The Gospel's that didnt make it

[stphrz]

God is perfect.
God makes man who is imperfect.
God blames man and punishes him (for?) being imperfect.

When you put it that way and leave it at that, it sounds pretty bad.

If you want to be completely honest intellectually though you have to add another statement:

God gives man a way out of punishment without requiring him to be perfect by his own efforts.

Kinda changes things a wee bit eh?

I'm not saying these are my beliefs, they aren't. I'm saying if you take only parts of a belief system out of their entire context and attack only those parts it is the equivalent of a strawman attack.

In conclusion the argument is weak. There are better ones.

Here's a little something to think about, it takes you all the way back to the very beginning.

What is primary, conciousness or existance?

 

[CapnG]

When you put it that way and leave it at that, it sounds pretty bad.

If you want to be completely honest intellectually though you have to add another statement:

God gives man a way out of punishment without requiring him to be perfect by his own efforts.

Kinda changes things a wee bit eh?

Not really. It just makes the whole concept seem even sillier, since an imperfect being can (by simple definition alone) never achieve perfection. The only way around it is to take the Calvinist approach and just assume God loves some people more than others for aribtrary reasons. From then on things get really messy.

What is primary, conciousness or existance?

Easy, existance. Conciousness is simply a side-effect.

 

[stphrz]

Not really. It just makes the whole concept seem even sillier, since an imperfect being can (by simple definition alone) never achieve perfection. The only way around it is to take the Calvinist approach and just assume God loves some people more than others for aribtrary reasons. From then on things get really messy.



Easy, existance. Conciousness is simply a side-effect.

Sillier, maybe, but perhaps a little less harsh. I do agree with you for the most part.. At some point theisim always ends up begging the question or reducing to contradiction. As for the concept of "grace" being truely arbitrary, well that's a real complex and thorny issue and a major point of debate among theologians. Since I don't have a dog in that fight I'll leave any comments about it to others who have strong opinions on the matter.

As for your answer to the question I posed, I agree with your ultimate conclusion.

How did you come to it?

 

[CapnG]

Sillier, maybe, but perhaps a little less harsh. I do agree with you for the most part.. At some point theisim always ends up begging the question or reducing to contradiction. As for the concept of "grace" being truely arbitrary, well that's a real complex and thorny issue and a major point of debate among theologians. Since I don't have a dog in that fight I'll leave any comments about it to others who have strong opinions on the matter.

This is why I remain comfortably deist (albeit a slightly agnostic one).

As for your answer to the question I posed, I agree with your ultimate conclusion.

How did you come to it?

Basic logic plus some theorizing based on bits of this and that I've read over the years. The basic logic part is biological: if you destroy my brain (ie make it no longer exist) I will lose conciousness. The theorizing part is that the "soul" is purely illusiary, the consequence of having a bifercated brain, perhaps even causing a mild form of schizophrenia in all of us. The notion of things like an "immortal soul" (ie conciousness sans-existence) is therefore basically impossible since conciousness itself requires an intact, living brain.

 

[stphrz]

This is why I remain comfortably deist (albeit a slightly agnostic one).



Basic logic plus some theorizing based on bits of this and that I've read over the years. The basic logic part is biological: if you destroy my brain (ie make it no longer exist) I will lose conciousness. The theorizing part is that the "soul" is purely illusiary, the consequence of having a bifercated brain, perhaps even causing a mild form of schizophrenia in all of us. The notion of things like an "immortal soul" (ie conciousness sans-existence) is therefore basically impossible since conciousness itself requires an intact, living brain.

Actually what I was trying to get at was is this:

1. God (conciousness) created existance.

2. If this is so then the view that existance is primary is invalid.

3. It then follows that if the primacy of existance is valid then the view that conciousness (God ) is primary is invalid.

They contradict each other.

4. With that established we only need to ask one question.

Does God exist? (If you believe in God your answer better be yes.)

Game. Set. Match.

 

[CapnG]

1. God (conciousness) created existance.

2. If this is so then the view that existance is primary is invalid.

3. It then follows that if the primacy of existance is valid then the view that conciousness (God ) is primary is invalid.

They contradict each other.

4. With that established we only need to ask one question.

Does God exist? (If you believe in God your answer better be yes.)

Game. Set. Match.

But that presupposes that God does not exist as a physical entity AND that what we call the universe is all there is to existence (spelled with an E, btw). This is the sort of thing you need to really think about: is your notion of what God is (or isn't) based on what might actually be or is it solely based on what religious thinkers TELL US God is/should be?

Once you tear apart the notions of religion and God you will realize the former is a purely human invention and the latter (if it even exists) is literally an unknowable quantity, making any thought dedicated to it largely pointless.

 

[stphrz]

But that presupposes that God does not exist as a physical entity AND that what we call the universe is all there is to existence (spelled with an E, btw). This is the sort of thing you need to really think about: is your notion of what God is (or isn't) based on what might actually be or is it solely based on what religious thinkers TELL US God is/should be?

Once you tear apart the notions of religion and God you will realize the former is a purely human invention and the latter (if it even exists) is literally an unknowable quantity, making any thought dedicated to it largely pointless.

Ek. Dunno why I spelled it with an "a". heh. Trying to type too fast I guess.

The point is, the supposition I put forward is the Christian belief of the nature of God. Infinite, omnipotent, omniscient , perfect, eternal and creator of all things from nothing. (many other religions believe the same thing btw) Therefore, if existence is primary, that belief cannot be valid. That is what we are discussing here right, the beliefs of others not what is or is not? The thread started out discussing Gospels that were rejected from the Christian canon after all.

Notice I didn't say the universe. I said existence. Existence entails everything, what we know and what we don't.

Now about the possibility there is some sort of higher being that is finite and fallible that created only the universe we know about, well that's a whole new can of worms There's no proof one way or another. So on that we agree I guess.

 

[bmadccp]

And if that summation of the "Abrahamic religions" were the truth, I'd have nothing to do with Christianity either. But what you quoted is Christianity according to George Carlin: a thoroughly ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled jumble of popular and convenient half-truths, lies, and crass attempts at humor. "No thanks!"




George Carlin may have said something along those lines or even plaguerized Gene, but this is quoted straight from his biographical book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0451454189/?tag=rockoids-20

All that aside about who said it, it still does not invalidate, falsify, or even mildly dent that statement, to wit;
God is perfect.
God makes man who is imperfect.
God blames man and punishes him being imperfect.

I see nothing crass, bigoted, humorous, or false about that. That is a perfectly valid summation.

Beleive what you wish, I think it's still a somewhat free country in some places (void where prohibited). I may disagree with you, but I'll defend your right to follow your own conscience.

I think that the summation is far too simple. In my mind, the third aspect is not accurate. I was never given the impression (grew up Christian) that God blames/punishe's man for man's faults. I learned that God gave us free will. With this free will, we are free to love or reject Him. Some religions say that when we reject, God, then He rejects us and some seem to teach that God is more lenient than that. Either way, the whole "free will" thing is important, at least to my understanding of my faith. I don't think that God punishes evil per se, I think he allows free will and when we choose evil we bring about our own punishment (whatever that may be)...maybe it's hell, maybe it's karma, I dunno. It brings me to recall the saying "If you love something, set it free and if it comes back to you it's yours forever" (did I get that right??). I guess this is how I see it anyway.

 

[CapnG]

I think that the summation is far too simple. In my mind, the third aspect is not accurate. I was never given the impression (grew up Christian) that God blames/punishe's man for man's faults. I learned that God gave us free will. With this free will, we are free to love or reject Him. Some religions say that when we reject, God, then He rejects us and some seem to teach that God is more lenient than that. Either way, the whole "free will" thing is important, at least to my understanding of my faith. I don't think that God punishes evil per se, I think he allows free will and when we choose evil we bring about our own punishment (whatever that may be)...maybe it's hell, maybe it's karma, I dunno. It brings me to recall the saying "If you love something, set it free and if it comes back to you it's yours forever" (did I get that right??). I guess this is how I see it anyway.

You're missing the essential self-contradiction there, though. Free will is of no value if certain choices are deemed "wrong" and the punishments for those choices are pre-ordained. In other words, what God says to man is "You are free to do whatever you want... as long as you do exactly what I told you to do. OR ELSE!"

Hardly free will in my book. Of course once you throw the concept of omniscience in there, things start getting even uglier.

 

[exo_doc]

God gives man a way out of punishment without requiring him to be perfect by his own efforts.

My better judgement tells me to leave this one alone, but I guess I'll be an idiot and post my opinion anyway.

"God gives man a way out of punishment" .....there's that punishment for being imperfect listed earlier, which isn't our fault,
"....requiring him to be perfect by his own efforts." People should mentaly, emotionally, and spiritually,by thier own efforts, reach for perfection, or at least the best they can be, otherwise what's the point? That's like being given everything in life without earning it, it's empty and hollow.

 

[stphrz]

My better judgement tells me to leave this one alone, but I guess I'll be an idiot and post my opinion anyway.

"God gives man a way out of punishment" .....there's that punishment for being imperfect listed earlier, which isn't our fault,
"....requiring him to be perfect by his own efforts." People should mentaly, emotionally, and spiritually,by thier own efforts, reach for perfection, or at least the best they can be, otherwise what's the point? That's like being given everything in life without earning it, it's empty and hollow.

Hey, I didn't say it was logical. I agree with you here. "Grace" as a concept as taught by Christianity has always perplexed me. My point was that the first three statements standing alone are being used to imply that Christianity and the God it worships are mean spirited, unfair and vengeful. The additional statement doesn't make everything clear, correct or valid it's just a reminder that there's more to it than that.

Discussion of religion with believers never really seems to accomplish much anyway. Whenever I bring up the primacy of existence over conciousness argument I ultimately get something along the lines of "Well it's just something you can't understand. It's a mystery beyond reason and logic. It's about faith."

Then I'm like "oh, ok..."

---------- Post added at 01:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

Not being able to edit my posts is a real drag.

Heh, figured out a way

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You should be able to edit. What happens when you try?

 

[stphrz]

You should be able to edit. What happens when you try?

The edit option is missing on the bar at the bottom. Sometimes it's there sometimes it isn't.

Probably something wrong with my browser. It is old.

See, the edit option is there for this post, but not my previous one. Weird.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The edit option is missing on the bar at the bottom. Sometimes it's there sometimes it isn't.

Probably something wrong with my browser. It is old.

See, the edit option is there for this post, but not my previous one. Weird.

Get a newer browser. IE 6 is a no-no.

 

[stphrz]

Get a newer browser. IE 6 is a no-no.

My laptop met with an unfortunate, um, demise. I had to haul this old pos out of storage to use until I can get a new one. If I get creative I can get by in the meantime.

 

[exo_doc]

Hey, I didn't say it was logical. I agree with you here. "Grace" as a concept as taught by Christianity has always perplexed me. My point was that the first three statements standing alone are being used to imply that Christianity and the God it worships are mean spirited, unfair and vengeful. The additional statement doesn't make everything clear, correct or valid it's just a reminder that there's more to it than that.

Discussion of religion with believers never really seems to accomplish much anyway. Whenever I bring up the primacy of existence over conciousness argument I ultimately get something along the lines of "Well it's just something you can't understand. It's a mystery beyond reason and logic. It's about faith."

Then I'm like "oh, ok..."

---------- Post added at 01:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

Not being able to edit my posts is a real drag.

Heh, figured out a way

Yeah, and I should have stuck to the topic instead obliquely attacking someones relgion.

The Gospels that didn't make it I find fascinating, if somewhat confusing. The Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library are very interesting because they show a side of Christianity that was oppressed into oblivion by the purges of the early church founders. Quite a few of them were unknown to modern scholars.
It really makes me wonder what else is out there just waiting to be discovered in some cave or farmers field.
I wonder what kind of reception the orginal, un-edited, un-cut copies of books like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John would get in todays religious climate? Especially if they turn out to be radically different from the modern ones.

 

[PeteAtomic]

The gospel of judas is very interesting. It's written by the perspective of Judas' son, who claims that judas survives and ends up in a jewish religious community. He also writes that judas did not think jesus was a god, but just an enlightened man. No wonder that book never made the canon.
Another good gospel is the one according to Thomas. In the 'historical sayings of jesus' (another name of this gospel), Jesus is ascribed to say some very interesting things, some of them quite mysterious. One particularily interesting one is how jesus says that he is everywhere, under rocks, etc. No wonder this gospel wasn't included, since organized churches are a cornerstone of christianity.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------

Yeah, and I should have stuck to the topic instead obliquely attacking someones relgion.

The Gospels that didn't make it I find fascinating, if somewhat confusing. The Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library are very interesting because they show a side of Christianity that was oppressed into oblivion by the purges of the early church founders. Quite a few of them were unknown to modern scholars.
It really makes me wonder what else is out there just waiting to be discovered in some cave or farmers field.
I wonder what kind of reception the orginal, un-edited, un-cut copies of books like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John would get in todays religious climate? Especially if they turn out to be radically different from the modern ones.

Or the Vatican Secret Library, for that matter.