Help a confused Jew

[celo]

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond with thoughtful posts, I really do appreciate it.

The only retort I will make is in regards to my post about extraterrestrial life. My point wasn't to argue our place and origin in the universe, but to state my amazement in the coincidence of human and earth-specific qualities in the Bible. To me, this seems to ignore the very major probability of life being quite common throughout the cosmos. Thus my conclusion that it seems to be of human origin.

I see there being a very good counterargument upon further thought. If the Bible was written by man, and inspired by God's direct communication, then it would make complete sense that the scripture is earth-specific. After all, why would God even mention other life or give a "universal" version of his will? There would be no point to this in respect to the Bible's point.

As such, I concede that my argument holds no more water than the contrary. I choose to accept the former; however, I see just as much reason to dismiss it in favor of the later. Chalk it up to opinion.

I think I also learned something with respect to my point of faith vs. fact. Reading your responses, I see that your faith in the scripture and God/Jesus results in accepting what is written as fact. Just as I look at what is written in science as fact, you look at what is written in scripture as fact.

Of course, my inclination would be to argue that science literature has more evidence to support it than scripture. However, this would be fallacious as more is quantitative and not qualitative. When I put 3 sugar packs in my coffee, it is sweeter than if I put in 2. They are both, however, sweet. Thus I admit that I am no more justified in qualifying truth as you good people.

After all, you all believe in what you believe to be true because that makes sense to you. Assuming you are not all insane , I conclude that you all have good and reasonable reasons to hold your belief.

I will argue no further, as you all are no less qualified than I am in reaching your conclusion (you may argue that you are more qualified, but that's my whole point...the subjective nature of this when comparing beliefs). My agreement really is irrelevant, and I do not want, nor intend to force my skepticism upon you.

You all are happy, and I would be absolutely wrong and mean to try to break that down. (Like I even could! ;))

I do want to thank you all, as I think I found what I was looking for. I'm slightly disappointed that I wasn't inspired to reconsider religion. Although I suppose I was silly to entertain the idea that a spiritual awakening could occur over an internet forum with no in-the-flesh interaction. That the internet is not the most spiritual environment is probably something we can agree on. I can see now that the only way to achieve this is to not seek it. I don't think I can look for religion, and except any results. If something happens, then that's how it will work. As far as I can tell, one doesn't schedule a spiritual awakening. It just happens. Sort of like finding a missing remote. I only find the difficult ones when I stop looking and go about my life.

At this point, my core system of logic and belief assessment is incompatible with specific religion. It's not more right, it's just mine. I know this because while reading your replies, my natural inclination was to immediately form counterarguments. I won't bore you with the futile retort. It would be like arguing if the following image is a young lady, or an old woman.

View attachment 2271

 

[jasoncran]

honest response.

 

[Tofu]

I may not agree with you but I respect your right to disagree. I just want to caution you before you go down the path that truth and fact are relative, that no one is more qualified than another to judge these things and therefor each person determines what is truth (or "right") or not by their own beliefs / actions. There is real, scientific and historical fact in the Bible which Christians base their faith upon, as I mentioned in my previous post, that warrants belief and points to the things that do require genuine faith (that is not based on empirical or historical evidence). Please consider these things and do the research if you are at all compelled / interested, research from both sides of the issue / debate / argument.

Also, if you do nothing else please give serious consideration to reading the book I mentioned, The Universe Next Door by James Sire, it really will give you a lot of insight into the various world views, an example of some world views being Christianity, Secular Humanism [which is a subdivision of Naturalism], Islam, and other various world religions)

 

[JMJ]

I suppose this is what I expected to hear. I am not saying your wrong.... but this doesn't answer my concern. Why did early hominids not have souls? Why did God create early hominids if they were not to evolve into man. At what point did they acquire a soul? If they did not evolve into humans, where did they go? How do you explain the strikingly genetic similarities? It would seem that even acknowledging early hominids is incompatible with the concept of creation. To me, this is a belief, not a statement of fact.

Apparently it was not in God's plan for these early species to have souls.

How do you know that hominids did not evolve into men? (I'm not saying that they did or did not.) Natural selection to a certain degree is in God's plan. I think that God can use evolution in His plan if He chooses to. The story of Adam explains how God gave the first human being a spiritual consciousness that could and did have a relationship with Him. Adam was the first of the species of mankind because he was the first to be given an immortal spirit and a conscience.

Couldn't agree more. But it would be coy to assume that childhood religious and political upbringing does not factor in to the decision. While I cannot prove it, I would bet a large sum of money that the conversion rate to Christianity or Judaism in Saudi Arabia is far less than the conversion rate in America. Thus, my logic assumes that environmental cues are more important than spiritual cues, thus, my statement that religion is heavily dependent on priming, and not of God.

Not too many people desire to become martyrs so environmental restrictions such as those imposed in Saudi Arabia and Iran and other Muslim countries do play an important part. However, God called Abraham out of a pagan land in order to give his posterity their own land, so we do know that nothing is impossible with God.

God is sovereign and He loves His creation and He desires a relationship with each member of mankind and so if a humble person diligently seeks Him, he will surely find Him.

Historical context betrays my good faith in this selection. This was a time when the Church was a major political entity right? I am not fluent in this time period so please excuse any faulty statements. To me, I cannot separate political ambition from religious righteousness during this era.

The Church greatly influenced politics at one time in its history. But, governments were never under complete control of the Church. The Church determined doctrine and the State either ruled with this doctrine as its model or else the State did not. Henry the VIII comes to mind as one who did not. Many wars throughout history were waged in the names of different religions, not all of these wars were pleasing to God.

Agree with the first part, as far as we know. Remember, we once thought the world was flat. Galileo was threatened by the church to cease his promotion of a non Geo-centric universe because it was perceived to be a threat to the peoples faith. In way am I saying God didn't create everything. But, I also don't understand how a new scientific understanding cannot be attributed to God. Why can't God create things like evolution and proton proton fusion reaction that powers stars? Also, while I believe that God, whatever or whomever that may be, was vital to our existence, I cannot say with any certainty that he must have been required. I simply do not know. To say that you know turns religion into science, and not faith. Can't people accept that it is faith and not fact that is the flesh and bone of religion?

Galileo had his issues with the Church, but his issues were not as simplistic as you suggest.

Energy cannot create itself. Matter cannot create itself. There is no war between science and religion. Science pertains to the created universe. Religion pertains to the spiritual realm. Since man is composed of both matter and spirit, both are important to study. Science is the study of what already exists and also the study of how to change what already exists into something new.

I believe that God did create a type of evolution. There is scientific evidence for this. Science cannot explain everything there is to know about God.

I have faith because I know by reason and logic that there is a God. My faith is my relationship with God.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was pointing out how many specific current religious elements seem to be a copy of archaic beliefs. My point was that a possible conclusion is that our current religions were simply a rehash of old. In other words, people arbitrarily chose key elements to include in their "new" religion, for personal and political reasons. I don't think this is right, and I hope that it isn't right, but that does not mean it isn't a concern of mine. :eeeekkk

Adam had a special relationship with God until he was kicked out of the Garden. He repented of his sin, but he still was not reconciled with God to the extent that he first had with Him in the Garden.

Cain, who murdered Abel, is the father of the Gentile nations and his brother Seth continues the lineage that begat Abraham who became the father of the chosen people of God.

Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices to God before there were any pagan religions. So all pagan worship is a perversion of true worship. All things such as candles that are used in the worship of the true God are candles that are used for a good purpose. All things such as candles that are used in the worship of a false god are candles that are used for an evil purpose. So, if a candle is used in the worship of God, the candle is used for the good purpose of worshiping God. If a candle is used in the worship of a false god, the candle is used for the evil purpose of worshiping a false god. Most pagan religions do copy each other, but they are all a perversion of the first worship of God. The Christian religion is both the fulfillment and the offspring of the Jewish religion. For example: The Christian religion abolished animal sacrifices because of the everlasting sacrifice of Jesus Christ and so the animal sacrifices are no longer needed. Jesus' once and for all sacrifice abolished God's requirement for the continual, daily animal sacrifices.

No argument here! Every religion has people who use it for unrighteous personal and political gain. I did not mean to single out Christianity, my mistake!! It's only because the Inquisition/Crusades are such obvious examples. No offense intended.

I was not offended at all. History is history. We should study history so that we will not allow the repetition of its evil components. We should study history so that we can use this knowledge to improve the future.

Amen. Thank you for that encouragement.

You are welcome.

And I respect that. That is faith, not fact, and I commend your honesty! I would, however, be careful to place a correlation between martyrdom and truth. I don't have to mention 911 and Islamic suicide attacks do I?

You are astute.

I should have explained more fully. The writers of the NT gospel were actual eye-witnesses to the miracles of Jesus Christ. They actually participated in His teaching ministry. Some saw Him crucified. He taught them for 40 days after He rose from the dead. They personally saw Him ascend into heaven. From Peter and the other apostles and their successors to the present, this faith has remained and it will remain until Jesus returns at His Second Coming. And, this is why I am a Christian.

 

[celo]

I may not agree with you but I respect your right to disagree.

Isn't American awesome?

I just want to caution you before you go down the path that truth and fact are relative, that no one is more qualified than another to judge these things and therefor each person determines what is truth (or "right") or not by their own beliefs / actions.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you cautioning me about the truth/fact relativity, and cautioning about the notion of people being equally qualified to formulate their own beliefs? Or only cautioning the former, and proposing the later?

If the first is what you meant, then I would respectfully disagree. The fact that our species has no direct means of observing the outside world makes true human objectivity impossible. (If you want an explanation to this debatable claim let me know). Therefore, I believe that there is no such thing as black and white truth. This is more philosophy than religion, however. Besides, the idea that our understanding is a dynamic process implies that certainty has no real absolute meaning. I hold that truth is indeed relative, and not absolute. (Is the image I posted of an old lady, a young woman, or both? -- Show that image to an ancient society that existed when people didn't live beyond age 30, and the "old lady" doesn't even exist as far as they know.) If it were absolute, I would imagine our world would get along far better than it does. What would be the point of debate, if objective truth was dominant? Either you accept the evidence of absolute truth, or you are insane. The reality is that opposing debaters place a higher level of truth on their supporting evidence cannot be ignored. Some things are probably absolutely true (my Sister punches me, I tell my mom that she punched me).

Now, in line with my philosophy, the paradox is that if nothing is for certain, than it is possible that things are certain! This, however, makes my head hurt, and I would prefer to ignore it. :eeeekkk This specific topic is more confusing than quantum mechanics, and I probably didn't articulate myself properly.

If the second option is what you meant, then it seems to be a contradiction. Absolute truth would mean that we cannot be right in choosing what we believe individually to be correct.

There is real, scientific and historical fact in the Bible which Christians base their faith upon, as I mentioned in my previous post, that warrants belief and points to the things that do require genuine faith (that is not based on empirical or historical evidence). Please consider these things and do the research if you are at all compelled / interested, research from both sides of the issue / debate / argument.

According to you, which, in line with what I was trying to convey, is no less reasonable than my disagreement, according to me. This was my whole point after all. It is the faith in absolute truth that is incompatible with me. Hence, why I feel specific religion would not work, for me.

You may be 100% right, my point is that I do not know, and it is against my nature to feel 100% certainty. I don't disagree with you believing in absolute truth, I disagree with you cautioning me against my belief in relative truth. That said, as one who does believe in absolute truth, your response in natural. All I ask is that you understand that I understand your position. I know that you believe what you posted. My point is that I have already considered your point before formulating mine. Agree to disagree?

Also, if you do nothing else please give serious consideration to reading the book I mentioned, The Universe Next Door by James Sire, it really will give you a lot of insight into the various world views, an example of some world views being Christianity, Secular Humanism [which is a subdivision of Naturalism], Islam, and other various world religions

)

If it touches on this subject, I would love to read it..when time permits. Busy college student that I am. But I did write it down, so thank you for the suggestion!


I don't know how I came off, or even if I made my point. This topic is something that still confuses me. I can tell you how I tried to come off? Respectful, sincere, and friendly. Hopefully I accomplished that!

 

[celo]

JMJ, I like your response. It really helps me to understand my position better. In fact, if were capable of, and had the faith that you have in taking the scripture at face value, I would have typed almost exactly what you have.

That's the bottom line I suppose. My questioning the validity of the Bible mean that I simply cannot use it as evidence for myself.

And maybe, I wish that I could? If I could do that one thing, then everything would seem perfectly logical and believable, and I would have no difficulty in sharing your view. But, it is what it is, and I am OK with that.

Please understand that I am in no way saying it's wrong. For me, I cannot justify a MAJOR life change based on something that I question.

I suppose the truth is irrelevant for me. How can I be a good Jew or Christian, if I doubt the source of the very foundation of said religions? What would be important would be if I could have faith that it is absolutely true.

I'll describe my before and after perspective since visiting this forum, to illustrate the impact you all had.

Before: I am happy that I am skeptical. There is no way the Bible is true, even if God exists. People who believe it is all true are not only naive, but choose to live in ignorance of more plausible alternatives. I pity them for wasting their time. Furthermore, why do they always have to be so self-righteous and invasive in other people's affairs? Major turn off, religion.

Now: Maybe skepticism is holding me back from a better life that I cannot imagine? People believe so strongly in the Bible, and that amount of faith in something greater than themselves is admirable. The pity may be that my skepticism prevents me from ever realizing something that may be better than I could imagine. I am still; however, quite content with my skepticism, and will continue life open to the possibility that I may one day find something of value in religion. While I used to attribute religion with judgmental intolerance, this is a human attribute that unfortunately is the result of our condition, and not religion. People may justify their intolerance by quoting the Bible, but these people would probably be far worse if they were not religious. After all, wasn't I myself guilty of judgement?

 

[JMJ]

JMJ,.....

Now: Maybe skepticism is holding me back from a better life that I cannot imagine? People believe so strongly in the Bible, and that amount of faith in something greater than themselves is admirable. The pity may be that my skepticism prevents me from ever realizing something that may be better than I could imagine. I am still; however, quite content with my skepticism, and will continue life open to the possibility that I may one day find something of value in religion. While I used to attribute religion with judgmental intolerance, this is a human attribute that unfortunately is the result of our condition, and not religion. People may justify their intolerance by quoting the Bible, but these people would probably be far worse if they were not religious. After all, wasn't I myself guilty of judgement?

Faith is a decision of the will. If a person humbly and continually asks God to show him/her that He is real, He will surely answer in His own time.

Many people (present company excepted) who claim to be either skeptics or atheists do not really want to know the truth because if they found the truth, then they might feel obligated to change their lives and since they do not desire to change their lives, they choose to continue in their unbelief.

Every person makes his own free will choice.

I've enjoyed corresponding with you.

 

[childeye]

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to respond with thoughtful posts, I really do appreciate it.

The only retort I will make is in regards to my post about extraterrestrial life. My point wasn't to argue our place and origin in the universe, but to state my amazement in the coincidence of human and earth-specific qualities in the Bible. To me, this seems to ignore the very major probability of life being quite common throughout the cosmos. Thus my conclusion that it seems to be of human origin.

I see there being a very good counterargument upon further thought. If the Bible was written by man, and inspired by God's direct communication, then it would make complete sense that the scripture is earth-specific. After all, why would God even mention other life or give a "universal" version of his will? There would be no point to this in respect to the Bible's point.

As such, I concede that my argument holds no more water than the contrary. I choose to accept the former; however, I see just as much reason to dismiss it in favor of the later. Chalk it up to opinion.

I think I also learned something with respect to my point of faith vs. fact. Reading your responses, I see that your faith in the scripture and God/Jesus results in accepting what is written as fact. Just as I look at what is written in science as fact, you look at what is written in scripture as fact.

Of course, my inclination would be to argue that science literature has more evidence to support it than scripture. However, this would be fallacious as more is quantitative and not qualitative. When I put 3 sugar packs in my coffee, it is sweeter than if I put in 2. They are both, however, sweet. Thus I admit that I am no more justified in qualifying truth as you good people.

After all, you all believe in what you believe to be true because that makes sense to you. Assuming you are not all insane , I conclude that you all have good and reasonable reasons to hold your belief.

I will argue no further, as you all are no less qualified than I am in reaching your conclusion (you may argue that you are more qualified, but that's my whole point...the subjective nature of this when comparing beliefs). My agreement really is irrelevant, and I do not want, nor intend to force my skepticism upon you.

You all are happy, and I would be absolutely wrong and mean to try to break that down. (Like I even could! ;))

I do want to thank you all, as I think I found what I was looking for. I'm slightly disappointed that I wasn't inspired to reconsider religion. Although I suppose I was silly to entertain the idea that a spiritual awakening could occur over an internet forum with no in-the-flesh interaction. That the internet is not the most spiritual environment is probably something we can agree on. I can see now that the only way to achieve this is to not seek it. I don't think I can look for religion, and except any results. If something happens, then that's how it will work. As far as I can tell, one doesn't schedule a spiritual awakening. It just happens. Sort of like finding a missing remote. I only find the difficult ones when I stop looking and go about my life.

At this point, my core system of logic and belief assessment is incompatible with specific religion. It's not more right, it's just mine. I know this because while reading your replies, my natural inclination was to immediately form counterarguments. I won't bore you with the futile retort. It would be like arguing if the following image is a young lady, or an old woman.

View attachment 2656

The Truth and enlightenment that God gives, is in the expressed character and displayed Love of His son. Why is this necessary? Because at the heart of mankinds sin is a corrupt image of God's character.

People don't see nor realize the undeniable fact that whatever image of God we hold defines our moral standards of right and wrong. Nor do most people even comprehend such a definition of God as an absolute. Nonetheless we all have an image of God whether we admit it or not.

Hence Christianity is not a religion but a revealing of the person of God. To know Him through His son is simply reading what he said, how he judged, what he valued, and how he cared for others. To know that this is how God is, will bring you great joy and bring you to the reason why we should all love Love. When you come to know Christ you will know yourself, for he is our confidence.