Figuring Out Religion

[Kshartle]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

I gave my thoughts on this question to you in the Al Qaeda thread.

... Mountaineer

Sorry brother....didn't see it at first. I do now. Thanks.

[Mountaineer]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

I gave my thoughts on this question to you in the Al Qaeda thread.

... Mountaineer

Sorry brother....didn't see it at first. I do now. Thanks.

No sweat Tonto 

... Mountineer

[Gosso]

its not so much about "becoming your own god" as recognizing or perceiving the connection that already exists within,  or seeing the world in the way Christ saw it, it is about transcending the "I" or ego or the "your own", because 'I"  is inherently dualistic and separate. If there is an "I" then the rest is "not I" including god (some flip this to a "universal I that is all inclusive" but it amounts to using different words to point at the same thing) i agree lots of mysticism is horribly watered down and flufified but the real work that has to be done to clear all the clutter that keeps us in the dark/sin, or puts blinders on our perception, is far more than "feel spiritual or happy". the gnostic relationship is more of a see the world "through/as" gods eyes than a father teaching a child , it is knowledge of being a good human being through perception

Hmmm, that's interesting.  One could say the goal of Christianity is to be able to see the world through a "Christ lens" or to become a saint, which wouldn't be far from what you've suggested.  Although Christians lean more heavily on Christ (and the church/Bible) to teach and help us.

My frustration with gnosticism/spirituality was that it lacked any intrinsic meaning (as far as I could tell), and it's general lack of interest in the material world.  Also I had no idea what I was supposed to "do", to attain this enlightenment/gnosis.  I had tried meditation for 3 or 4 months, but it felt forced and lost all interest in it.  I could mentally accept that my mind created the Universe (and all that jazz), but it just didn't do much for me.

Truthfully I just got bored of it.

I find Christianity provides a far more satisfying worldview that resonates with me.  I also find a certain richness and depth to Christianity that I had not found before.

[Mountaineer]

From today's Portals of Prayer devotional.  Seems to "illuminate" much of the discussion we have had today.

Clothed in Light

O Lord my God, You are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering Yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. Psalm 104:1-2

The Wise Men followed the star and found God. At that time and in that situation, humble wrappings covered Jesus in His humanity. But David speaks of divine clothing. “O Lord my God . . . You are clothed . . . with light.”? Wow! God unveils His image to humanity by describing His blazing attire. His garment of light reveals there is no darkness in Him. God also reveals the image of mankind. In His shining armor of justice, God shows humanity shrouded in sin, dressed in darkness, parading to their tombs. Yes, God’s Law and justice expose our sinful hearts and our need for a Savior. God not only exposes our need, but He also unveils the solution—Christ, the light. Christ’s proclamation, perfection, and power to purify the world reveals the Father’s will. And the Father is eager to remove our filthy rags, wash us in Baptism, and wrap us in Christ’s virtue. The Holy Spirit desires to dissolve death and adorn all believers with Christ’s life, making us fit to live forever with Him, the one clothed in light.

God of light, forgive us for our self-imposed blindness, and enable us to see Your saving light. Amen.

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

the two don't seem that far apart from a gnostic perspective either. the idea of working toward sainthood seems especially well aligned (minus the catholic miracles perhaps)
  admittedly some mysticism is very disconnected from the material world but i would tend to count it in with the fluff. the type that deals in a deep interest in altering the way the world is perceived tends to take an introspective nature and a lot lot lot of hard work,(some mysticism even gos as far as recommending a couple years of psychoanalysis at the beginning) and its not just about meditation,  any practice that requires the kind of focus that forces or encourages entering into a state of flow (being truly in the moment) is good, it can be anything from martial arts, rock climbing, to painting or knitting. the real work or "what to do" is really no different than "what to do" to be a good christian, and that requires deep self examination and understanding of what you are thinking and how that is causing you to act in or see the world, when you understand it, you begin to change it, and the process of learning to truly shut down the internal dialog is underway. 

I agree with most of what you said.  On a basic level it is a stripped down version of what most religions attempt to achieve.  But I find this isn't enough, I need the stories, myth, ritual, art, literature, theology, saints, virtue, metaphysics, etc.  This makes it exciting and real...maybe I'm just a spiritual glutton

One thing that Joseph Campbell said that has stuck with me, is that one needs to select the mythology/religion that resonates with them and then stick with that system.  These mythologies have everything already built into them to give that "fullness" of life.  But we must take the whole system rather than pick and choose what we like.  Obviously I think Christianity is "correct", but I can see a lot of good in other religions/spirituality, and Vatican II even echoed this sentiment:

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_coun ... te_en.html

i tend to be model-agnostic when it comes to picking the paradigms i view the world through, each model of the world is a bit like a lens making some things clear and blocking out others, for example if i wanted a model that built strong family values and tight nit community i might look to what the Mormons do, if i want to understand suffering Buddhism is a strong contender for shedding light, if i want a philosophical approach to understanding the universe (this suits me well) i might look to Taoism, if i want to understand how a volcano works or how the personality develops i would look to science, and psychology. and as great as each of these is in its ability to illuminate in one area, they all have their own blind spots in others

in science light can be a particle or a wave depending on how the experiment is preformed and the tools used for measurement, one tool/experiment isn't necessarily more right or wrong than the other, it becomes a question of which is more useful to achieve the goals you want at this particular point in time.. i tend to view religion the same way..

all that being said... i don't disagree with the idea that "if you find something that resonates with you stick with it", some aspects of religion like ritual and community (neither a strong draw for me) require a pick one and stick with it approach to have value, and most religions/paradigms have a lifetime worth of growth to offer even if they have blind spots... especially if you can retain the "open to the value and good others have" attitude you and tortoise have shared..

[Tortoise]

One thing that Joseph Campbell said that has stuck with me, is that one needs to select the mythology/religion that resonates with them and then stick with that system.  These mythologies have everything already built into them to give that "fullness" of life.  But we must take the whole system rather than pick and choose what we like.  Obviously I think Christianity is "correct", but I can see a lot of good in other religions/spirituality [...]

I see a lot of good in other religions and spirituality, too, but here are a few things that I think make Christianity unique:

• Eyewitness accounts: Much of the New Testament, including the Gospels, was written by eyewitnesses of Christ's miracles, death, and resurrection. They were written only shortly after Christ's death, while the eyewitnesses were still alive. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, it is written that Christ appeared to a crowd of more than 500 people after his resurrection, most of whom were "still living" at the time that letter was written. If the resurrection was a lie, those eyewitnesses would have refuted it--and the early Christian church would have fizzled out very quickly. But it didn't; it spread persistently, and many early Christians endured torture and death for their conviction that Christ's resurrection was the real deal.
• Christian morality: Jesus Christ turned morality on its head. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. The servant is greater than the master. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Self-righteous moralists have no place in the Kingdom of God, etc. No one had ever taught such a radically upside-down morality before. Christ wasn't the same old myth in different clothing. He was something completely different.
• A personal God: So many religious and spiritual systems are centered around an impersonal God. If we are created in God's image--which would make sense, since we came from God and are therefore part of Him--why would God not share our ability to feel love, anger, hope, humor and amusement, etc.? This turns out to be a huge distinction between Christianity and other religions, because the idea of a personal God softens people's hearts and utterly transforms them in a way that no impersonal God ever could.
• The world of matter isn't fundamentally bad, or an illusion: In contrast to so many other religions and spiritual systems, where the whole point is to escape the world of matter, sweep away the illusion of matter, etc., Christianity embraces the physical world as an integral part of its rituals and God's ultimate plan--not to eliminate the earth, but to merge heaven and earth. I think that's important, because it affirms that God doesn't want to completely do away with His own creation--He wants to save it and ultimately perfect it.

[ns3]

I was a devoted Christian for about 20 years. Some would even call me a fanatic. I taught Bible studies in my home and at one point I was even officially ordained as a Southern Baptist minister due to the efforts of some others that I wasn't wholly comfortable with. I'm not even sure I can tell you what Southern Baptists' official doctrines are but I was assured it didn't really matter so I went along with it.

Before that I was a drug addict.

Today I see a lot of similarities between my drug addiction and my clinging to Christianity. I think both were attempts to fill the same inner void and both required total devotion and constant higher doses in order to fill it.

[Gosso]

I see a lot of good in other religions and spirituality, too, but here are a few things that I think make Christianity unique:

• Eyewitness accounts: Much of the New Testament, including the Gospels, was written by eyewitnesses of Christ's miracles, death, and resurrection. They were written only shortly after Christ's death, while the eyewitnesses were still alive. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, it is written that Christ appeared to a crowd of more than 500 people after his resurrection, most of whom were "still living" at the time that letter was written. If the resurrection was a lie, those eyewitnesses would have refuted it--and the early Christian church would have fizzled out very quickly. But it didn't; it spread persistently, and many early Christians endured torture and death for their conviction that Christ's resurrection was the real deal.
• Christian morality: Jesus Christ turned morality on its head. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. The servant is greater than the master. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Self-righteous moralists have no place in the Kingdom of God, etc. No one had ever taught such a radically upside-down morality before. Christ wasn't the same old myth in different clothing. He was something completely different.
• A personal God: So many religious and spiritual systems are centered around an impersonal God. If we are created in God's image--which would make sense, since we came from God and are therefore part of Him--why would God not share our ability to feel love, anger, hope, humor and amusement, etc.? This turns out to be a huge distinction between Christianity and other religions, because the idea of a personal God softens people's hearts and utterly transforms them in a way that no impersonal God ever could.
• The world of matter isn't fundamentally bad, or an illusion: In contrast to so many other religions and spiritual systems, where the whole point is to escape the world of matter, sweep away the illusion of matter, etc., Christianity embraces the physical world as an integral part of its rituals and God's ultimate plan--not to eliminate the earth, but to merge heaven and earth. I think that's important, because it affirms that God doesn't want to completely do away with His own creation--He wants to save it and ultimately perfect it.

I 100% agree.

But I do often wonder how Christ sees these other religions and spirituality.  As long as they are teaching to love God and their fellow human, then at a bare minimum I think God would show great mercy.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”?

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”?

I find Christianity is the best path to fulfill these commandments.

[Mountaineer]

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”?

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”?

I find Christianity is the best path to fulfill these commandments.

Gosso, I agree that Christianity is the best path to fulfull these commandments.  However, I may have a slightly different "take" than you might think.  My lens for reading and understanding Scripture indicates Jesus gave those commandments to point out to us once again how impossible it is for us humans to fulfill them.  The statement about "all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" is further explanation of that ... we cannot by our selves fulfill those commandments.  So, I beleve that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not abolish the Law, perfectly for our sakes.  The Law just makes us realize how we are not able to keep it perfectly.  Christianity (the Gospel i.e. good news) is about what God did for us (via Jesus atoning for all our sins).  Thus, I am forgiven for not being able to do those commandments perfectly because Jesus already did it in my stead.  God no longer sees my sins because of what Jesus did.  Make sense?

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

i tend to be model-agnostic when it comes to picking the paradigms i view the world through, each model of the world is a bit like a lens making some things clear and blocking out others, for example if i wanted a model that built strong family values and tight nit community i might look to what the Mormons do,  if i want to understand suffering Buddhism is a strong contender for shedding light, if i want a philosophical approach to understanding the universe (this suits me well) i might look to Taoism, if i want to understand how a volcano works or how the personality develops i would look to science, and psychology. and as great as each of these is in its ability to illuminate in one area, they all have their own blind spots in others

in science light can be a particle or a wave depending on how the experiment is preformed and the tools used for measurement, one tool/experiment isn't necessarily more right or wrong than the other, it becomes a question of which is more useful to achieve the goals you want at this particular point in time..  i tend to view religion the same way..

all that being said... i don't disagree with the idea that "if you find something that resonates with you stick with it", some aspects of religion like ritual and community (neither a strong draw for me) require a pick one and stick with it approach to have value, and most religions/paradigms have a lifetime worth of growth to offer even if they have blind spots... especially if you can retain the "open to the value and good others have" attitude you and tortoise have shared..

I see it a bit differently.  I see someone's religion as a type of marriage where a certain level of commitment and fidelity are required.  This allows the religion/God to sink into the individual, and actually create change in the person.  This doesn't mean the husband cannot have female friends, but ultimately all of his faith, hope, and love are with his wife (but of course God is above both the husband and wife).

When it comes to science and religion, I see the two as somewhat separate.  Science is the study of the observable universe, while religion has more to do with meaning.  It is highly frustrating to me when these two groups try to fight over who is 100% correct...just seems like a lot of hot air to me.

i probably see it a bit differently from you because i think the will/drive to change (the "sink in" part) comes from within.. its what brought you to the church in the first place, the church may (and hopefully does) act as a multiplier of that drive and if being committed helps that then "all good by me"...

i am more inclined see science and religion as having overlap, one deals with the observable universe the other deals with how we interact with and observe it, they have different areas of expertise and each covers areas the other does not, but they both operate in a world of interactive processing.

i to tend to think arguments over which (sci vs religion) is 100% correct are hot air as well, they tend to come from a very limited "either-or" perspective on both sides of the argument..

[Mountaineer]

interactive procesing, I also am not drawn to the ritual and community.  I would describe myself as a Christian in spite of the ritual, not because of it.  I've chosen a denomination that is generally light on ritual (no robes, no theatrics), but of course there is still some church-speak and ritual that I subject myself to.  It's growing on me a bit, but I don't think I'll ever be a champion of ritual.

Desert, I am currently reading a book you may find interesting.  "Heaven on Earth - The Gifts of Christ in the Divine Service" by Aruthur A Just Jr.  The author shows how the liturgy is thoroughly anchored in Scripture.  It explains the LCMS service so it might not be totally applicable to other denominations but it does cover the history (what and why) of worship practices from the beginning of Christianity through our postmodern world.

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”?

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”?

I find Christianity is the best path to fulfill these commandments.

Gosso, I agree that Christianity is the best path to fulfull these commandments.  However, I may have a slightly different "take" than you might think.  My lens for reading and understanding Scripture indicates Jesus gave those commandments to point out to us once again how impossible it is for us humans to fulfill them.  The statement about "all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" is further explanation of that ... we cannot by our selves fulfill those commandments.  So, I beleve that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not abolish the Law, perfectly for our sakes.  The Law just makes us realize how we are not able to keep it perfectly.  Christianity (the Gospel i.e. good news) is about what God did for us (via Jesus atoning for all our sins).  Thus, I am forgiven for not being able to do those commandments perfectly because Jesus already did it in my stead.  God no longer sees my sins because of what Jesus did.  Make sense?

... Mountaineer

I see where you're coming from.  I guess this is the whole debate of saved by faith alone or by works?  My take is that everything begins with faith, and then God helps to transform us through prayer, so that it becomes natural or easy to follow the commandments/Law ("my yoke is easy").  Now I agree that none of us will achieve this level of perfection (at least in this life), but we still have to make an attempt, ask for forgiveness when we fail, and then Christ will pick us back up again.  We're sort of like children learning to walk. 

[Tortoise]

I guess this is the whole debate of saved by faith alone or by works?  My take is that everything begins with faith, and then God helps to transform us through prayer, so that it becomes natural or easy to follow the commandments/Law ("my yoke is easy").  Now I agree that none of us will achieve this level of perfection (at least in this life), but we still have to make an attempt, ask for forgiveness when fail, and then Christ will pick us back up again.  We're sort of like children learning to walk.

That's a great summary, Gosso; I think you hit the nail on the head.

The New Testament makes it clear in different passages that both faith and works/behavior are important, but that faith comes first and is far more important--because true faith in Christ will naturally influence one's deeds as a reflection of that faith, whereas deeds without faith can be tainted by various personal motives or a sense of self-important righteousness. Here are two passages that discuss this:

But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,”? but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”?

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”?and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

[Gosso]

That's a great summary, Gosso; I think you hit the nail on the head.

The ethics and morals are one of the areas that attracts me to Christianity.  I want the challenge of trying to become a virtuous person.  Hopefully I won't end up as a self-righteous jerk, but rather enter a type of "flow" state where virtue just becomes natural.  I was originally attracted to Stoicism for this reason, but it lacked the charm and "staying power" of Christianity.

[Gosso]

i probably see it a bit differently from you because i think the will/drive to change (the "sink in" part) comes from within.. its what brought you to the church in the first place, the church may (and hopefully does) act  as a multiplier of that drive and if being committed helps that then "all good by me"... 

i am more inclined see science and religion as having overlap, one deals with the observable universe the other deals with how we interact with and observe it, they have different areas of expertise and each covers areas the other does not, but they both operate in a world of interactive processing.

i to tend to think arguments over which (sci vs religion) is 100% correct are hot air as well,  they tend to come from a very limited "either-or" perspective on both sides of the argument..

It seems to me our thinking is pretty closely aligned.  It's difficult to describe the "sinking in".  CS Lewis describes it as Christ building a castle in our heart/soul to live in.  So it's a joining together...making the two whole...making the inner like the outer.

You're right about there being overlap between science and religion...I was thinking of the hardcore atheists and fundamental religious people.

[Mountaineer]

Just watched this 15 minute video:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc ... cannibals/

It's an amazing story, and I like the fact that the 77-year old Father was able to return to this place after so many years.

An amazing story indeed!  The Gospel really can change lives and cultures. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

Kshartle,

I already gave my perspective a couple of days ago in the Al Q thread, but I just ran across this that you might be interested in.  I have not studied it in depth:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers

... Mountaineer

[Gosso]

Why do you guys think God says that murder and stealing are wrong? Why did he decide that for us?

Probably because it leads to further hatred, anger, and violence.  Not that pacifism is the answer.  I think this quote from G. K. Chesterton sums it up well:

The command of Christ is impossible, but it is not insane; it is rather sanity preached to a planet of lunatics. If the whole world was suddenly stricken with a sense of humour it would find itself mechanically fulfilling the Sermon on the Mount.

I laughed for about two minutes after reading that.

The above quote was taken from, "Tolstoy and the Cult of Simplicity."

More gold from Chesterton:

Some think that the return to nature consists in drinking no wine; some think that it consists in drinking a great deal more than is good for them.

It is natural, according to the humanitarian revolutionist, to kill other people with dynamite and himself with vegetarianism.

Now, this heroic desire to return to nature, is, of course, in some respects, rather like the heroic desire of a kitten to return to its own tail.

[doodle]

Veracity of Bible under more scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/scien ... =dayp&_r=0

[kka]

Veracity of Bible under more scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/scien ... =dayp&_r=0

Hardly.
http://blogs.christianpost.com/dear-eph ... lse-19994/

[Kshartle]

It's not the parting of the red sea, not the plagues of frogs and boils, not the rising of the dead......it's the camel part that really sealed it for me. Ahahahahahahahah. Brilliant critical analysis of the bible NYtimes. Bravo.

Maybe when it was translated they incorrectly wrote camel and meant some other pack animal. Did they have mules?

[ns3]

I would like to point out that Camels in the Bible go back farther than Abraham. See the photo below.....

[Gosso]

Veracity of Bible under more scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/scien ... =dayp&_r=0

I for one support your attack on biblical literalism.  Didn't Alan Watts say it was like eating the menu rather than using it to order the food.  Christians need to be careful when reading the Bible, it is like expecting a child to pick up a book on quantum mechanics and somehow understand everything about the subject.

[ns3]

Veracity of Bible under more scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/scien ... =dayp&_r=0

I for one support your attack on biblical literalism.  Didn't Alan Watts say it was like eating the menu rather than using it to order the food.  Christians need to be careful when reading the Bible, it is like expecting a child to pick up a book on quantum mechanics and somehow understand everything about the subject.

Amen.

My current thinking on the subject is that there is divine inspiration in the Bible but it is not the inerrant and infallible "Word of God" that it is made out to be by the literalists.

For the esteemed members here who still hold to the latter persuasion, forget Abraham and whether or not camels were ridden in his day, what do you think about the question of whether women should keep silence in the churches and whether they should have their heads covered (in other words New Testament stuff).

[Xan]

For the esteemed members here who still hold to the latter persuasion, forget Abraham and whether or not camels were ridden in his day, what do you think about the question of whether women should keep silence in the churches and whether they should have their heads covered (in other words New Testament stuff).

I'm not sure to what level I'm a "literalist", but my wife does enjoy wearing hats to church, especially on Easter, and our church doesn't ordain women.