brought the twelve tribes out of captivity in Egypt and kept them in the wilderness for forty years while he conditioned them to the Law o Moses which was extremely strict (for reasons that can be discovered in the story) And then he led then to the promised land and they established a nation of Israel which lasted for 300 years under the Ten Commandments as there constitution. Then they got there first King over the objections of the prophets, and they abandoned the commandments particularly the keeping of the sabbath and things went down hill from there. They were eventually conquered by the Babylonians and ten of the tribes were scattered throughout the world. The Jews and a smaller tribe was returned to Israel by the king of Babylon and it goes on from there.

My point in this long post is to show you that there is a story in that book, not just a bunch of jumbled up commandments from God. If you do not understand the story you will be lost and at the mercy of those that want to pepper you with scriptures that you will have no idea of what they are talking about.

[bloom]

10. Sounds like you would like the Einstein essay

that I posted here:

Einstein: On Cosmic Religious Feeling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x1387



He seems to be talking about God in a way similar to what you are saying.

[Brentos]

11. Great Response!

Interesting scientific and linguistic though-process. (BTW: I also agree with zeemike that you should read the Bible to understand it. But probably better, make sure you get a good commentary to help walk you through it, it can be very confusing without learning the cultural and geographic context of the stories).

I'm going to move beyond the linguistic arguments of natural and supernatural and all that (which is very interesting, but I haven't had time to properly digest), and move to the emotional part.

Remember the early human civilizations these were first written for and you'll start to learn why God has human characteristics: people (especially then) would have no concept of Yahweh outside of what they understand in the natural world, thus they anthropormorphisize him in their writings. Was God lonely and thus created the angels and mankind? That's probably the best we'll ever understand without being God. I'm sure the answer is somewhat different, but it falls outside any realm of understanding we can have, since God isn't human. We were created in his own image, not physically or mentally, but with free-choice. That was the point there, that mankind, unlike the angels or animals, has the choice to follow God or not, thus allowing us to fall victim to the natural (evil, chaos, entropy) forces of the universe. Through God, we can overcome, through Jesus we can be saved, and end up back with God in the end.

Thanks,
Brentos, the Freshmaker