Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: Grimpachi

None of the NT books were written by the people who actually knew him that by itself should say plenty.

You're way off there. Matthew, Peter, and John were His direct disciples. And James and Jude were His half-brothers.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
and yet the prevailing scientific model is the big bang.......

The Big Bang theory was actually proposed by a Catholic priest Just like the first investigation into genetics was from a Catholic monk. (but I agree with the rest of your post!)

Really, in the US, there is a great misunderstanding about what religion is about, about what God is about.


It seems people are forced to choose between two polarized directions: scientific logic and faith.


It's a terrible mistake growing out of the increasing force of Christian fundamentalism in the US.

Historically, many Church members were erudite and scholars, versed in all sciences. They were the keepers of ancient knowledge and the discoverers of knew ones.

They did not believe in God out of blind faith. Knowing God is a personal an internal journey.


God isn't an inaccessible character outside of this universe, deciding what happens. That's what a kid understands of God, not a grown-up who decided to understand this God concept himself, knowing very well a great deal of the writings about God are willingly poetic and symbolic.

God is a force, a potential, not a person.
God is inherent to this universe, not out of it.
God doesn't create ex-nihilo, God is like the potter giving form to matter.
God doesn't decide what happens in the world, it's not a person. God is closer to the laws of the universe. If you go against these laws, it's like going against the flow of a river. You only delay your movement, you suffer, and eventually you always have to let go.


Educated Christians don't have to believe in God. They know God. The understand what this word means beyond superstition, and what it means exists and is unraveling under our eyes everyday so we know it can only be real.

Great post, I can see you put a lot of work in this. Thanks!

a reply to: shauny

First of all, I think theres a typo, in that the word should be 'ARKaeology'

As for the rib issue, theres a few interesting theories about it being a mistranslation. The original word is 'tzela' which is more likely to mean something like 'flank' rather than rib. Some say that the more accurate translation of 'tzela' is that of a 'supporting structure', like that of a side wall - one that requires an opposite, corresponding side. This has led some to believe (being of the belief that angels are genderless) that the original Adam was also genderless, as a sole individual needs no reproductive organs. 'Tzela' - it is argued - rather refers to the chromosomes of the genetic STRUCTURE, reasoning that to be the cause for the 'missing' leg of the male XY chromosome and setting up man and woman/husband and wife as 'completing each other'.

Not sure I adhere to this line of thought, but interesting nonetheless.

Here's a bit of a crazy rabbithole that explores that concept.

a reply to: BombDefined

There's another funny theory actually saying the mistranslated "rib" is in fact the baculum that is strangely missing in humans VS other primates.

en.wikipedia.org...

cabinetmagazine.org...

a reply to: NOTurTypical

That doesn't necessarily mean they wrote the books that have their names attached to them. There is much scholarly debate when it comes to the authorship of the Gospels and other books in the Bible, as you can imagine. There is uncertainty as to exactly when and who wrote them. There are some clues as to who and when for some of them of course but nothing definitive, as far as I know. With the exception of the Gospel of John, the authors of the gospels are anonymous. The author of John claimed to be part of Jesus' inner circle, as "the disciple Jesus loved". It's widely agreed that the Gospel of John was written last

While a historical Jesus may have existed, the story of his life and death were greatly embellished. Some will say purely for purposes of control and while that no doubt plays a part in some regards I don't think that's the case entirely.

Also, consider this. If they were all written by men who knew Jesus (and/or were divinely inspired), how come they contradict each other in many important details? What could account for the lack of consistency?

a reply to: JUhrman

It seems people are forced to choose between two polarized directions: scientific logic and faith.

as you so sagely reminded us, a catholic dude first coined the big bang theory. although the name itself wasnt supplied until later, and as a joke. the point being, he didnt find that theory in the bible. he used scientific logic. or rather scientific investigation and logic.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Exactly. My whole post was to show that there are tons of people who are religious (even priests and monks) but also scientists from their education. There is no contradiction in there.

The polarization we see more and more today in the US between "science" and "god" is artificial. Actually it should be a polarization between "science" and "fundamentalism". There is no room for fundamentalism in a critical mind, and many religious people are critical too.

The concept of God (or "divine", "sacred", "source of life" if the term god is too loaded for you) can be explored through logic and the observation of the natural world. It has been done for centuries.

It's ignorance and the dogmas of fundamentalism which have to be fought. Exploring the concept of the divine through critical reasoning and observation of the world helps fighting ignorance. It's OK if science isn't interested or capable of exploring the very subjective territories of consciousness, of morality, of spiritual experiences, of emotions and the mysteries of creation. It doesn't mean though no one should look into these. Philosophers, artists and religious people are doing it. Are people saying to artists art is stupid because it isn't scientific?



And again, off course he didn't find the big bang theory in the Bible. The majority of the Chrisitians knows it's a book for the spiritual aspects world, not for the material. Only the Fundamentalists think so. Opposing scriptures and science like it's the only possible stance is a logical fallacy. Outside of fundamentalists, Christians know the Bible isn't a scientific manual.

a reply to: JUhrman

Exactly. My whole post was to show that there are tons of people who are religious (even priests and monks) but also scientists from their education. There is no contradiction in there.

regrettably, there is. the tools they use when practicing science and when practicing their religion are of a polar nature. just look up the definitions and you will see they contradict each other.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's only because you have a misconception in your mind regarding what god is supposed to mean. I can't help you regarding that misconception.

Einstein himself believed in a Spinozan god.

Science deals with matter, particles and energy.
Religion mainly deals with consciousness and the abstract concept it creates.

They have different tools because they deal with different facets of a singular reality.

Science is ignoring the conscious observer human factor while the human is at the center of the observable universe (even particle physics remind scientists the influence of the observer and his action cannot be ignored).
Religion is minimizing the importance of matter while matter is the substrate allowing the consciousness to rise.

The two disciplines have to be taken together to get a complete picture. They are not contradictory. They complete each other.


Actually I've no problems when scientists tell me they don't believe in God, because I know they believe in "something" increasing always more the complexity of all matter, life and ideas and call them "evolution and selection mechanisms of matter, of life and of memes". Because I know they believe in consciousness. Because I know that, besides a few, they don't believe the universe is 100% deterministic and that a part of free will exist.

They believe in all these things and give them different names.



In my heart I know we believe the same things and know they are related through causes and effects, and I simply choose to call them God when speaking about them as a whole.

a reply to: JUhrman

BEAUTIFUL! thank you so much!

Great post and well said, its what ive been trying to convey but couldnt not , 100000 stars if i could

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

That doesn't necessarily mean they wrote the books that have their names attached to them.

It appears to me that you are confusing the books of the NT and their authors with the pseudographical Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi.

There is much scholarly debate when it comes to the authorship of the Gospels and other books in the Bible, as you can imagine.

That's not accurate at all. The huge majority of scholars don't argue about authorship except for maybe the book of Hebrews. And with the latest dating methods and equipment the later dates of some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.

Perhaps you haven't looked into scholarship in the last 15 or so years?

It's widely agreed that the Gospel of John was written last

It was written last, John didn't do much writing until he was in prison under Nero and then when freed while he was at Ephesus. John closed the last NT book, Revelation in circa 95 A.D. Peter and Paul were both dead by 54 A.D. James was killed much earlier than that in Jerusalem.

Also, consider this. If they were all written by men who knew Jesus (and/or were divinely inspired), how come they contradict each other in many important details? What could account for the lack of consistency?

Well for one thing they are summaries, another point is people don't study them intently enough and assume they are contradictory. Perfect example is the Olivet Discourse recorded in Matthew and Luke. On appearance they seem to be two accounts of the exact same teaching, but a careful examination of the words you realize they were two different ones. One was to the masses, and one was privately to the inner circle of disciples. One highlights the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD for the most part and the other highlights the destruction of Jerusalem in the end times. And finally, slight detail variations by eye-witnesses is a sign that they DID NOT collude together to form a story. That's common in court, if all the witnesses for the defense are perfectly in line with every detail any prosecutor with his weight in salt would immediately object to their testimony on the grounds they colluded with one another.

a reply to: JUhrman

It's only because you have a misconception in your mind regarding what god is supposed to mean. I can't help you regarding that misconception.

taking a good long look at the history of deities, i find it difficult to concretely establish anything other than a misconception or a conglomerate of vague conceptions concerning what god is supposed to mean.

They have different tools because they deal with different facets of a singular reality.

an abstract painting of mars is not nearly as helpful as sending a rover, even if, to the human eye, the results are comparable. similarly, using a microscope to study bacteria and chemical science to engineer a countering agent is far more lucrative an exercise than meditating or praying for supernatural assistance. microscopes are science tools, metaphysical icons and juiced up optimism are religions.

Science is ignoring the conscious observer human factor while the human is at the center of the observable universe (even particle physics remind scientists the influence of the observer and his action cannot be ignored).
Religion is minimizing the importance of matter while matter is the substrate allowing the consciousness to rise.

true scientific investigation does its best to eliminate human error from the equation, rather than covertly optimizing the results of said human error for emotional comfort.

religion deals with the immaterial. have fun explaining the science of a god without a diagram.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And with the latest dating methods and equipment the later dates of some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.

I looked up that very topic just last week and to date this is still the oldest known fragment of the NT.



That is P52

The style of the script is Hadrianic,[3] which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE.[4]

If you read further it says quite the opposite of you to where some have dated it to the second half to third century.

Maybe you have some links for your claims.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Are you sure you read the Wiki entry? (From your link)

Although Rylands P52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars.

As the fragment is removed from the autograph by at least one step of transmission, the date of authorship for the Gospel of John must be at least a few years prior to the writing of P52, whenever that may have been. The location of the fragment in Egypt extends that time even further, allowing for the dispersal of the documents from the point of authorship and transmission to the point of discovery.

P52 doesn't change what I said, John wrote his gospel, 1 and 2nd John and Revelation close to 90-95 AD. The dating of P52 is anywhere between prior to 100 AD or 160 AD. And it's stated clearly that the fragment isn't the autograph, but likely a first copy of the autograph.

(Autograph being the original gospel account)

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You know, even if we allow for the gospels to have been written by the people that they are attributed to, they were still written years and decades after the alleged events happened. That is like asking a 40 year old man to describe his first trip to the carnival when he was ten in vivid detail. The odds of embellishments/untruths sneaking into the story are SO high, that it is practically a given.

Heck look at the Jesus birth story, NONE of the disciples were present at his birth, so none of them have a first hand account of how it went down, yet they talk about it like they knew what happened. Even Jesus didn't know, as he was a baby. Where did these tales even come from?

The only way for the gospels to gain the absolute amount of veracity is if they were written LITERALLY right after the events being told happened. But even then, it is still likely that there would be lies and untruths in there.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Did you just ignore everything and rewrite what you wanted to hear?

There probably was a manuscript before that one, however your claim is.

some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.

Was that a lie? I asked for links to back up your statement do you not have anything to show. p52 is still the oldest scrap of manuscript known some scholars have even dated it as old as 3rd century the range you put it in is not supported by the community as a whole. The dating of p52 is between 100ce and early 3rd century. I already provided a link.

Can you provide a link to the 1st century pieces you claim exist, yes or no?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know, even if we allow for the gospels to have been written by the people that they are attributed to, they were still written years and decades after the alleged events happened. That is like asking a 40 year old man to describe his first trip to the carnival when he was ten in vivid detail.

Most likely why they differ on minor details.


The gospel and NT writers were not authors by trade, they were teachers of the gospel, evangelists. They taught by word of mouth as eyewitnesses. My assumption is that they chose to preserve their accounts for future generations when they knew their time was nearing an end. Many of these accounts and epistles were written from a prison cell.

Where did these tales even come from?

Mary.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Did you just ignore everything and rewrite what you wanted to hear?

No, I copy/pasted from your link. And even further down the link than the first paragraph which is what you copy/pasted.

is not supported by the community as a whole.

Name anything that is! lol The link said there certainly is no consensus. It also said early 2nd century Christian writers mention the gospel according to John so it existed when they wrote in that period of time, unless of course the author was a gifted psychic and knew it would be written some 100+ years after the fact. John authored his gospel account at the tail end of the 1st century.

Not every scholar is talented.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I asked you a question and this will be three times.

Your claim

some of these fragments are being moved up in time to earlier in the 1st century, not later.

Can you provide a link to the 1st century pieces you claim exist, yes or no?