You might be interested in reading "The Lost Gospel of Judas" by Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2006). Looking at the discovery of the Gospel of Judas, Ehrman isn't interested in proving or disproving any of the biblical texts we presently have, but he makes a fascinating argument as to the historical and factual bases behind the gospels, including the Gospel of Judas. He compares the often dramatic chronological and historical differences between each of the books in the Bible and other gospels discovered only recently or purposefully not included as part of the final canon. Ehrman's approach is scholarly but entertaining.

Much of that involves exactly the type of questions the pastor was asking (Matthew says "A" and Paul says "B". What, then, do we really know about "C" ?).

It's a great read with plenty of fascinating history behind the Gospel of Judas as well.

I don't even know why we're having this discussion....  It's doing nothing but giving a certain level of legitimacy to 2000 year old superstition and mysticism....  I've often times wondered if preachers, pastors, priests, or any other men of the cloth actually believe the bullshit they shower the masses with...  How can any sane human being who has actually spent the time to read religious texts believe that crap?  I've always envisioned that about one year into seminary that they are informed that what they're being taught is scientifically implausible and that the texts are so full of contradictions and outright falsehoods that it's obviously BS....  The only reason I can think of that they continue to pursue the field is the six figure incomes (fairly common), light work duty, and fringe benefits......  I think it's a lot like going to school to be a chiropractor (or for any other pseudoscientific quackery)......  Rather than being taught legitimate medicine they teach you practice building....  It all comes down to finding a bunch of fools with money and convincing them to keep coming back over and over and over again..............................

Dirckman wrote:

I don't even know why we're having this discussion....  It's doing nothing but giving a certain level of legitimacy to 2000 year old superstition and mysticism....  I've often times wondered if preachers, pastors, priests, or any other men of the cloth actually believe the bullshit they shower the masses with...  How can any sane human being who has actually spent the time to read religious texts believe that crap?  I've always envisioned that about one year into seminary that they are informed that what they're being taught is scientifically implausible and that the texts are so full of contradictions and outright falsehoods that it's obviously BS....  The only reason I can think of that they continue to pursue the field is the six figure incomes (fairly common), light work duty, and fringe benefits......  I think it's a lot like going to school to be a chiropractor (or for any other pseudoscientific quackery)......  Rather than being taught legitimate medicine they teach you practice building....  It all comes down to finding a bunch of fools with money and convincing them to keep coming back over and over and over again..............................

It sounds to me like the guy that wrote this just grew up around a lot of people whose minds weren't really engaged.  You know there are a lot of very intelligent people who devote their lives to the service of their chosen religions and don't just meet any questions that come along with the wave of a hand and a memorized statement.  A great deal of time has been spent trying to plumb the depths of the philosophy and stories behind the Bible, it's usually just that there an awful lot of people that don't care.  The exception is the scientific basis for a lot of it.  It's really not particularly important to the understanding of the religion in general (the Bible isn't a Science book), but there are a lot of people really badly dug in on that issue because it's become something of a cultural feud over the years.

This is not to say that there are agreed-upon answers for all of those questions.  When it comes to the contradictions, it's actually pretty amazing how consistent it is considering that it's a collection of oral histories, letters, and stories written over a half a millennium or so, but yeah, there are plenty of those, although most aren't really significant. 

The hardest questions, and the ones that I wish someone had done a better job of explaining as I was growing up are the ones like what exactly the lesson behind the Israelites slaughtering the Canaanites in order to take their land was, or why God would give Elisha the power to summon she-bears from the woods to eat forty wise-ass kids who made fun of his baldness.  These are the kinds of questions that anyone who hasn't asked themselves and considers themselves a member of the religion should really consider, rather than the usual skeptics annotated bilge that one usually comes across on the Internet about why God was so strict with the ancient Israelites or how God managed to keep people from flying off into space while making the day last so long for Joshua. 

I was raised a Christian, and was never discouraged from asking these kinds of questions, and the quality of the answers varied.  I don't consider myself a practicing Christian now, I guess the closes description would be that I'm a Cultural Christian, but I do think that the meat of the philosophy taught by Jesus Christ in the Bible makes a lot of sense. 

I guess what I'm saying in an unnecessarily verbose way is that it is definitely possible to be a skeptic and a Christian.  There are just far too many people who have never had a serious challenge to their faith and just accept it as an inherent part of their culture.

To vastly over generalize, I believe religion appeals to two kinds of people: those who want things explained to them, and those who want to explore. As a person with a lifelong religious bent, I like to think I fit into the latter group. I strongly agree with Tojo. Religion doesn't have to be a daycare center for people incapable of thinking for themselves although, sadly, that often seems to be the case. Religion should prompt questions and, more important, should act as a map in the search for answers.

Religion, specifically Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, fulfills that role for me. As a Buddhist, I'm not particularly concerned about the existence or nonexistence of God - or any gods - for example. Buddhism encourages its adherents to question everything, including Buddhism. Is this teaching correct? Is it correct for me? As an extension of that, I have no problems with the findings of science and I find that science often directs my own personal religious experience. For the past year or so, I've been working on papers that attempt to describe Buddhist concepts in the language of quantum mechanics, understanding all the while that neither area is entirely quantifiable.

I suspect the most important thing to remember about any religious teaching is that, ultimately, we are following flawed human understandings.

tojo2000 wrote:

Hey, as far as object lessons go in the Bible that's pretty tame.  At least he didn't threaten to chop anyone's baby in half.

Well, I specifically didn't mention the Old Testament because the fundies like to say they get their marching orders from Jesus. Someone needs to point out his darker, more Republican side. The OT contains the "shall nots" with which they'd want to shackle the rest of us, specifically talking about these guys: Christian Reconstructionists They would hope that one day, The Handmaid's Tale would be current events.

  Besides, I would not want to cause a holy flame war here. I've done the born again atheist thing and would rather sit back and laugh at the credulous, as long as things aren't affecting me. There are other places I like to visit when I want to poke the faithful. I'm from North Carolina and there are many opportunities here for just that. I swear, some days the only way I survive is by pretending I'm an alien anthropologist studying Earth's superstitions.

Without getting into a debate, or appearing despite my best efforts to take the side of stupid people claiming to represent any particular faith,  let me just say, that we cannot touch or see something...makes it no less real.

To judge others as stupid and worthless for their beliefs, while at the same time touting ones own "faith" or lack thereof as the One True Way...is exactly what's wrong with the simpletons behind many popular televangelists...and with your post, Dirk, dear.

An open mind, is all I'm sayin'. An open mind and an open heart.

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Without getting into a debate, or appearing despite my best efforts to take the side of stupid people claiming to represent any particular faith,  let me just say, that we cannot touch or see something...makes it no less real.

To judge others as stupid and worthless for their beliefs, while at the same time touting ones own "faith" or lack thereof as the One True Way...is exactly what's wrong with the simpletons behind many popular televangelists...and with your post, Dirk, dear.

An open mind, is all I'm sayin'. An open mind and an open heart.

That's very true, however, there is a huge difference in basing your belief or lack thereof on imperical evidence compared to basing it on ancient text, emotion, popularity, or cultural norm......  For example, if modern science can prove that the world is 4 billion years old then holding on to the belief that it's six thousand years old is self-delusional....

Last edited by Dirckman (2008-07-09 01:25:01)

pALEPHx wrote:

Then the important point is to always remember not to position your faith, or non-faith, as better or worse than those of the people you are debating. This neatly avoids several types of arguments to diminish the quality of what's being offered. The problem with theists, however, is that their eternal trump card--in any sort of discussion--is to take all the marbles out of play with a decidedly non-existential "so there." They can pull the rug out at any time, because nothing they say has to be verified, witnessed, or even directly experienced by them in their lifetimes.

This insistence that the every word of the Bible is literally true in the face of clear evidence to the contrary drives me batty.  I had some teachers blow that smoke up my ass in Sunday School too.  It wasn't until I was poking around and actually looked up the history of what the Bible was (with the help of a couple of more open-minded pastors) that I started to put the pieces together. 

The idea that the Genesis creation story has to be scientifically accurate is ludicrous.  The exact mechanism through which God did or did not create the Universe wasn't part of the story, and the same is true of many other stories.  There's nothing wrong with believing that, but if you're going to accept on faith that the Supreme Being has the ability to stretch the rules, then you also need to accept that those things that the supreme being does are irrelevant in the context of scientific inquiry. 

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is only 6000 years old.  The Bible doesn't say that there is no evolution.  The Bible doesn't say that if an egg is fertilized and doesn't implant on the uterine wall, then a tiny baby with a soul gets flushed down the toilet or thrown into the (gag) sanitary napkin dispenser.  These are things that people have cobbled together in an effort to change the world to match the impossible model of a 100% consistent Bible.

Theism deserves no respect at all.

All religions (and perhaps people) resolve into two distinct camps:dual (theist), and non-dual (absolutist).
Dual and non-dual thinking appeal to different sorts of people: those who crave authority, and those who don't.
Traces of dual and non-dual reasoning appear in every religion, Buddhism included.

Dual, or theistic thinking, tends to be the norm. It is the mind-set of the masses, and the rationale and model for the imposition of power, as well as for meek subservience. There have been marvellous philosophers who have embraced theism - Buber and Keirkegaard come to mind, but the mental contortions they went through to make theism less intellectually abhorrent rendered their beliefs unpalatable to regular theists.

Non-dualist thinking is generally typified as "mystical. It takes imagination and confidence. The best expression of non-dual thinking (to my mind) is to be found in the Advaita Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya. Certain Buddhist systems also bring non-duality into sharp focus, but I dislike what Buddhists have made of the Buddha's original message. (It seems obvious, Taint, that the avyakrta-vastuni is a specific injunction against metaphysical thinking...but does that stop anyone?)
There is no necessary conflict between non-dual philosophy and science, but mystical thinking should still, to my mind, be guided by logic. Intuition and revelation are not acceptable citations.

There are no acceptable citations for theistic thinking, which is why many theistic religions have deified and attempted to render unassailable their holy books. Bottom line? People who believe in God are stupid cuntsl.

Orange, thank you for the gibbering 2 year old.  I'll return the favor on autoplay.

Err... Wilbur I mean (it's hard to tell you two apart sometimes), reductionism doesn't work for moral systems.   Stop bogarting and pass me that.

Last edited by opsec (2008-07-09 17:51:05)

opsec wrote:

Orange, thank you for the gibbering 2 year old.  I'll return the favor on autoplay.

Just expressing my opinion on the merits of the argument in this thread.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Quibble as you must. The divide is fundamental and defining. Glib references to the concept of "reductionism" fail to make a case against.

I refer you to the 2 year old.

icangetyouatoe wrote:

The irony to me is in Wilber's certainty, which is in its own way just as ridiculous as any theists. To claim to have all the answers, regardless of what those answers are-science, Sagan, God, Jesus, Buddha, is just plain foolishness and hubris, IMO.

I obviously can't speak for Wilber, but as for me, the certainties are in impossibilities and contradictions. There is the possibility of a god or gods, but with the text we're presented with as evidence, the Bible, we can definitely rule out the Christian god's existence, at least as outlined therein. There are not and never were talking donkeys, wooden staffs that changed to snakes, flying people and healthy zombies. Or unicorns.

As I've said, gods could exist but I'm bettin' my life they don't. I can say with certainty, though, that none of the gods specifically presented to me exist in the manner described. There is just as much good, hard evidence for the existence of the FSM as for Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Ghost or Vishnu.

Wilber wrote:

Non-dualist thinking is generally typified as "mystical. It takes imagination and confidence. The best expression of non-dual thinking (to my mind) is to be found in the Advaita Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya. Certain Buddhist systems also bring non-duality into sharp focus, but I dislike what Buddhists have made of the Buddha's original message. (It seems obvious, Taint, that the avyakrta-vastuni is a specific injunction against metaphysical thinking...but does that stop anyone?)

I'm not familiar with the Advaita Vedanta other than the quick scan I did online, but I would have to say what little I understand of its rejection of duality isn't too far from a Buddhist understanding.

Non-duality is central to Buddhist teaching - rejection of the idea of non-duality means, simply, you're not a Buddhist. It's not bad or good, it's just a choice you've made (and I don't mean you, specifically, Wilber) based on your own observations and understanding of what you see and experience. There are many different understandings of this concept, however, and each is appropriate for the adherents who understand it.

I practiced Soto Zen for more than ten years before I converted to Jodo Shinshu, simply because Shin Buddhism made more sense to me and offered me a better understanding of the Buddha's teachings. My denomination is very unesoteric (I often think of it as the hausfrau of Buddhism) and its rejection of metaphysical teachings and deism seems reasonable to me. None of what is taught in Buddhism can be expressed in words at their most profound level - what the Buddha taught, as I understand it, required a leap of far more than faith.

All of this is simply a longwinded way of saying that no one knows the Buddha's original message because it wasn't written down until nearly three centuries after his death. And those who do can't express it but can only hope to help others toward the same goal. I believe the majority of Buddhist schools, however, adhere faithfully to the message in a manner that is relevant to their adherents.

It comes down to belief in any of the world's religions is belief in anecdotal evidence.......  Gods, miracles, supernatural experiences, etc. are not quantifiable, falsifiable, or measureable in any way.......  The only way for us to know about these things is either first hand experience or as hearsay from another person.....  I personally have never had a supernatural experience of any kind nor am I gullible enough to believe a single goddam thing that anyone else tells me unless they can back it up with hard evidence....

pALEPHx wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

I personally have never had a supernatural experience of any kind nor am I gullible enough to believe a single goddam thing that anyone else tells me unless they can back it up with hard evidence....

Well, so much for a poll trying to tease these opinions out sideways. Here's the extent of your suspected secularism, DMan.

I just try to break it down to the simplest elements for myself...  I'm a simple man who ain't so smart....

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Dirk, ever been in love? Ever been a parent?

I don't believe love is anything more than a simple chemical exchange which convinces some people to throw away their freedoms and turn over untold thousands of dollars to some chick that'll get fat within months after marriage....  I don't have any children either which is a wonderful thing because I hate kids....  I'm not sure how "love" and children prove the existence of a higher power though....  Both chemistry and biology can explain these phenomenon without the necessity of a deity.....

No kids, for some reason havin' kids just sounds like a death sentence to me......  I've just never liked children at all for some reason......

You can always play the field: