Help a confused Jew

[celo]

Hello all! New member here.

I did not introduce myself properly because I don't plan on staying very long. I say this for several reasons (emphasis on plan as the word's definition includes unforeseeable changes):

1. I value honesty and candor.
2. As this is my first post, I wish to avoid being perceived as inflammatory.

To save those uninterested a boring read, here is my point and purpose:

I am re-questioning my faith.
I was born and raised Jewish. Not very religious, but went to a Jewish elementary school, Bar Mitzvah'd, kept Kosher until high school. Mother was raised Christian and converted when she was 19, before she met my father (strangely enough! ;)). I'm 24 btw.

Naturally, I was always curious about the "other" religion, from which my mother converted. From an early age, I was both fortunate and unfortunate to posses a high level or empathy, an inexhaustible curiosity, and the natural ability(curse?) to see both sides of the coin. I believe I was around 8 years old when I seriously asked my parents why they "chose" Judaism over Christianity.

As I grew, the implications of this questions changed. When I was 12, I decided that (to my 12 year old brain) the fact that my parents chose one religion over another meant that both religions were wrong. How can someone just choose? How can two mutually exclusive systems that are founded on faith coexist? The idea that my mom all of a sudden decided that Christianity was wrong, and that Judaism was right, was a ridiculous, illogical, and possibly even hypocritical notion. That she did so for no external reason whatsoever reinforces this point.

To illustrate my logic, this was my though process: My mom was born Christian -> She believed Christianity was right -> She decided it was wrong -> She decided Judaism was right -> Most people are born into religion, not converts -> therefore, the same person would have a different belief based simply on Parent religion -> Either one religion is right, and everyone else is insane -> or, religion is wrong overall.

This is child logic, and I fully recognize the fallacies in reason. On the Contrary, this was my instinct, and I have currently fully developed my disbelief in religion. Also, please not how I did not say God, but religion.

This is where I need your help. I would like to very much get more involved with a religion (even thinking about your faith!). Being a man who is logical to the core, I need help to break down said logic which prevents me from truly believing. Now, as a man of science, I am fully open to the idea that logic and science are constraints on the human condition.

Is it not logical to say that: The religious realm is governed by something that transcends logic, thus, one cannot apply logic in determining any religious truths? Sort of how one cannot apply general relativity on the micro scale, and quantum mechanics on the macro scale.

Here is a list of what prevents me from really taking religion as seriously as I might want to. Please, tear them apart. ed!

1. Regarding the progress of man, it was recognized by early hominids that a clan or tribal society fared better when it came to their survival. Eventually, our early ancestors recognized the need for rules as rules again increased their ability to survive. It would be detrimental to the members if they were allowed to kill one another for no reason, to hoard food, to hoard shelter, to not share in the burdens of survival. These are all moral decisions that eventually became hard wired into our evolution long before any of the modern religions arrived on the scene. Not only do we see such behavior in the human race but it is evidenced in many members of the animal kingdom. And as far as we know, these are instinctive reactions hard wired into their genetic code.

2. There are many religions, they cannot all be right, and one only believes his is right because he believes or was born into it. The former is circular logic, the latter is nurture.

3. The Bible is an amalgam of stories written long after the death of Christ. The meeting at Nicea of church officials picked and chose what parts of many writings by many would become part of the New Testment. There was a tremendous amount of censorship and the outright ignoring of the writings of many who had contributed to the history of the Bible and until this day, those writings are ignored and in fact banned by the Church. With that being the historical case, how can anything in the Bible (New Testament I'm addressing) be relied upon to contain any accuracy ot truth for that matter? What was retained was simply a political decision as opposed to a religious decision.

4. As a species, we are sentient of our own mortality. It appears that religion is thus a natural condition of humanity as a means of both accepting our inevitable death, and of answering the question Why?

5. I won't go into details, but almost every religion contains an uncanny similarity to ancient pagan beliefs. This leads to me conclude that new religions (on the total time scale) are simply a rehash of the tried and true used by individuals for their own means, or simply that the origins were forgotten, and are followed based on "tradition." Case in point, the inquisition. I doubt many of the inquisitors were very good Christians. How can a good Christian torture or coerce the unwilling into their beliefs? I believe this is directly stated NOT to do this in the Bible. There is clear precedent for religion being used as a means of power and control, in probably all religions. What better than to tell someone they this will happen if they don't do this, and then deny them access to actual source (Bible, scriptures before mass translations were allowed, and they weren't even allowed at first!) As Jesus was a Jew, he would have been the target of the Church as well during those dark times had he come back. This seems to be totally against everything! My point is that the precedent exists. I am no way talking about the religion...just people who abused it.

6. Priming. A psychological phenomenon where a suggestive idea is often realized by misinterpreting external stimuli, sort of like the self-fulfilling prophecy. I cannot forget this every time I try to "pray and listen." Is that God talking, or is that part of the 90% of sensory input that doesn't get consciously processed by the brain that I have primed myself to misinterpret? Just like those ambiguous blotter images, or even the game "what does that cloud look like?" I highly doubt a North Korean would say wow! That cloud looks just like a 1972 dodge Charger.......they have no concept of what that means, and thus cannot see it. They may say it looks our great leader descending from the sky on his creation. Clearly wrong, but it's what they know, believe, and are primed to interpret.

6. Last but not least. X inconstancy is X because its God's plan/works in mysterious ways. Or, X inconsistency is X because Y says so. Or, as a test of faith. If I am questioning in my head the validity of the Bible, I cannot simply say that the Bible is true because is says so in the Bible. Circular logic.


Please, can someone put these points down? I really would look to get over these obstacles

 

[Stormcrow]

If I am questioning in my head the validity of the Bible, I cannot simply say that the Bible is true because is says so in the Bible. Circular logic.

But the Bible isn't the only thing that testifies to its truthfulness. A perfect example of this is something we've just been discussing on another thread: the destruction of Damascus and Israel's northern kingdom at the hands of the Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser III. This event is not only documented in Second Kings, but is corroborated by Assyrian writings, too.

This event was prophesied some 8-12 years before it occurred in 732 BC.

Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah (or Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1), the kings of Judah. Uzziah reigned fifty-two years in the middle of the 8th century BC, and Isaiah must have begun his career a few years before Uzziah's death, probably in the 740s BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah

If Isaiah's prophecy were simply a "one off", we could dismiss it as coincidence or luck. But the prophet Amos also prophesied of this event.

Before becoming a prophet, Amos was a sheep herder and a sycamore fig farmer.[1] Amos' prior professions and his claim "I am not a prophet nor a son of a prophet" (7:14) indicate that Amos was not from the school of prophets, which Amos claims makes him a true prophet (7:15).
His prophetic career began in 750 BCE out of the town of Tekoa, in Judah, south of Jerusalem.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_(prophet)#cite_note-Coogan-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_(prophet)#cite_note-Coogan-0Despite being from the southern kingdom of Judah Amos' prophetic message was aimed at the Northern Kingdom of Israel, particularly the cities of Samaria and Bethel.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_(prophet)

And these are not the only fulfilled prophecies in the Bible.

While the secular historian can tell you that Tiglath Pileser III conquered much of the Holy Land, Syria, Babylon, and part of Persia, and while he can tell you why these things happened from a geo-political view, the Bible focuses, instead, on the choices men make that affect themselves, their people, and their nation, and how these choices are viewed and treated by God.

What the secular historian can't tell you (because it's not in his purview to do so), is that God sent these messengers - called prophets - to warn people of the consequences of their actions.

Now you may not believe this to be true, but here's the thing: these prophets did and many were killed for speaking the truth they claimed to receive from God to power.

So not only do we have the testimony from secular history of fulfilled prophecy, but the behavior of these men, who believed so strongly in what they were told to do by God, that they counted their own lives as less important than the job they were given.

Is there any truth you hold so dearly that you would pay for sharing it with your life?

Many have and that, in no small part, is what the history of Christianity - through Judaism - is all about. That is what the Bible - in no small part - is all about.

Hope this addressed at least one of your questions.

 

[smaller]

Please, can someone put these points down? I really would look to get over these obstacles

Perhaps a larger point is that within us all there is a desire to both love and be loved. It's a desire of our formation. Not saying your 'question list' isn't invalid, but there are other more interesting matters to think on.

God in Christ Is: and any subjective viewer can insert innumerable responses here. At some point a person in subjectivity wants release from their own subjectivity.

God in Christ is that. Not saying Judaism doesn't have a somewhat similar reflection. They had and have His Words as well, and the partialist sights are really what we all come to 'deal with.'

enjoy!

smaller

 

[for_his_glory]

God has nothing to do with any form of mans religion, traditions or doctrines as God is about us having a personal relationship with his son Christ Jesus who has redeemed us from the curse of sin by taking all our sin upon himself that we may live by the righteousness of God to have eternal life with Him. It's all through faith that we believe who Jesus said he was and is and applying His word to our lives to know for a surety of His mercy and grace.

I have a class called Deception in Religion on my web site that will explain in more detail about religion that I think will help answer your questions. The address is at the bottom on my post and may God bless you on your quest for truth.

 

[Free]

Hello all! New member here.

I did not introduce myself properly because I don't plan on staying very long. I say this for several reasons (emphasis on plan as the word's definition includes unforeseeable changes):

1. I value honesty and candor.
2. As this is my first post, I wish to avoid being perceived as inflammatory.

Welcome to the forums!

1. Regarding the progress of man, it was recognized by early hominids that a clan or tribal society fared better when it came to their survival. Eventually, our early ancestors recognized the need for rules as rules again increased their ability to survive. It would be detrimental to the members if they were allowed to kill one another for no reason, to hoard food, to hoard shelter, to not share in the burdens of survival. These are all moral decisions that eventually became hard wired into our evolution long before any of the modern religions arrived on the scene. Not only do we see such behavior in the human race but it is evidenced in many members of the animal kingdom. And as far as we know, these are instinctive reactions hard wired into their genetic code.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, other than perhaps arguing that morality came from evolution, negating the need for a God as the moral lawgiver. It seems to me that your argument here is circular and largely based on assumption. Perhaps you can clarify, at least for me, what you are getting at here.

2. There are many religions, they cannot all be right, and one only believes his is right because he believes or was born into it. The former is circular logic, the latter is nurture.

It's always interesting to hear this argument as atheists and agnostics readily apply it to religious belief systems but fail to apply it to their own worldview. People change belief systems all the time which leads to the following problems with this argument:

1. People are capable of believing something different from the environment in which they were raised, like your mom.

2. At least some of those who are "born into" a religion, or religious environment, have chosen to remain in that religion based on their own self study and not merely because their parents believe it.

In short, this argument is actually quite weak, much weaker than most realize.

3. The Bible is an amalgam of stories written long after the death of Christ. The meeting at Nicea of church officials picked and chose what parts of many writings by many would become part of the New Testment. There was a tremendous amount of censorship and the outright ignoring of the writings of many who had contributed to the history of the Bible and until this day, those writings are ignored and in fact banned by the Church. With that being the historical case, how can anything in the Bible (New Testament I'm addressing) be relied upon to contain any accuracy ot truth for that matter? What was retained was simply a political decision as opposed to a religious decision.

Although a common view, perpetuated by liberal theology and the media, it is not very historically accurate. I hope I can bring at least some clarification.

I'm sure you would agree, or at least I hope you would, that truth is important. The early Church--and the Church through all Christian history--believed that, especially regarding matters of theology and doctrine. Religious claims are to be taken with the utmost seriousness due to the nature of the claims--literally matters of life and death.

In the 2nd century, Gnostic and heretical writings began appearing which used "Gospel of" or "Acts of" in order to appeal apostolic. Then came the Marcion canon, which rejected the OT books, and much of what is now in the NT. He had so much aberrant theology that he was one of the first declared heretics. The early Church, now recognizing the need to preserve the truths of Christianity, began compiling those lists of Scripture which were considered inspired and authoritative.

The first response to Marcion's canon is the Muratorian canon, which contained 19 (and most likely 21) of the current NT books, as well as four others. The only unknown is whether or not he included the first two gospels since the first pages are missing. However, due to the wording that remains, it is very likely that he included all the four gospels we currently have.

http://www.christian-history.org/muratorian-canon.html

Interestingly, none of the canons of Eusebius, Athanasius, or the Council of Carthage has rejected any of the four gospels and non have added any of the spurious ones. The NT canon we have actually comes from the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. And of course there are some differences in the OT canon between Protestants and Catholics, with the Catholic one having more books but containing all the Protestant ones.

As for the books of the NT, they were hardly written "long after the death of Christ." They were all written within the lifetimes of those who were witnesses to Christ's ministry and his death and resurrection; all written before 100 AD, and most much earlier.

I think you are also likely referring to the Gnostic "gospels" and other such writings which are accepted by liberal "Christians". The problems with the Gnostic "gospels," apart from them not even containing the gospel message, are their late dates, disagreements and contradictions with the four canonical gospels, and sometimes just bizarre stories. The dating is far from agreed upon, as the ranges are huge and generally mid-2nd century and later, much later than the four canonical gospels.

The determination of canon was a religious decision, not a political one. There was no randomness to it, no censorship. There were at least four main criteria used:

1. Apostlicity - written by an Apostle or close associate of an Apostle (Apostolic derivation).
2. Catholicity - is the book accepted by the Church at large?
3. Orthodoxy - does the book agree with orthodox teaching?
4. Inspiration - is the book inspired? This is hard to determine but does it speak of Christ and are the contents generally edifying?

And the Council of Nicaea did not determine canon--it was for coming to an understanding regarding Christology. So, as you can see, the early Church took truth seriously and sought to accurately define it and preserve it against those outside forces which would have otherwise corrupted it and brought it to utter ruin.

 

[Free]

This:

God has nothing to do with any form of mans religion, traditions or doctrines

I have a class called Deception in Religion on my web site that will explain in more detail about religion that I think will help answer your questions. The address is at the bottom on my post and may God bless you on your quest for truth.

There is deception both inside and outside religion.

 

[Tofu]

I think one of the most important points to address right now is just what is religion, and more specifically Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong but the gist that I'm getting is that you believe religion is something invented by man, a byproduct of evolution and trying to cope with death. However you are questioning that, which is why you've come here asking for other points of view.

Religion (as defined by the dictionary) is a set of beliefs and practices, however the question is where did those beliefs originate. In a nutshell, Christians believe that at the beginning of creation Adam and Eve sinned and brought upon all of their ancestors that sin nature, and we have subsequently sinned according to our nature. According to God's law, justice and righteousness that sin must be punished and paid for. God, in his love and mercy set down his only begotten son (who is fully God and fully human by being born of a virgin woman, conceived by the Holy Spirit without a human father to pass down that sin nature to him) who lived in perfect obedience to the Father to the point of death on a cross, at which point God took sin and placed it upon his son and punished his son in our place. Jesus was placed in a tomb and on the third day rose again offering this free gift of forgiveness of sins if any will believe in him, and they will be raised again by the same power that rose him again at the end of time to eternal life.

We see here that our beliefs come as a revelation from God himself, the one and only true God and not from men. We believe that the Bible is a divine-human book (as one of my professors puts it), inspired by God (the content) using men to write it incorporating their own writing styles and personality. Considering the content comes from God himself, God cannot be wrong and therefor the content is infallible. If you want I can send you a copy of a class that I prepared on the reliability of the Bible (Its a word document done in bullet point style) that discusses how the canon came to be and can address that question and give you some more information. Through email as an attachment or w/e method you want.

However, at the same time I don't want you to get the idea that this is some kind of blind faith, that when I put my faith in Christ and God's word (the Bible) that I hung my reason up at the door and branded anything that contrasts with it as heresy and excommunicate that person (which today's "intellectuals" do to anyone holding the view of intelligent design in today's universities and institutions, that just irks me). At first yes I did do just that, and you know what, even if that is all I did I would be firm in my belief because I have experiential knowledge. When I gave my life to Christ, something that I am sure I will never fully comprehend was done within me and he fundamentally changed my life. I gained a desire to follow him, to obey him, and was convicted of sin when I strayed. Not taboos, but true moral guilt. Example, if God himself came in a cloud to you one day in a field when no one was around, and gave you a scar / mark on your arm and then went away. Now, people around you can explain it away that it could have happened under any number of circumstances and can logically prove it in their own minds, however you have that experiential knowledge, you know it happened and how it happened, and there is nothing that can convince you otherwise. But I digress, since then I wanted to be able to say yes this is what I believe and I have good reason to believe it in contrast to the naturalism that permeates our culture in america. There are many who are perfectly content staying out of the realm of science, and there is nothing wrong with that, I'd personally rather hike the mountains of North Carolina living out of my backpack and share the love of Christ with people that way and not have to deal with apologetics.

For instance you mentioned evolution as the source of man's morality. I would disagree with that, for under that premise there is no true moral guilt or sin, for nothing is really wrong but rather a set of taboos imprinted in our DNA over time that were done so because it benefited the species. What Hitler did to the Jews wasn't really wrong, it simply wasn't productive to the furthering of the species or convenient to others. Rape isn't really wrong, its just something that doesn't benefit society and therefor it was shunned and frowned upon by consensus and developed into a taboo. I don't agree with evolution or the old earth theory, I believe in young earth creation as depicted in Genesis, we can discuss that more in detail if you want. Which also kind of leads into naturalism if you're at all interested in the naturalism - theism debate (another topic I'm learning about in college). I don't have all the answers, but I will do all that I can and try to point you to solid info from either side.

As far as the similarity to ancient pagan beliefs, as a Christian who holds that God created everything, was actively involved in passing down commandments, laws, etc to his creation (Including sacrifices meant to cover sin that must be repeated until the perfect sacrifice came in the form of Jesus Christ, as well as other sacrifices designed to please God out of the joy that the believer wanted to express in this way) and it is the beginning of all religions (beliefs). Pagans had a knowledge of God and twisted it into their own images and likenesses, what they wanted it to be, and all religions (other than the true one passed down by God, for if there is a false there has to be a true) are but a twisting, distorting or opposites of the truth. Considering there is one truth, a common ancestor, they are going to have similarities.

When talking about not all religions being true / being born into a religion, I don't believe anyone was born with a religion (Which I don't really think you were trying to say but just to be sure.) but rather they were taught it at some point in their life. And, of course anyone who is taught that theirs is right is going to believe that because their belief system requires it, I don't really see where the problem lies in that except that they can't all be right and there must be a single true one, but that shouldn't count out the possibility of any one of them being true. In the case of your mother as well, anyone who doesn't have that experiential knowledge of their life being changed by Christ, truly committing themselves to him in faith and being spiritually born again can very well change their mind because their knowledge is only based upon their personal logic. If there is no other evidence, someones mind can be changed, you see this everywhere, not only in religion and shouldn't be used against religion when this is simply a condition of man.

About people who contradicted their own beliefs, yeah, you'll find that anywhere and everywhere as well. The Bible says that there will be many false teachers, false prophets and anti-Christs, we are guaranteed to have people try to discredit Christianity and try to lead people away with false teaching, God said so himself.

The thing about priming, I'm not really studied up on that and not sure I can give reliable info. I don't fully understand your personal issue with it in regards to Christianity and these are kind of needed to go any further. I can think of a couple of examples in it in regards to history / science, which is simply assumptions. People know what they believe, and yes its going to influence their interpretation of data, fossils, etc. Its impossible to be completely objective, you can be open minded and willing to hear the other person out, but you always have some form of belief and influences your interpretation of the world / life.

Your final point, sometimes I think those answers are genuine and true, other times people do say stuff like that because they don't want to let it go and say they don't know or have an answer and aren't really interested in finding out, so they justify it to themselves by using those answers because otherwise it would drive them nuts. I find myself in that situation sometimes not that I won't admit I don't know, but I simply am not interested in going much further in science than I already am. I'm not going to go out and get a Ph.D or a masters degree in order to have the credentials and knowledge to fully flesh out a detailed answer and proof for all of my beliefs, if such a thing is possible. There are other people called to that arena by God, who has equipped them in that area and given them a passion for it to uphold his truths.

In the end, and its something I have to remind myself frequently, no amount of correct theology, doctrines, ideas or beliefs will bring about a relationship with God and the power to obey his commandments displayed through his word and the life of Jesus, or that fundamental change within us to even make us genuinely want to do such things and become the kind of person God wants us to be. Its something that God accomplishes through 1) the possibility because Jesus paid the price for our sin (not simply forgiven and forgotten), 2) his Holy Spirit and 3) whatever other means he uses (I'm not certain I have the knowledge / capacity to know it all). I pray that this has helped you in some way and I am praying for you that you will come to know God and the great love that he loved you that he would send his son to die for you to provide for your salvation. If I can help you in any other way please let me know.

 

[JMJ]

1. Regarding the progress of man, it was recognized by early hominids that a clan or tribal society fared better when it came to their survival. Eventually, our early ancestors recognized the need for rules as rules again increased their ability to survive. It would be detrimental to the members if they were allowed to kill one another for no reason, to hoard food, to hoard shelter, to not share in the burdens of survival. These are all moral decisions that eventually became hard wired into our evolution long before any of the modern religions arrived on the scene. Not only do we see such behavior in the human race but it is evidenced in many members of the animal kingdom. And as far as we know, these are instinctive reactions hard wired into their genetic code.

According to the Jewish religion, the Biblical timeline began with the ensoulment of Adam on the sixth day of Creation. The ensoulment of Adam is what is important in salvation history. Earlier Hominids did not have spiritual souls and so they are were not held accountable for their actions.

2. There are many religions, they cannot all be right, and one only believes his is right because he believes or was born into it. The former is circular logic, the latter is nurture.

There should come a time in each adult's life when he decides for himself what he believes regardless of what his parents believed. It is a reasonable person indeed who uses logic and reason to come to the conclusion that there can be only one true religion. It is then up to him to do his best to find out which one is true and then join it as a fervent member.

3. The Bible is an amalgam of stories written long after the death of Christ. The meeting at Nicea of church officials picked and chose what parts of many writings by many would become part of the New Testment. There was a tremendous amount of censorship and the outright ignoring of the writings of many who had contributed to the history of the Bible and until this day, those writings are ignored and in fact banned by the Church. With that being the historical case, how can anything in the Bible (New Testament I'm addressing) be relied upon to contain any accuracy ot truth for that matter? What was retained was simply a political decision as opposed to a religious decision.

Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide Jesus' Church into all truth, if a person is a Christian, then he believes that the writings that were chosen for the Old and New Testaments were chosen with the Holy Spirit's guidance. This was accomplished when the Church's leaders cast lots.

4. As a species, we are sentient of our own mortality. It appears that religion is thus a natural condition of humanity as a means of both accepting our inevitable death, and of answering the question Why?

Religion provides answers to questions that the natural sciences cannot answer such as: Who created us? We can look at our natural world and know that some intelligent being did create it since nature cannot create itself. We also know that no human being has that kind of power so it has to be a more intelligent being than we are. We call this superior being God.

5. I won't go into details, but almost every religion contains an uncanny similarity to ancient pagan beliefs. This leads to me conclude that new religions (on the total time scale) are simply a rehash of the tried and true used by individuals for their own means, or simply that the origins were forgotten, and are followed based on "tradition." Case in point, the inquisition. I doubt many of the inquisitors were very good Christians. How can a good Christian torture or coerce the unwilling into their beliefs? I believe this is directly stated NOT to do this in the Bible. There is clear precedent for religion being used as a means of power and control, in probably all religions. What better than to tell someone they this will happen if they don't do this, and then deny them access to actual source (Bible, scriptures before mass translations were allowed, and they weren't even allowed at first!) As Jesus was a Jew, he would have been the target of the Church as well during those dark times had he come back. This seems to be totally against everything! My point is that the precedent exists. I am no way talking about the religion...just people who abused it.

Good existed before evil. Evil is a perversion of good. Pagan beliefs are a perversion of true beliefs. There are many things common to all men. It is their use which determines whether they are good or evil. An altar used in the worship of God is an altar used for a good purpose. An altar used in the worship of a pagan god is an altar used for an evil purpose.

The Scriptures were copied by hand until the invention of the printing press. Therefore, it was extremely costly to buy a Bible and few people could afford one. Some early Bibles were even chained down to prevent their theft.

The inquisitions were used as a tool to prevent persons from losing their salvation. The Jews killed pagans to prevent their own people from taking on the sinful lifestyles of the pagans. Saul/Paul killed members of the Christian sect in order to keep the Jewish religion pure. Capital punishment for unbelievers was the norm throughout the world until the 1800's. The state has always had authority from God to use capital punishment. Whether it was (and is) always used wisely is another matter.

The Muslims today still practice capital punishment for non-believers of Islam.

6. Priming. A psychological phenomenon where a suggestive idea is often realized by misinterpreting external stimuli, sort of like the self-fulfilling prophecy. I cannot forget this every time I try to "pray and listen." Is that God talking, or is that part of the 90% of sensory input that doesn't get consciously processed by the brain that I have primed myself to misinterpret? Just like those ambiguous blotter images, or even the game "what does that cloud look like?" I highly doubt a North Korean would say wow! That cloud looks just like a 1972 dodge Charger.......they have no concept of what that means, and thus cannot see it. They may say it looks our great leader descending from the sky on his creation. Clearly wrong, but it's what they know, believe, and are primed to interpret.

An individual person will find his own answers if he is contrite and humble of heart. A person who seeks God with all his heart will find Him. A wise person does not rely on feelings or emotions to determine what he believes.

6. Last but not least. X inconstancy is X because its God's plan/works in mysterious ways. Or, X inconsistency is X because Y says so. Or, as a test of faith. If I am questioning in my head the validity of the Bible, I cannot simply say that the Bible is true because is says so in the Bible. Circular logic. (

I believe the Bible is true because I believe the testimonies of the men who wrote it. They were willing to die and most did die in defense of their belief in Jesus Christ and also in imitation of His death in obedience to the will of His Father in heaven.

 

[celo]

Wow! Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. When I have more time I will reply with a nice multiquote. But I will address and clarify a few things.

I'll admit I was a little hesitant to even post here being a non religious Jew.

If I were to describe my faith, I would say this:

I don't know, and currently think that I will never know if there is a God. I believe in all things science, such as evolution, general relativity, quantum mechanics, ect. I also believe in the scientific method. As such, I believe that any of my current beliefs are subject to change pending new evidence. This includes both science and religion. I try to stay open minded to the best of my abilities. That said, I have nothing against being religious. To me, faith and knowledgeable don't necessarily equate. For example, I am totally comfortable with believing in one religion, while still accepting that I don't know if it is right. Isn't that what defines faith anyways? If God came to the earth now, and held a "press conference" about one religion being right, faith would no longer apply. It would be fact, and all those who follow would be no different than an pilot trusting the aeronautical engineers who designed his plane. I suppose a big hurdle is how I percieve religious folk emphasizing fact over faith. Honestly, this seems to me to be silly, presumptuois, and intolerant. When arguing with a religious person, I am turned off by their statements of fact. If they were to say they didn't know but believed so and so to be their undertanding, I probably would be alot more attracted to the religion.

Unfortunately, and the obstacle that prevents me from being religious, is that this valuing of faith over certainty is not compatible with most religions. After all, a good Christian or Jew would never say this:
I am Christian because I have faith in my religion, although, I am no more right than anyone else with any other belief simply because I don't know what is right. I have faith in what is right, but understand that my faith is no more valid than any other persons faith. It seems that a requirement for religion, without any sugar coatng, is to believe that everyone else is wrong. I simply am not like that.

Maybe I am incompatible with religion based on this alone.

Lets take evolution as an example. This is in strong contrast with Genesis. Taken at face value, the two are incompatible. However, the way I see it, is that the Bible specifically says (my interpretatrion) that it is not a history book, or a "how things work" book. It is a guide to God and to living (I assume here that it is divine). The whole 6 days creation seems to be more of a point than a strict timeline. After all, if God can create the universe like I can toast a piece of bread, than why couldn't he "program" evolution? I don't see how the two are even related. The bible (to me) is about God's relationship with people, and has nothing to do with the specifics of how we got here. After all, if God wanted the Bible to be a detailed account and timeline into how the universe works, he probaly would have included a section that describes and qualifies himself as God. The fact that he gives himself no explanation makes me think that his whole point is not to give an explanation. Thus, specifics in how things work (science) have nothing to do with our relationship with the Almighty. This is especially true to me when I consider that God, being the most important entity in the Bible, gives himself no explanation. Why explain lesser things then?

The fact that religion sees science as incompatible is a major turn off, as I see them to be entirly unrelated. Dare I say that the aprehension appears to be a threat to people's faith. What I ask, is why?

Another major turn off is how the Bible is interpreted. Let's take homosexuality as an example. People point to the bible as an anti-homosexual reference. Corintheans 6:9-10. It would appear God doesn't like gays. However, this is based off a possibley incorrect interpretation. The term "arsenokoite," which is translated by some to homosexual, may actually have a different meaning, such as male prostitue. Then in 6:11, it continues to say, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." This seems to say that it is ok?

I don't see how one who uses the Bible to condemn homosexuality and not consider the fact that the Bible specifically says that we were created in God's image. If God is perfect, why did he create 10% of humans as Gay? Is God 1/10th Gay?

The issue is also heavily dependant on context, as Sodom may have been condemned for various behaviour not limited to homosexuality. Many even interpret homosexuality to be a specific reference to certain pagen rituals, and not homosexuality by itself. Again, these interpretations of scripture of often based on rare and highly archaic words. To assume that we know their true meaning as translated 100% correctly seems faulty.

What about David and Jonathan? Or Ruth and Nami? These relationships may have been sexual rather than platonic.

Now, I am by no means even close to an expert on the scripture, so I cannot use this as valid evidence or even form a proper argument on the subject. But I will say this:

Even if the Bible condemns homosexuals, does it not also condem disobidiant children? Why use the Bible to support prohibiton of homosexuality, and not also as a reason to stone their children? How can one pick and choose certain laws while ignoring others? To me, anyone who selectivly choses Bible laws to fit their own morals is acting like God himself. This hypocrasy is another major turn off.

"The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." -- Proverbs 30:17
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29

Frankly, I don't see those condemning homsexuality also supporting plucking their childrens eyes out.

I suppose it is the selectivly judgemental nature of religious humans that is the biggest obstacle for me. Those, however, who apply the laws to themselves, and do not concern themselvs with their opinion of what is sin with others, are a turn on! I have respect for those who "Keep their side of the street clean" while not judgeing their neighbors lawn.

 

[celo]

Awww. Now I am curious to see what Hitch said! I see it was deleted..... :o

 

[Hitch]

A direct quote of Jesus Christ as appears in Luke 18;17, KJB.

 

[celo]

According to the Jewish religion, the Biblical timeline began with the ensoulment of Adam on the sixth day of Creation. The ensoulment of Adam is what is important in salvation history. Earlier Hominids did not have spiritual souls and so they are were not held accountable for their actions.

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.

There should come a time in each adult's life when he decides for himself what he believes regardless of what his parents believed. It is a reasonable person indeed who uses logic and reason to come to the conclusion that there can be only one true religion. It is then up to him to do his best to find out which one is true and then join it as a fervent member.

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.

Since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide Jesus' Church into all truth, if a person is a Christian, then he believes that the writings that were chosen for the Old and New Testaments were chosen with the Holy Spirit's guidance. This was accomplished when the Church's leaders cast lots.

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.

Religion provides answers to questions that the natural sciences cannot answer such as: Who created us? We can look at our natural world and know that some intelligent being did create it since nature cannot create itself. We also know that no human being has that kind of power so it has to be a more intelligent being than we are. We call this superior being 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?

Good existed before evil. Evil is a perversion of good. Pagan beliefs are a perversion of true beliefs. There are many things common to all men. It is their use which determines whether they are good or evil. An altar used in the worship of God is an altar used for a good purpose. An altar used in the worship of a pagan god is an altar used for an evil purpose.

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

The inquisitions were used as a tool to prevent persons from losing their salvation. The Jews killed pagans to prevent their own people from taking on the sinful lifestyles of the pagans. Saul/Paul killed members of the Christian sect in order to keep the Jewish religion pure. Capital punishment for unbelievers was the norm throughout the world until the 1800's. The state has always had authority from God to use capital punishment. Whether it was (and is) always used wisely is another matter.

The Muslims today still practice capital punishment for non-believers of Islam.

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.

An individual person will find his own answers if he is contrite and humble of heart. A person who seeks God with all his heart will find Him. A wise person does not rely on feelings or emotions to determine what he believes.

Amen. Thank you for that encouragement.

I believe the Bible is true because I believe the testimonies of the men who wrote it. They were willing to die and most did die in defense of their belief in Jesus Christ and also in imitation of His death in obedience to the will of His Father in heaven.

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?

 

[celo]

I forgot another major concern I had.

There are around 1,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe. Each galaxy also contains around 1,000,000,000,000 stars. Thus, there are an estimated 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. There is a high probability that each star system contains one more more planets. Even with a tiny probability of life occurring per planet, there is most likely a gargantuan amount of intelligent life in our cosmos. It would seem that the major religions not only stress our importance, but the human-like qualities of the divine. Jesus had 2 arms and 2 legs correct?

My issue here is that I believe there is a tremendous amount of life in the universe. Doesn't it strike any one as an odd coincidence that the creator of 10x10^24 star systems, each with their own planets, just happened to relate to earth-specific qualities?

My conclusion is that, independent on my assessment of God's existence, our idea of God (religion) seems to ignore all other possible life in the universe. Thus, it seems that the way we reach God (religion) is entirely artificial and man made.

On a water world where intelligent life developed in the water, as an example, Genesis would be obsolete, as there is no concept or existence of land above the water.

This doesn't mean there is no God. But it makes specific religion very hard for me to swallow.

Now the counterarguments would be that there is no other life in the universe, that extraterrestrial life is not intelligent, or that extraterrestrial life have no souls, and are thus irrelevant and of no importance to God, which is why it is specifically catered to us humans.

While the above is plausible, it seems far less likely to be the case, in my opinion. Assuming everything in Religion is correct, what possible purpose is there to such a GIGANTIC universe with high, almost 100%, chance of life being common? I cannot understand why God would create a star 13 billion light years away from earth with no possible way of ever reaching, interacting, or communicating with those of us on the good Earth.

The counterargument to that is that there is no reason, that it doesn't matter, or that we don't understand God's plan. Hopefully by now you can see why I don't buy the counterargument.

I forgot another counterargument: That is that each world with intelligent life received their own Bible and Jesus on a case by case basis, that was specifically tailored to each world. The reasons to support this would be in the nature of the Bible valuing morals and relationships over history and science. Still don't buy it, however it is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Levi]

The best I can do is this:

A Rabbi a pastor and an atheist where out on a lake fishing when a man suddenly walks passed them on the water.

"its God" says the pastor

"No it isn't" says the Rabbi, its a man and there is a suitable explanation for this.

meanwhile the atheist is looking at both of them like they are nuts and says

"what are the two of you talking about"?

 

[Levi]

........

While the above is plausible, it seems far less likely to be the case, in my opinion. Assuming everything in Religion is correct, what possible purpose is there to such a GIGANTIC universe with high, almost 100%, chance of life being common? I cannot understand why God would create a star 13 billion light years away from earth with no possible way of ever reaching, interacting, or communicating with those of us on the good Earth.

.........

According to the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis which is the first book of the Tora, Man was created in the garden of Eden but he sinned and fell.

I'm sure you will know this. But it answers your question as to why there is now no way of reaching or enjoying the majority of the creation.

man was confined to a mortal body abd as such is confined upon the earth. We are just passing time now until the final number and judgement begins. Once that has passed God will recreate the Heavens and the Earth and the entire creation will be open to those who believed.

"The Heavens declare His Glory"

we don't know the full extent of the relationship that all the stars and the planets have to life on the earth but the amount of knowledge that is being gained about how our galaxy is in fact a fine tuned machine that facilitates life on earth is in fact now mind bending.

My suspicion is that the entire universe is in fact a machine.

 

[jasoncran]

According to the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis which is the first book of the Tora, Man was created in the garden of Eden but he sinned and fell.

I'm sure you will know this. But it answers your question as to why there is now no way of reaching or enjoying the majority of the creation.

man was confined to a mortal body abd as such is confined upon the earth. We are just passing time now until the final number and judgement begins. Once that has passed God will recreate the Heavens and the Earth and the entire creation will be open to those who believed.

"The Heavens declare His Glory"

we don't know the full extent of the relationship that all the stars and the planets have to life on the earth but the amount of knowledge that is being gained about how our galaxy is in fact a fine tuned machine that facilitates life on earth is in fact now mind bending.

My suspicion is that the entire universe is in fact a machine.

im sure as a jew he knows the torah. he had to recite it for his bar mitzvah.

 

[Tofu]

Adding a couple of things to my previous post~

As for the whole universe deal, according to my belief in creation (and I believe there is science to back it logically, not with empirical evidence but logically) so if there was other life, it must have been created by God, and I believe he would have told us so, as he told us there were heavenly beings. The universe at large I believe is to display his glory and majesty, he desired to show it through creation and the sheer size / incredible(ness) of it.

When you speak of just accepting that something is just faith (and making the generalization that religious beliefs are strictly faith) and that fact and faith are completely separate is to make religion completely without substance, pointless and makes those who believe in it worthy to be pitied most of all. There is no escaping reality, something is either fact or fiction, and I believe there is more to fact than that which can be proved by empirical data. Regardless though, there are many facts within the Bible and Christianity (Which is based off of the Bible, God's revelation). The Bible is a historical book, it contains great detail in describing historical events and peoples, it also includes chronological dates to further emphasize its historical nature as to when all these things happened. The majority of past works are either counted as history or myth (on first impressions) whether or not they include dates to follow, then they go from there. Its like a tell tale to the nature of the work. Sure, there is faith involved as well, but its not blind faith. There are enough facts and evidence that point toward creation and the other miraculous claims in the Bible that warrant my faith that based upon previous truth and faithfulness I can trust that God's word is true in the other areas that cannot be proven by empirical evidence and do require faith. I really don't want to get sucked into a heated debate or argument with you on the nature of these things, for I am not trying to win a debate but rather these things have eternal implications, life and death implications, that must be taken very seriously and this isn't simply a matter of winning or losing. And I want to treat this as such, with all patience and graciousness that God empowers me to exercise. (For human nature naturally goes to being defensive and attack others who are challenging your belief, which is why i said that last sentence, it is a work of God that I can go against my human nature consistently lol)

I would highly encourage you to read the book "The Universe Next Door" by James Sire. This book covers the subject of world views, which includes many religions and secularist views and will give you a lot of useful information as to what is out there and a reason / logic assessment.

 

[Free]

Lets take evolution as an example. This is in strong contrast with Genesis. Taken at face value, the two are incompatible. However, the way I see it, is that the Bible specifically says (my interpretatrion) that it is not a history book, or a "how things work" book. It is a guide to God and to living (I assume here that it is divine). The whole 6 days creation seems to be more of a point than a strict timeline. After all, if God can create the universe like I can toast a piece of bread, than why couldn't he "program" evolution? I don't see how the two are even related. The bible (to me) is about God's relationship with people, and has nothing to do with the specifics of how we got here. After all, if God wanted the Bible to be a detailed account and timeline into how the universe works, he probaly would have included a section that describes and qualifies himself as God. The fact that he gives himself no explanation makes me think that his whole point is not to give an explanation. Thus, specifics in how things work (science) have nothing to do with our relationship with the Almighty. This is especially true to me when I consider that God, being the most important entity in the Bible, gives himself no explanation. Why explain lesser things then?

There are other views of creation and the relationship between science and the Genesis accounts. Research them and try not to get so focused on one view.

The fact that religion sees science as incompatible is a major turn off, as I see them to be entirly unrelated. Dare I say that the aprehension appears to be a threat to people's faith. What I ask, is why?

Again, not all who are religious see science as incompatible. There are many believers who are scientists.

Another major turn off is how the Bible is interpreted. Let's take homosexuality as an example. People point to the bible as an anti-homosexual reference. Corintheans 6:9-10. It would appear God doesn't like gays. However, this is based off a possibley incorrect interpretation. The term "arsenokoite," which is translated by some to homosexual, may actually have a different meaning, such as male prostitue. Then in 6:11, it continues to say, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." This seems to say that it is ok?

Try Romans 1:22-27:

22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (ESV)

A clear condemnation of homosexual acts.

I don't see how one who uses the Bible to condemn homosexuality and not consider the fact that the Bible specifically says that we were created in God's image. If God is perfect, why did he create 10% of humans as Gay? Is God 1/10th Gay?

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

It seems to me that there is something about both the maleness and femaleness which constitute being made in the image of God. His plan from the start was male and female as complementary beings made in his image. To deny that and say that homosexual acts are okay, is essentially to deny being made in the image of God.

What about David and Jonathan? Or Ruth and Nami? These relationships may have been sexual rather than platonic.

There is nothing to suggest that those assertions are true.

Now, I am by no means even close to an expert on the scripture, so I cannot use this as valid evidence or even form a proper argument on the subject. But I will say this:

Even if the Bible condemns homosexuals, does it not also condem disobidiant children? Why use the Bible to support prohibiton of homosexuality, and not also as a reason to stone their children? How can one pick and choose certain laws while ignoring others? To me, anyone who selectivly choses Bible laws to fit their own morals is acting like God himself. This hypocrasy is another major turn off.

"The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." -- Proverbs 30:17
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29

The Bible also condemns adultery, fornication, witchcraft, lying, etc.

Frankly, I don't see those condemning homsexuality also supporting plucking their childrens eyes out.

No, and you shouldn't. What you should see however, is an equal speaking out against all the things the Bible condemns, not just homosexuality. But perhaps the Church speaks so loudly against homosexuality because it is so out there whereas things such as adultery are rather hidden. That is no excuse, it just may be the reason why.

 

[Free]

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?

This is an important point and I'm glad you've recognized it. It must be said though that this point is commonly used to show that the Church was against science but that isn't exactly true. The scientific community outside the Church, the common belief whether Christian, pagan, or other was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Geocentrism, iirc, was initially proposed by Aristotle, so there was a significant amount time for that idea to become entrenched in society as a whole.

So, while the Church was initially against those such as Galileo and Copernicus, it was not just the Church. However, it is significant that the Church eventually did come to accept the scientific evidence and changed their position.

It is also significant that modern science was started by Christians based on the very idea that since God created the universe, studying creation and how things were made would increase our knowledge and understanding of the Creator.

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?

Not with Christianity. The historical fact of the death and literal, physical resurrection of Jesus is the "flesh and bone" of Christianity. My faith is based on fact.

 

[for_his_glory]

Free, what I was trying to explain is that God does not recognize that of a carnal man made religion that dictates to others their own philosophies of Gods word taught through a logical teaching separate from a Spiritual teaching of all truths. Gods true Church is not four walls, but is the gathering of that body of Christ with the Holy Spirit using others to teach us, as separate from the Holy Spirit man can teach us nothing. This is why it is so important to learn how to discern what is being taught.