Do You Believe in God?

Boy…go away for a day and the thread is booming.

So in a nut shell, lines of reasoning

morality = proof that there is a divine God
morality does not equal proof that there is a divine God

Elisha’s bear mauling episode was true/not true

Jesus is real/not real

Bible is word of God/not word of God

I’ll throw some more fuel on the fire:
I suggest the OT is mostly made up of prophecy, written to foretell the coming of the Christ…here is only one of many examples:

Genesis chapter 5: the genealogy of Adam through Noah. Get out the concordance and look up the Hebrew meaning behind each name (and you need to used the Hebrew word that describes the person’s character/original roots i.e. Methuselah comes from muth, a root that means “death” and from shalach, which means to bring, or to send forth. The name Methuselah means, “his death shall bring”.

Adam: Man
Seth: Appointed
Enosh: Mortal
Kenan: Sorrow;
Mahalalel: The Blessed God
Jared: Shall come down
Enoch: Teaching
Methuselah: His death shall bring
Lamech: The Despairing
Noah: Rest, or comfort

Right there in the good old Hebrew Torah…and only the tip of the iceberg…I await your response, good or otherwise.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others. (Epictetus)

[/quote]

Great list of quotes Varq. Here is another good one from Epictetus. A personal favorite.

“But I have one whom I must please, to whom I must be subject, whom I must obey: - God, and those who come next to Him. He hath entrusted me with myself: He hath made my will subject to myself and given me rules for the right use therof.”

Here you have free will and self-reliance tied in with the concept of “Rightness” derived from a divine being or moral responsibility.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Jefferson owned a Bible. He just removed the parts that discussed miracles and retained a sort of Christianity that was consistent with his deism, but still largely Christian.

“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”-- Jefferson

“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.” --Jefferson

“I am a sect unto myself” --Jefferson

[/quote]

By coincidence, I was listening to NPR last night and heard an interesting interview with a guy who wrote a book entitled “Founding Faith.” He discussed, among other things Jefferson’s Bible.

Looks to be a very interesting read. Seems to be balanced and well-informed.

Exerpted from Founding Faith by Steven Waldman

“Modern conservatives who can’t bear to think that the Declaration of Independence was written by a Bible-defacer have spread the rumor that Thomas Jefferson created his own Bible as an ethical guide to civilize American Indians. The so-called ‘Jefferson Bible’ was really a tool to introduce the teachings of Jesus to the Indians,” declared Rev. D. James Kennedy. Actually, Jefferson’s editing of the Bible flowed directly from a well-thought out, long-stewing view that Christianity had been fundamentally corrupted -by the Apostle Paul, the early church, the great Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and by nearly the entire clerical class for more than a millennium. Secularists love to point to the Jefferson Bible as evidence of his heathen nature; but that misses the point, too. Jefferson was driven to edit the Bible the way a parent whose child was kidnapped is driven to find the culprit. Jefferson loved Jesus and was attempting to rescue him."


"Jefferson had studied early Christian history and was particularly influenced by Joseph Priestley’s book, The History of the Corruptions of Christianity, which he read “over and over again.” In Jefferson’s view, Christianity was ruined almost from the start. “But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in church and state.” The authors of the canonical Gospels were “ignorant, unlettered men” who laid “a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” The Apostle Paul made things worse. “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Corypheaues, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”


"Jefferson himself was not an agnostic on this point. He applied reason and critical scientific thought to the world and concluded that God does exist. Read this extraordinary letter from Jefferson to Adams April 11, 1823, and it’s possible to see how his anti-Christian, rationalist approach nonetheless led him to a deep love of God. "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it’s distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. "

End Quote from Book

[quote]pookie wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

You also seem to be using a new tact: That Elisha is working miracles

[/quote]

Not a new tact, but my point from the start; I was just waiting for you to discover it!

Now let’s re-read that chapter in 2 Kings together.
Let’s see: it is about the Elijah’s miraculous disappearance and the passing of legitimacy to Elisha (however little we think of him). There’s this business of miraculous water, three times, Elisha asks for a double portion of Elijah’s grace, the passing of the mantle, Elijah’s assent, and the double she-bears (who are truly miraculous beasts: they mangle, but do not eat the kids). All this happens without a prayer to God, or God’s direct action. True, God is called upon in the curse only, but He does not act directly. Perhaps there is something special about curses compared to splitting water with an old coat. It seems to me that this is chapter is all about establishing the prophetic legitimacy of Elisha, and not about the implied capriciousness of a malevolent God. (No need to impose one in this chapter.) Friedman’s hypothesis helps me to understand God’s withdrawal from this tawdry business.

I will let this rest with that. You and Varqanir and others may add or detract at will. Free will, at that. (And I WILL NOT, I promise, comment on Adam and the Fall…too easy.)


Now about all this discussion of morals, carrots and sticks…

I prefer the wisdom of the neolithic: Micah 6:8. That will do.

What do you gents think of this?

“Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing” (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as “a set of gibbering idiots” (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, “On Councils” entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that “the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations” (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are “strangely absent from the canons” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160).

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I prefer the wisdom of the neolithic: Micah 6:8. That will do.

[/quote]

“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

One of my favorites as well Dr.

[quote]new2training wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Jefferson owned a Bible. He just removed the parts that discussed miracles and retained a sort of Christianity that was consistent with his deism, but still largely Christian.

“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”-- Jefferson

“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.” --Jefferson

“I am a sect unto myself” --Jefferson

By coincidence, I was listening to NPR last night and heard an interesting interview with a guy who wrote a book entitled “Founding Faith.” He discussed, among other things Jefferson’s Bible.

Looks to be a very interesting read. Seems to be balanced and well-informed.

Exerpted from Founding Faith by Steven Waldman

“Modern conservatives who can’t bear to think that the Declaration of Independence was written by a Bible-defacer have spread the rumor that Thomas Jefferson created his own Bible as an ethical guide to civilize American Indians. The so-called ‘Jefferson Bible’ was really a tool to introduce the teachings of Jesus to the Indians,” declared Rev. D. James Kennedy. Actually, Jefferson’s editing of the Bible flowed directly from a well-thought out, long-stewing view that Christianity had been fundamentally corrupted -by the Apostle Paul, the early church, the great Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, and by nearly the entire clerical class for more than a millennium. Secularists love to point to the Jefferson Bible as evidence of his heathen nature; but that misses the point, too. Jefferson was driven to edit the Bible the way a parent whose child was kidnapped is driven to find the culprit. Jefferson loved Jesus and was attempting to rescue him."


"Jefferson had studied early Christian history and was particularly influenced by Joseph Priestley’s book, The History of the Corruptions of Christianity, which he read “over and over again.” In Jefferson’s view, Christianity was ruined almost from the start. “But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in church and state.” The authors of the canonical Gospels were “ignorant, unlettered men” who laid “a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” The Apostle Paul made things worse. “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Corypheaues, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”


"Jefferson himself was not an agnostic on this point. He applied reason and critical scientific thought to the world and concluded that God does exist. Read this extraordinary letter from Jefferson to Adams April 11, 1823, and it’s possible to see how his anti-Christian, rationalist approach nonetheless led him to a deep love of God. "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it’s distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. "

End Quote from Book

[/quote]

Jefferson, Priestly etc were product of their time. Heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, they were doing what had happened since time began…to reinterpret, manipulate and reason away biblical truths. Good men caught up movements which allowed them to express themselves in new (but in my estimation) incorrect ways. Same story, different time.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I agree: if words are important, structure and context is important, too. But you are hanging an argument on causation which is not present in the text. It would have been easy to insert “and God caused bears…” But that is not there.

[/quote]

There is no need to. It is self-evident to anyone not being “the devil’s advocate” that it is cause and effect. If it were just a random event, there would be no need to include the bear mauling in the text.

Come on Dr. You are way too smart (and usually credible) for this line of argument.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
True, God is called upon in the curse only, but He does not act directly. Perhaps there is something special about curses compared to splitting water with an old coat. It seems to me that this is chapter is all about establishing the prophetic legitimacy of Elisha, and not about the implied capriciousness of a malevolent God. (No need to impose one in this chapter.) Friedman’s hypothesis helps me to understand God’s withdrawal from this tawdry business.[/quote]

This formulation reduces the problem to theodicy (which I know you know). I have some other thoughts with regard to this passage, but I would not be around to defend them for a while, and they are not fully formed. So I will keep them to myself.

[quote]rugbyhit wrote:

Jefferson, Priestly etc were product of their time. Heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, they were doing what had happened since time began…to reinterpret, manipulate and reason away biblical truths. .[/quote]

With all due respect, the same could be said for the many witnesses, authors, translators, and interpretors that produced the “biblical truths” literalists believe in.

Literalists face a difficult task in defending their beliefs on a rational basis. Yet, they consistently try to do so.

I don’t envy them their position.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What do you gents think of this?

“Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing” (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as “a set of gibbering idiots” (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, “On Councils” entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that “the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations” (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are “strangely absent from the canons” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160).

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html[/quote]

HeadHunter

How credible are those citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia? For that matter, is their such a thing, and is it truly sanctioned by the Catholic Church?

I’ll check it out myself but I was wondering what you knew about it. Is this something you are knowledgeable about or this just a “drive by” cut and paste.

This thread is a disaster for the most part, as is every thread about religion, for obvious reasons.

Why do you guys overcomplicate things which never were meant to be complicated?

For instance, the bears who tear kids to shreds.

There is not the slightest doubt that there is no mystical meaning to it, that god did want to show the disrespectors why nobody should mess wih his favorite human pets.

We are talking about a book from a time when there were no books, when the average camel herder sacrificed a lamb at midnight to his ancestors for letting his wife deliver a healthy son.

The god from this chapter is a cruel bastich, period.

[quote]rugbyhit wrote:

Jefferson, Priestly etc were product of their time. Heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, they were doing what had happened since time began…to reinterpret, manipulate and reason away biblical truths. Good men caught up movements which allowed them to express themselves in new (but in my estimation) incorrect ways. Same story, different time.[/quote]

Still my time…

Jefferson’s bible attempted to go back to the original sayings without the heavy layers of interpretation and doctrine we have had from St Paul onwards. Hell, St Paul and St James, Jesus brother, the leader of the Church at the time, argued about these points. Should we be more presumtious?

[quote]new2training wrote:
rugbyhit wrote:

Jefferson, Priestly etc were product of their time. Heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, they were doing what had happened since time began…to reinterpret, manipulate and reason away biblical truths. .

With all due respect, the same could be said for the many witnesses, authors, translators, and interpretors that produced the “biblical truths” literalists believe in.

Literalists face a difficult task in defending their beliefs on a rational basis. Yet, they consistently try to do so.

I don’t envy them their position. [/quote]

Both sides of the argument face that same difficult task. You write as if the detractors of the biblical truths have settled the answer for all people.

I understand what you’re saying, but if you look in my post above regarding the first book in the bible and within it (jots and tittles)there is evidence of the inerrancy, a code if you will, that is beyond coincidence and at the very least, should be investigated with vigor and not easily dismissed. And it’s all very rational.

I also do not subscribe to the notion that the bible was interpreted. Interpretation allows for inaccuracies and personal views to be interjected (hence my reference to Jefferson/Priestly). I believe there is enough evidence in the bible, one written over a period of thousands of years, by many different authors from various backgrounds, and yet has a common, well documented and coherent message

Gratitude for salvation for one. I gave you another reason in Romans 6.

But what is a moral life? How does one account for a morality beyond human preferences, which may or may not be behavior patterns according to you?

[quote]And yet the Old Testament is full of men who were evidently acceptable to God, even in the absence of Christ. Noah was “blameless” in the eyes of the Lord. Of course, the Lord hadn’t given mankind the Law yet, so one wonders by what moral standard the other people on earth were being judged.

Elijah was apparently so acceptable that he didn’t even have to die, he was just swooped up into the presence of God. Moses must have been pretty acceptable too, since he was there with Elijah on the mountain talking with Jesus during the transfiguration. Surely these men were not all without sin, because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” but their lives must have been judged “moral” by some non-Christian standard.[/quote]

These weren’t acceptable because of their actions. Aside from their faith, many of the things they did were immoral. They were acceptable for the same reason Abraham was acceptable: “He believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23) The original promise made to Adam was that a Seed would come to reconcile man to God after the Fall (Genesis 3:15). This was later reiterated to Abraham and was added to through further covenants between God and man (Sinai, Davidic, New).

Of course I would. For starters, I for damn sure would have slept with more women than just my wife. I have a biological itch that I’d much rather scratch than not. However, Scripture implores me not to fornicate. There are plenty of people that, for the sake of the claims in the Bible, are executed by the Muslims. Jesus said we must, “Take up our cross daily and follow (him).” Christians are called to sacrifice various immoral pleasures to follow Jesus. I do follow a Christian ethics because I ought to, and I feel pleasure for it often. Part of the pleasure, of course, comes from being free of the guilt that comes from transgressing the morals of a good God.

An action A is wrong because it corresponds to God’s nature as being wrong because God wills the good.

You haven’t avoided the carrot-mercenary stick-drudgery dilemma here. Reciprocity means future reward or punishment for an action. It also means that you are acting against your preferences for fear of the punishment or the pleasure of the reward. You are also acting hypocritically, masking your true desires for the sake of something outside yourself that causes you to do something you’d prefer not to do. Earlier you stated that morals had to do with preferences.

[quote]Your very own. As a Christian, you should - by definition - be trying to pattern your life upon Jesus, the Christ. That’s where the very term “Christian” comes from. Are you not a pupil and follower of Christ?
[/quote]
So you’re telling me I’m a hypocrite. But this does nothing to advance the dialog regarding whether or not the Bible is true or whether or not Atheism is true. But there’s a disingenuousness on your part for calling me a hypocrite according to my own standards, because according to you, I shouldn’t be following them in the first place! They’re made up fiction according to the Atheist!

You find that they’re good? Based on what, your own feelings? So they’re preferences? He (Jesus) also taught that you’re on your way to hell already if you don’t believe in Him. Do you find that good as well?

I can explain this in a Biblical, two-kingdom manner to you, but it wouldn’t really advance the philosphical discussion. You appear to be bringing these things up to avoid justifying your own position. It appears you can’t do it.

Yes, I believe.
No, I cannot prove.

[quote]rugbyhit wrote:

Both sides of the argument face that same difficult task. You write as if the detractors of the biblical truths have settled the answer for all people.

I understand what you’re saying, but if you look in my post above regarding the first book in the bible and within it (jots and tittles)there is evidence of the inerrancy, a code if you will, that is beyond coincidence and at the very least, should be investigated with vigor and not easily dismissed. And it’s all very rational.

I also do not subscribe to the notion that the bible was interpreted. Interpretation allows for inaccuracies and personal views to be interjected (hence my reference to Jefferson/Priestly). I believe there is enough evidence in the bible, one written over a period of thousands of years, by many different authors from various backgrounds, and yet has a common, well documented and coherent message
[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off like the matter has been universally settled. In fact, it hasn’t even been completely settled in my own mind. I have personal beliefs, they coincide with many of the teachings in the Bible. They are not contingent however on the Bible being taken literally or on the Bible being dictated directly by God.

I agree with your assertion that interpretation allows for inaccuracies and personal views to be interjected. I’m not sure how you can say that you don’t believe it was interpreted though. On every level it is interpreted. By witnesses, by listeners who retold the stories, by writers, by translators, etc.

If nothing else it is interpreted by the reader himself. Hence the bear mauling argument. The text is there in black and white. Yet, among just a few people on the internet, we can’t reach a consensus on what it means. And there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate.

Oh, and evidence of a common, well documented, and coherent message is not the same as evidence of inerrancy.

To each their own though.

Peace

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Of course I would. For starters, I for damn sure would have slept with more women than just my wife. I have a biological itch that I’d much rather scratch than not.

[/quote]

Disregarding any divine laws or commandments, it would still be immoral to cheat on your wife if went into your marriage under the assumption of a monagamous relationship.

EDIT:

You will probably ask on what grounds it is immoral. I cannot say other than on a intuitive and personal level. Therefore, it is probably an argument based on moral relativism. As not all people would consider it so.

I think I agree with you that without a divine origin, there cannot be a universally applied set of morals for all of mankind. There can however be, a generally agreed upon set of morals. There will always be individuals, societies, and cultures that do not agree with the generally agreed upon morals though.

[quote]new2training wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

Of course I would. For starters, I for damn sure would have slept with more women than just my wife. I have a biological itch that I’d much rather scratch than not.

Disregarding any divine laws or commandments, it would still be immoral to cheat on your wife if went into your marriage under the assumption of a monagamous relationship.

EDIT:

You will probably ask on what grounds it is immoral. I cannot say other than on a intuitive and personal level. Therefore, it is probably an argument based on moral relativism. As not all people would consider it so.

I think I agree with you that without a divine origin, there cannot be a universally applied set of morals for all of mankind. There can however be, a generally agreed upon set of morals. There will always be individuals, societies, and cultures that do not agree with the generally agreed upon morals though.

[/quote]

True. Muslims have no problem with polygamy. The Shi’a have a thing called a temporary marriage, where you basically go to your imam and say, “I want to bone this woman,” and your marriage can last an hour or longer.

Immanuel Kant allowed God back into his philosophical framework on ethical grounds alone. He realized it was necessary to have God to have an ethics. God is a “regulative necessity.”