Exercise in Restraint: What Religion Do You Believe In?

[paulb]

True conversation:

ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS: Once I was going through a hard time, and had a lot of questions on my mind, and was feeling really just depressed and awful, and I turned on the TV and the first thing I saw was Joel Osteen, and he was talking about exactly how I felt, and it was really amazing, and I felt so much better.
UNBELIEVER ME: Cool.
SHE: Yeah, God talked to me through Joel Osteen.
ME: I thought it was Joel Osteen talking to you.
SHE: No, it was God talking to me through him! God talks to me through a lot of people. Even you.
ME (startled): Me?
SHE: Yeah, one time God talked to me and he used you to say it, or something.
ME (amazed): Wow, what did I say?
SHE: I don't remember. It was ... uh, something ...
ME: How do you know it was God talking and not me?
SHE: It was you. But it was also God. But I just felt it, because it just was an answer that I'd really been looking for and asking for.
ME: Well, maybe it was just me and not God.
SHE: Why do you have to take God out? That's so mean.
ME: Why do you have to put God in? I'd feel better if I'd helped you.
SHE: But you did.
ME: Whatever.
SHE: Why don't you respect my religious beliefs?
[etc.]

Great ancedote of how other people can believe.  You being not a  religious type, yet this girl sees how God was in something you said.
Both St Paul (Acts) and Christ(can't recall the scripture) make mention of the fact : "don't ye know that ye are gods".

[paulb]

     True. Some of mine are, and some of yours no doubt. But are religious opinions facts? In other words, if they were facts would they still be religious in nature? Is there such a thing as religious fact? What character, other than unverifiability, would a religious fact have to distinguish it from an ordinary one? If the Pope says it's raining, we can assume he's not imparting a religious fact even if it is raining. Looking out the window has no known religious component. Until we can nail this down I think we're stuck with unverifiabilty as the mark of the religious, so "posing as fact" would be justified.

      A second piece of evidence for values mistaken for facts as an explanation concerns the arguments against atheism advanced by some believers. You'll note that atheists frequently attack religion as being either false or incoherent (or even false because incoherent), and the counterargument is often a moral one, that the attack on religion is an attack on morality. To an atheist this is a bizarre argument: the existence or nonexistence of entities can't be made contingent on a purely moral view of any kind, even one you strongly approve of. By their own arguments I'm led to the conclusion that believers wish their values to do the work of facts, even if they don't recognize it.
     

I agree, alot of what the 4000 to 5000!!!!!!!! protestant sects of christianity believe is absolute nonsense. In fact there are some pentascostal sects that seem more closer to satan's camp than to the kingdom of light.

You mention the word fact.
The most important fact concerns the fact that there liveda   man called Jesus Christ.
And also a  fact is the number of churches in every corner of this land.
Drog
Here's something you may enjoy.
Its been said if Christ were to come back today in the flesh, he'd be persecuted by many of the protestant churches.
I know of some who would indeed persecute Jesus as being the antichrist

right now whats going on is the establishment of home cell groups. Which is a  very good thing. The catholic church is Ok for the most part, but even in the catholic system things are falling apart.
but most of the protestant movement has proved to be less than successful  as a  means to higher truth.

[Danny]

The catholic church is Ok for the most part, but even in the catholic system things are falling apart.

Most non-Catholics are usually a little more hostile.

About the latter statement, what would you say is "falling apart"?

[Steve]

Episcopalian 

[paulb]

Episcopalian 

You are episcopalian?

[paulb]

Most non-Catholics are usually a little more hostile.

About the latter statement, what would you say is "falling apart"?

yes generally catholics are tame sheep compared to some of the more wildly fanatic protestant groups. which is to be expected since the protestants ahve more than 4000 sects, there's bound to be some black sheep and worse mountain goats
I'm a  mountain sheep. meaning belonging to no sect.

falling apart.. attendance by the young is down. The sacraments are not what they use to be.
Rome has a  lot of stupidity comming out of its mouth and the youth now a  days are too smart to swallow dumb things about REAL LIFE.  So the catholic church is behind the times, addressing none of the needs of the individual. The catholic church lives in the middle ages.
I do know 2 catholic priests who were quite amazing in their knowledge and do think for themselves. But as they have to remain  in rank and file, their ideas can't really go anywhere.

Of the main protestant groups,the one i do not particulairly care for are the episcopalians. My father is one.

[Steve]

You are episcopalian?

Indeed.

[Danny]

yes generally catholics are tame sheep compared to some of the more wildly fanatic protestant groups. which is to be expected since the protestants ahve more than 4000 sects, there's bound to be some black sheep and worse mountain goats
I'm a  mountain sheep. meaning belonging to no sect.

falling apart.. attendance by the young is down. The sacraments are not what they use to be.
Rome has a  lot of stupidity comming out of its mouth and the youth now a  days are too smart to swallow dumb things about REAL LIFE.  So the catholic church is behind the times, addressing none of the needs of the individual. The catholic church lives in the middle ages.
I do know 2 catholic priests who were quite amazing in their knowledge and do think for themselves. But as they have to remain  in rank and file, their ideas can't really go anywhere.

Of the main protestant groups,the one i do not particulairly care for are the episcopalians. My father is one.

Fascinating, Paulie.......................I'd say that Benedict XVI has said and done things that aren't really all the controversial within the Church (at least from my local parish level) but are viewed by people without as un-modern or old fashioned.

At my parish we're bringing back the Latin Tridentine Mass starting next month; I'd say there's a split among members over it, with the older Catholics decidely in favor of it, the middle-age baby boomers not so enthusiastic and the younger members such as myself who are very mostly excited to have the 1962 missal back. In other parts of the country/world it most certainly can be different, of course.

Of beliefs and what you call "real life" I think the trend here in the the States/Europe is pretty sad from what I've seen.  I've heard from priests, religious educators and the like that this is due to the changes of Vatican II and the difficulties in implementing them. ("Trent took about 75 years to satisfy," one Father told me, "so the struggles make sense if you see it from that perspective.")

However, with the return of the Latin mass............maybe Vatican II really is being undermined.

[paulb]

Indeed.

So like are you episcopal for any particular reason, or just brought up in that branch of faith?

[Steve]

So like are you episcopal for any particular reason, or just brought up in that branch of faith?

Should they be mutually exclusive?

I was not raised Episcopalian, but came to know its teachings and dogmas through close friends. The difference was partly theological, and partly cultural. I saw in Episcopalianism a wonderful blend of orthodoxy and modernity.

[paulb]

Fascinating, Paulie.......................I'd say that Benedict XVI has said and done things that aren't really all the controversial within the Church (at least from my local parish level) but are viewed by people without as un-modern or old fashioned.

At my parish we're bringing back the Latin Tridentine Mass starting next month; I'd say there's a split among members over it, with the older Catholics decidely in favor of it, the middle-age baby boomers not so enthusiastic and the younger members such as myself who are very mostly excited to have the 1962 missal back. In other parts of the country/world it most certainly can be different, of course.

Of beliefs and what you call "real life" I think the trend here in the the States/Europe is pretty sad from what I've seen.  I've heard from priests, religious educators and the like that this is due to the changes of Vatican II and the difficulties in implementing them. ("Trent took about 75 years to satisfy," one Father told me, "so the struggles make sense if you see it from that perspective.")

However, with the return of the Latin mass............maybe Vatican II really is being undermined.

Hi Danny
I'm not up on the vatican 2 or 'Trent" deal. I'll google tomorrow.
The latin version of the mass would be interesting for some catholics. so every chruch should offer one mass on sunday with the latin version
And...instead of latin being reintroduced into catholic high schools, i'm wondering if french and spanish classes should be brought in as early as 2nd or 3rd grade. Yeah that would be most excellent. Connect the students to the rest of the world. German is too difficult. But could be offered at the high school level.
This is just one thing the catholics need to address, broadening the minds of their young flock.
There are so many issues i butt heads with the catholic church, its not fair to say i'm catholic at all. Which is why i hardly ever attend the mass. late 1960's the catholic charasmatic movement took off, and continued through the late 70's.  I attended one charasmatic service in 1977. Powerful.
I did visit the main charasmatic group 3 yrs ago, that fire has chilled. I could never be a  part of this movement, its too catholic-ISM.
But there is so much i have issues with over what Rome believes. Romance before marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc etc ........ETCETRA, ...divorce.  You name it, we are at odds.

[paulb]

Should they be mutually exclusive?

I was not raised Episcopalian, but came to know its teachings and dogmas through close friends. The difference was partly theological, and partly cultural. I saw in Episcopalianism a wonderful blend of orthodoxy and modernity.

I would venture to guess  that most members of the major branches of C are born into that faith.  But no all faiths are open to receive whoever will come.
But sure episcopals are just as good as any other branch of faith. No one branch is any better than another.
God has taught me restraint and humility.  ...dang it, I bit my tongue, ouch

[Brian]

You mention the word fact.
The most important fact concerns the fact that there liveda   man called Jesus Christ.

Well, to be fair, we can't be sure that this is true. It seems quite likely that Jesus did exist, but on the other hand evidence is sparse and contradictory. Notable Jewish scholars of the day, including Philo, who lived at the same time as Jesus and wrote extensively about the relationship between Pontius Pilate and the Jews, fail to mention Jesus at all. Flavius Josephus' mention of Jesus, in his own history, is the only account of Jesus' life written by a non-Christian in the first 100 years after his death - but the passage was a forgery by a later Christian author.

Our only real evidence for Jesus' existence are (in chronological order) the letters of Paul, who never met the man and does not really describe his life (Paul does not mention a virgin birth, for instance); the Gospel of Mark, which also omits much of our contemporary story, including the virgin birth and Jesus' ascendance to heaven after the tomb is found empty; and the other three Gospels, which borrow largely from Mark and were written decades after Jesus' death. It seems likely that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, and that he did wander Palestine practicing faith healing and offering teachings of peace toward neighbors, but there is no particular evidence for anything more than that.

In addition, our histories point out some definite problems with the Jesus story. We know for certain from historical records and the internal evidence of the Bible itself that Jesus was not born in December, he was not born in Bethlehem, he was not necessarily a carpenter, he was not born of a virgin, there was no census in the year of his birth, Herod didn't kill all the children, Jesus was not tried overnight on the eve of Passover, John the Baptist actually lived for several years after Jesus' death, and of course that there were no earthquakes or solar eclipses after the crucifixion.

R.G. Price lays out all the facts in a rather extremist article which, despite its slant, contains some fascinating points. The passage on Philo is especially worthwhile. I disagree with his assertion that Jesus was a myth, and with his suggestion on bizarre evidence that the Gospel of Mark was some sort of joke, but his dissection of the alleged Jesus story is compelling, and most of it makes perfect sense. Our historical "Jesus" is largely fact, but with a lot of made-up trimmings.

[Steve]

Agreed, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is quite sparse. Of course, I've always found the numerous mention of
Christ in both Josepheus and Tactius to be rather solid,

Tactius, c. 116

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

and Josepheus, from Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." 

[Brian]

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." 

Indeed, this one is important, and I mentioned it only in passing. According to Price, a majority, or at least plurality, of scholars, believes that the portions of this which refer to Jesus in reverent/Christ-like/God-like terms were not written by Josephus but added later by Christians; Josephus was, after all, not a Christian, and several years later in his biography fails to mention the Christian faith entirely while he's talking about all the religious sects he dabbled in during his lifetime. A smaller percentage of experts seem to think that the whole passage was added later, given that in context it really makes no sense. Try reading Josephus' writing with and without the third paragraph:

    1. But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.

    2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

    3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

    4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.

The third paragraph seems "out of place" ... and a little skimpy treatment for a Messiah.

[Haffner]

From what I've read (and I studied the "Jesus Never Existed" idea extensively back in 2002), few scholars lend credibility to the "Jesus Never Existed" subject. Even the "Jesus was just an amalgation of several, revolutionary Judaists" subject is losing ground. Even Nietzsche's paranoid idea that Paul invented the whole thing to bring low the Roman Empire smacks of pure horse manure...the "secret" would have been out by now.

Based upon my own (at the time vehemently atheistic) research; and letting you folks know up front that I'm fully aware of my being a nobody guitar teacher in nowhere New England, I came to the conclusion that we overall have much more historical evidence of Christ's existence than we do of several dozen other historical characters whom are taught just as much (probably more these days) in schools.

In fact, overall it can be stated that Christ was the massively influential historical figure in the history of the world (or at least the last three millenium). Most people whom look for a mythological Jesus are those whom look for "secrets"/"hidden knowledge"...a phase that prety much everyone falls victim to at one time or another.

As to whom Jesus was, now there's a debate, huh?

[karlhenning]

From what I've read (and I studied the "Jesus Never Existed" idea extensively back in 2002), few scholars lend credibility to the "Jesus Never Existed" subject. Even the "Jesus was just an amalgation of several, revolutionary Judaists" subject is losing ground. Even Nietzsche's paranoid idea that Paul invented the whole thing to bring low the Roman Empire smacks of pure horse manure...the "secret" would have been out by now.

And yet, some people really have a taste for that horse manure 

[Haffner]

And yet, some people really have a taste for that horse manure 

Yeah! People whom want to be seen as "mysterious", having "hidden knowledge"...like I wrote above, we all go through manifestations of that phase.

An interesting fact is how strident that many White Supremacist groups are in announcing the "Jesus Myth". One thinks of that old saw about there being one water they traverse: "De-NI-L"! Many people are afraid of the the idea of Jesus, just like many are afraid of the Saints, Marian apparitions, Lanciano, the apparent incorruptibilty of Bernadette Soubirous, and many other Catholic and Orthodox figures, etc.

[paulb]

Yeah! People whom want to be seen as "mysterious", having "hidden knowledge"...like I wrote above, we all go through manifestations of that phase.

An interesting fact is how strident that many White Supremacist groups are in announcing the "Jesus Myth". One

There are so many white supremacist groups, not all have this same ideas on jesus.
I saw this Travel Channel  show where this young british guy seeks membership in the KKK, where he meets the highest ranking KKK in the country in Los Angeles.
He is taken to headquarters where can be seen lots of nazi memorbelia , american flags, nazi flags and sourthern rebel flags. There on a  small table is spread a american flag and the bible opened to some verse that is suppose to prove a  certain white clan are direct descendents of jesus or whatever.
After the british journalist said he was jewish, they adruptly told him to get out.
Some white supremacists do believe in jesus

I am gald that after all your research into the jesus question that  you gave us all a thumbs up , that is was  a  real person.
Gee thanks, I started to have doubts 

Yes now the question remains, just what did he say? Or mean to say? and what he actually didn't say , but the christians have shoved all sorts of nonsense into his mouth, and have clothed him in very ugly clothes, unpractical for real life, a  wholesome life.

<<<<<These are the questions that must be answered. >>>>>>

[Ephemerid]

Some white supremacists do believe in jesus

Yes, in fact most I am aware of DO.  This is not to equate Christianity with racism or anything like that of course. (sadly, I am all too well-acquianted with white supremecist movements & know some of the Aryan nation type weirdos personally in my days in northeast Lousyana)

About that Travel Channel show: That's part of the whole Christian Identity movement.  Basically the jist is that "white people" are the "true Israelites" & America is the promised land in the Bible.  The Jews are "imposters" and there's a lot of talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc etc ad nauseum.  The holocaust never happened, etc.  They love David Irving's crap.  They make the John Birch Society look tame.  Crazy people. 

Information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity