Yep. And biochemically it has a quite similar effect. Which may mean that it’s hallucinated, as the typical Evangelical Atheist is prone to point out; but it may also mean that a part of the Divine Plan is that the human organism can experience religious feelings through its neurology and biochemistry, and therefore come to know and worship God. And the only grounds for choosing which answer is right reduces ultimately to circular reasoning.
However, were you aware that Marx was not insulting religion in that remark? Just as in the 1840s virtually the sole analgesic for severe pain was an opiate, virtually the sole analgesic for the drab and hopeless existence of the proletariat, in his opinion, was their hope for better things in the life to come. That was the original significance of the remark.
I don’t believe the OP states that it is nessecary to accpet the “Christian myth”.
I would ask, what myth specificlly are you referring to? There are lots of doctrinal and theological premises in Christianity. Do you consider all of them a myth?
Personally I don’t think any of the thousands of religions are completely correct. All are expressions of mankinds imperfect desire to commune with his/or her creator. Thats seems pretty human and okay. Science doesn’t offer any more perfection than religion.
Excellent explaination. Some denominations view it that way. The sons of perdition are those who are fully aware of God’s will but conciously choose their another way.
There’s a passage in the Book of Mormon which describes the fire of damnation as our awareness of our shortcomings when we come into God’s presence unprepared.
The analogy might be addcits who don’t recognize the love shown to them when the object of their addiction is denied them. They fight like hell and curse those who act out of love to help them.
But don’t get the wrong idea about the word “myth.” I don’t mean it to mean “untrue,” but in the sense of a sacred story. A myth can be allegorically true without being historical.
What I specifically meant in this case was the Christian doctrine that salvation is dependant upon a specific belief in Jesus as a “savior” or that Jesus was God, etc.
What creator?
Not all religions believe in a creator, you know.
I have no idea what you mean by “offering perfection” or what that has to do with anything I’ve said. I believe that religious questions are outside the purview of science. Scientific method cannot disprove God, but it can and does sometimes disprove specific, falsifiable claims made about history or the physical universe.
Says empirical method. Says common sense. Says Okham and Popper.
would you say that an infinity of supernatural explanations should all be considered equally as plausible as natural explanations for any and all phenomena?
Let me simplify the question: If you see tire tracks in the snow, do you think that a car probably made them or would you insist that you can’t rule out the possibility that an elf put them there with a magic wand, or maybe God did it, or maybe it was flying saucer with radial tires? Would you say that all of those possibilities are equally plausible?
If detectives are investigating a crime, should they stick to human suspects or do you believe they must give equal attention to the possility of vampires or werwolves?
Scientific method requires certain assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the impossible must be regarded as impossible until proven otherwise.
Good statement, Diogenes. I recommend Joseph Campbell’s writings to anyone interested in the nature of myth in the human psyche. When we say that the stories of the Creation, the Fall or the Flood are “myths,” we are not speaking of the truth value of them, but of the literary genre in which they are presented.
I do have to differ with the word “impossible” succinctly, though. “Ultra-low probability” and “requiring unwarranted assumptions” would be much more on target. While your examples are on a par with “Magic Sky Pixie” caricatures of God in contrasting the probable explanation with ultra-improbable phenomena, contemplate my own survival. When I had my heart attack, I was found by Jay, the young man my wife and I had befriended, who claims to have felt a really strong compulsion, nearly “voices in his head,” saying that he should go visit me then – a sensation he had not felt before and has never felt since. As a result of his discovering me dying, a couple of hours before my wife would have arrived home, I was taken to the hospital and treated, and largely recovered. The strong probability is that if that had not happened, I would have died before my wife got home. Now, coincidence and odd hallucination are good “natural” explanations for what happened to Jay to make him come visit and find me. But we’re inclined to attribute it to a small miracle, God preserving me for what He had in mind for me later (which included, by the way, rescuing Jay from homelessness a year later).
I’m not asking anyone to believe in God or in that being a miracle, simply because I’ve told the story. I’m simply asking that they accept the rationality of our feeling it’s the most reasonable explanation, given our belief in God and the facts of the situation as I’ve reported.
The empirical method maybe, though its self-validation seems rather circular. And common sense? Maybe not so common, since the common view is that God exists. But Ockham and Popper? Definitely not. Unless it is necessary to deny the supernatural, then it ought not be denied. That’s what Ockham (who believed in God) would say. As for Popper, he was not declaring what is right and what is wrong, but merely what is scientic and what is not. He was concerned with demarcation, or as he put it:
*At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or “meaningless,” or “nonsensical.” But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the “result of observation.”
[…snip…]
Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements — whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific.*
All I’m talking about is empirical method, Lib- in particular the use of Empirical method as applied to the historical claims of Christianity. When using this method, It’s ALWAYS necessary to deny the supernatural until the natural can be eliminated.
I think the word “supernatural” is really sort of evasive in the sense that evokes a physical paradigm that has never been shown to exist. That’s why I prefer the word “impossible” because that’s what “supernatural” really means. Anything which violates the laws of physics is physically impossible by definition.
It’s impossible for dead bodies to come back to life just like it’s impossible for anvils to float. If we do not assume the impossible is impossible then we have no ability at all to employ deductive reasoning or scientific method in any context at all.
I ask again, should detectives in criminal cases investigate an infinity of supernatural possibilities for every crime and clue or should they make some assumptions about reality?
I have been thinking about this post for some days.
I had never heard about the “burning pain.” I think (believe?) that if one turns from God that there is a void, and absence–even a cold darkness, if you will, an alone-ness.
I certainly have never felt a burning pain in my loss of faith (or does the burning refer to hell?), but there is a nothingness there-sort of a black hole of wholeness.
I do believe that God does not turn “His” back on us, rather we do to him. But I differ in that I think “He” understands that and accepts it as part of creating a thinking, questing being. Obviously, I am in the minority!
I DO recall an old pastor (long since retired) that had me (a brand new member of the church) read aloud a passage that describes God turning away from someone. That was the phrase used, “turning away”. I am pretty sure it was NT–this was 15 years ago. I do not recall the passage(unfortunately, but it scared the hell out of me), and when I asked other pastors about it–one vehemently denied that such a passage exists and the other said he was not familiar with such a message from a loving God. When I say God, I mean God, not Jesus*-it was the Lord that spoke, so maybe OT?
I would love to know what passage it was (now that I know more about Scripture etc). Any thoughts? And Theologue , what say you to either the burning or the turning away from people? Just curious as to your thoughts…
whenever I say God, I mean God. Maybe I’m a Deist and not a Christian, because I have no problem with a higher “authority”.
Tee-hee! Considering the origins of the Episcopal Church itself, I have to say that this reaction strikes me as a little bit amusing. After all, the Church of England, the direct ancestor and closest relative of Episcopalianism, got started because Henry VIII wanted another wife and the Pope refused to annul his previous marriage. So King Harry just said “Right, we’re not taking off the Pope anymore, and since I’m now the chief authority of this church I’m allowed to remarry if I say so.” Lo and behold!
If changing existing doctrines on marriage based on the founder’s personal matrimonial issues is enough to disqualify a sect from being Christian, ISTM that the Anglicans/Episcopalians and Mormons are more or less in the same boat.
It really amounts to a tautology. If the supernatural exists then the supernatural exists.
You’re correct that “supernatural” is kind of a self-negating term in that once the supernatural is manifested in nature it is natural in itself. If it does not manifest in nature that it’s the same as if it doesn’t exist.
If the supernatural is natural, then A is Not A. No one is beholden to call everything that exists “natural”. Something is natural if it manifests in nature; i.e., the ultimate source of its existence is the material from the Big Bang. There is no reason why the universe, with its four (or eleven) dimensions, cannot be sealed and yet open to a being unconstrained by dimensionality. A closed circle, for example, would seal in two-dimensional inhabitants, but three-dimensional beings would be privvy to both its insides and its outsides. Likewise, a four-dimensional being would be privvy to both the insides and outsides of a closed sphere that would seal us.
Considering the people who often refer to us LDS as a cult (or not Christian) also commonly lump the RCC in the same boat, I don’t take them seriously anymore. I’d prefer John Paul II’s company to theirs anyway.
Ah, predestination. As I preface my lecture on the subject, “Don’t expect me to solve this one in a two-hour class.” But, you asked for my opinion, which makes things easier.
I believe in predestination. It is a biblical teaching, found in many places, so any Christian theology has to include it in its construction. If you are familiar with the two systems, I am an Arminian, not a Calvinist. Unlike popularly presented, Arminians do believe in predestination, just not as absolutely. I believe, as it says in Rom. 8:29-30, that predestination is based on God’s foreknowledge. God is omniscient; he knew all things and everything about everyone before the world began. He foreknew who would love him and be united with him in faith. Predestination means that he works by his Holy Spirit to bring them to himself (calling). I reject the idea of double predestination or reprobation; predestination is only positive. Everything in God is a “Yes.” There is a No, as J. Rodman Williams says, but it is outside of him.
This is a very simplistic answer and doesn’t cover everything, but that is the gist of it.
Regarding LDS, JW, and others: as stated previously the reason these groups are considered not Christian is because of their theology, specifically their views of the Trinity and the Person of Christ. Mormon theology is polytheistic; the JW view of God is essentially a revival of Arianism, which was declared heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325. (The Reorganized LDS Church, based in Missouri, is closer to orthodox Christian belief than the Utah Church.)
Both groups also have different views of the church and stand in discontinuity with historic Christianity. They believe that true Christianity, the true Church, was restored with them. (They probably have differing views regarding other Christian groups.) Protestants and Catholics, while having their differences, do recognize each other’s basic continuity with the historic Christian faith. Protestants do not view the Roman Catholic Church as being non-Christian; they believe it is Christian but in need of reform. Likewise, Catholics recognize that within the differing Protestant denominations there are many Catholic elements. Both, for instance, will affirm the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.
It is perhaps unfair to characterize JW and LDS together as they differ greatly from one another, but they are two groups most people are familiar with and have questions about. Also please note that I have not used the loaded term “cult,” which probably has more sociological than theological utility. Missiologically, these groups are classified as “marginal,” being on the edges of historic Christianity, which, to not be void of meaning, must have some boundaries.
At this point, I would like to pause and thank everyone for participating in this thread, especially for keeping the tone positive. Over the years, I have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of this site, a lot entertainment in my boredom. I hope that I have been able to contribute something of value to this place.
Real Life is starting it get busy for me, so I may not be able to participate much the next few days. Please excuse me if there is some delay in getting back to questions directed to me. If there is still interest in the thread, I will try to participate when/if I get a chance. If not, see you around, and may God bless you!
If you want to start another thread about this, then fine. But I don’t agree with your characterization of my religion and I’ll answer it here. I’m not polytheistic. True, I don’t bow down to the nonsensical councils of Niceae and Chalcedon. However, most Christians I’ve discussed the topic with are really Modalists at heart, which is just as heretical IIRC as Arianism.
