[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 10 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Guttenburg used the first movable type press to print the bible.  Luther posted his 90 Theses on a church door.

I thought Luther discovered the location of Superman's Fortress of Solitude - but memory fails me - it might have been Gutenberg.

[Al_U_Card]

akhare, on Feb 10 2007, 02:57 PM, said:

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 01:48 PM, said:

"Heading out to see Pan's Labrynth"

When you come back, did you like it?

I thought it was great.

Peter

I saw it last week and thought it was pretty good, but nothing to rave about.

BTW, while we are on the topic of movies that deal with faith, what do people things about the following:

1) The Ninth Configuration: I thought it was very good, but the last 2 minutes ruined it for me (may be absent from some versions)

2) Breaking the Waves

3) Babette's feast

Also, what do people think about "Au hasard Balthazar"?

My fav is Constantine. Best for religion is that one with Affleck and Damon with Alanis Morrisette as God.....

[pbleighton]

Constantine was a hoot.

Peter

[akhare]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

Constantine was a hoot.

Peter

Confucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)...

[pbleighton]

"Confucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)... "

or "Whew".

Peter

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 06:24 PM, said:

"Confucius sez: Keanu movies are like Ying-Yang -- you either go "Whoa" or "Woe" (ducking for cover)... "

or "Whew".

Peter

I thought it was hoo-hoo, like the Japanese band in Kill Bill - Volume 2 and the Vontage commercials.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

These two statements seem paradoxical.  Are you claiming a corollary to: I and the Father are One?  Belief in god automatically includes belief in jesus, even if you don't know it or acknowledge it?

what i'm saying is that anyone who sincerely desires salvation will be saved by calling on God to save him... the rest is up to God

Quote

Quote

it isn't hard to understand... but is it hard to understand that your interpretation might be incorrect?

This is the point, is it not - why would I need an interpretation of a straightforward phrase? Wasn't this the reason Martin Luther posted the bible for all to read?

it's just that you are the only person i've ever heard who says Jesus was talking about the faith a mustard seed has rather than faith the size of a mustard seed...

Quote

Is it possible you are "forced" into making an interpretation because otherwise the statement does not adhere to your views?

no... the views aren't only mine... are your views only yours?

Quote

I think it is pretty clear cut.  Mustard seeds are incapable of faith.  But if you believe faith a necessary ingredient of salvation, then you would have to interpret this phrase to fit that view.  It seems to me yours the more convoluted effort, IMHO.

again, were you taught that Jesus was speaking of the faith a mustard seed has in God or Jesus or anything else, rather than faith the size of the seed? i'd really be interested to read more on this, if you can point me in that direction

helene said:

I'm not familiar with it. The fact that he's an Intelligen Design proponent doesn't serve as a recomendation but of course he could be OK in other fields. Anyway, as a scientist my immediate association with the word "knowledge" is either scientific knowledge, or knowledge as a psychological phenomena. I don't know what the word "knowledge" usually means in a theological context so I guess I wouldn't have a qualified opinion about Plantinga's knowledge concept, which seems to be a theological one.

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

plantinga is a philosopher, and has a reputation among his friends and enemies alike of a man of great intellect... his theory of knowledge is that 'true belief' is a necessary part (which seems to go against what you are saying)... it isn't the only part, the whole concept of 'warrant' comes into it, and he has written extensively on that subject... but since you and i were discussing rationality, i thought you might find this article interesting...

as i've said numerous times, we tend to view things from our own presuppositions, and it's not easy doing otherwise... but i ask you to *try* to read this (if you have time and of a mind to do so) as a fellow (to plantina) scientist

http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth02.html

to richard re: william lane craig... i was more interested in your views of his articles concering the transworldly damned (molina)

[Al_U_Card]

Like in Constantine, our god (of the 7 lesser gods) is the best!

[mike777]

The Rapture is the most overt religious movie that sticks with me.

A little seen movie that got mediocre reviews.

The Rapture, Job, the ultimate sacrifice, and being angry, furious at God all issues in one movie, wow.

[Winstonm]

Quote

what i'm saying is that anyone who sincerely desires salvation will be saved by calling on God to save him... the rest is up to God

I don't see us as that far apart here - I happen to see it as two things, a corollary of I and the father are one and the possibilty that this could occur on a universal timetable 1000 years after physical death.

Quote

it's just that you are the only person i've ever heard who says Jesus was talking about the faith a mustard seed has rather than faith the size of a mustard seed...

This is no surprise - it is a conclusion I came to by myself. Some guy named Mike Luther posted it on the door of the church so I read it and figured out for myself what it meant.

Quote

no... the views aren't only mine... are your views only yours?

I'll rephrase, you honor. Is it possible that whomever originated this interpretation did so because the meaning of the words themselves did not fit with his or her theology? Are my views only mine - I certainly hope so because my spirituality is on a personal level and not intended to be the answer for you.

Quote

again, were you taught that Jesus was speaking of the faith a mustard seed has in God or Jesus or anything else, rather than faith the size of the seed? i'd really be interested to read more on this, if you can point me in that direction

Hmmm. This is a good question...was I taught. It is hard to say. I was never taught this exact thought exactly, however my quest for spirituality led me to read many thoughts that coincided with this thinking - so in a sense I was taught but also IMO learned.

The closest book that might better convey this concept is: A New Pair of Glasses.
Another book I read I cannot remember the title but it was written by an Episcopal priest - in it he said something I will never forget: "Love is not an emotion. Love is a decision and a commitment." It was very telling, in that he expressed that you do not have to feel love but act with love. This fit in nicely with what I had been taught through al-anon that feelings were unimportant, that only actions had any meaning.

So I guess the bottom line is that I did in fact learn this thinking, and that is why I say faith is unimportant - it is the actions that are meaningful. What good is it to claim faith if your actions do not substantiate that faith? If anything, it is the actions that bring about faith, not the other way round.

Have you ever heard, feelings follow actions, act enthusiastic and you'll be enthusiastic, or interest follows actions? This is why I say that a mustard seed requires no faith - and neither do we - because it is action that will bring about faith.

In fact I would say there is no such thing as faith without action. If you had faith in the driver of the car hurtling down the road at 30mph to stop and did not step off the curb in front of it you are not exhibiting faith, but ideology. It is only when you blindly step into the street and the car stops that faith in the driver is rewarded.

To use the car analogy again:
A spiritual person steps off the curb
A religious person claims he believes the car will stop, but doesn't act.
An atheist waits for the car to pass.
An agnostic says, "What car?"

[luke warm]

Quote

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

perhaps you'll find this article interesting
http://www.leaderu.c...cs/middle2.html

Quote

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

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

Quote

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

those aforementioned greek scholars must have missed this

Quote

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

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

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

[Al_U_Card]

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

[Winstonm]

Quote

those aforementioned greek scholars must have missed this

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[luke warm]

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

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Feb 11 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

i don't think it's quite fair to let plantinga's belief in creation enter into the validity of other subjects he's written on, but that's just me... i wouldn't simply dismiss big bang simply because hawkin is an atheist
[....]
but i ask you to *try* to read this (if you have time and of a mind to do so) as a fellow (to plantina) scientist

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

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

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

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

[Al_U_Card]

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

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

[pclayton]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 10 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

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

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

[Impact]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Feb 10 2007, 08:08 PM, said:

What if we conducted the following experiment:

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

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

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

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

[Al_U_Card]

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