The Gospel according to Judas

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Certainly there are things I don't understand about it, but looking for answers and trying to figure it out just seems a lot more reasonable to me than saying that an invisible man in the sky did it.

You know, boiling down a complex faith to "an invisible man in the sky did it" is totally disingenuous and cheapens it entirely. That is as dogmatic a statement as a creationist saying "evolution says monkeys had a human baby all of sudden and that's ridiculous". It's a deliberate misinterpretation of the other viewpoint in order to have an easier target to attack.

I took an entire university class on the existence and nature of God, so boiling it down to "an invisible man in the sky that does stuff" is obviously, you know, missing at least some of the complexity of the argument.

There are limits to what rationality can tell us about the world. Things happen to me (and so I assume other people) that a rational explanation doesn't explain satisfactorily. I'm not ready yet to take the next step and say that the irrational part of life has something to do with a spiritual force, but I've wholeheartedly embraced that rationality is only one way to see a situation, and that some situations are best looked at with an acceptance of "this was not supposed to make sense".

That's what burns me when some of y'all start talking about religion. I find the spiritual ones are less dogmatic than the so-called atheists or rationalists, or whatever you want to go by.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...why bother? You didnt answer the question McFly...what is the protection then? Why bother? Let me guess...so Gramma and Grandpa and uncle and aunt or mom and dad can suggest to the child later that they are "falling out of the light" if that child chooses to ignore that chosen path? Cmon...I have hundreds of friends, and so do you, who have had to deal with that inner pressure from family who demands they stay within the confines of the "chosen religion" or flavor of the day so to speak. Its NOT about choice whatsoever.

Mhmmm... I said I was going to stay out of this, why did I come in this thread again?

The question wasn't directed at me, so you're right, I didn't answer it. Will I baptize my child? I don't rightly know. First I'd need a husband, and together, we'll decide what to do. I would like to baptize my child, for the protection that gives them, and for my own peace of mind. If my husband feels strongly against it, I would have a conversation at that time. If my child dies before they are concious enough to decide for themselves whether or not they believe, I would like to think that the baptism will allow them passage to Heaven. If they die after making the choice to not believe I guess we'll find out what happens then.

Actually, I don't have hundreds of friends that are pressured by their parents or grandparents about falling from the light. As a matter of fact, I don't believe I know a single person who is pressured like that. I do know people that regardless of religious affliation or not are told to straighten out and start acting right, but I can't recall anyone who has the fear of God put in them. (Or the fear of believing in a God as you like to do...)

I think you fail to realize that times are changing Cheese. People (in Canada at least, and generally at least,) just don't do things like that anymore. Only 22% of Canadians go to church. Parents just don't give a damn anymore. Your parents may have, and drilled that fear into you, my grandparents may have and drilled that fear into my mother (my father's parents were all about love and choice though they were Christians so times were changing then too), but my mother has never done such a thing to me. She knows the value of choice after having none in her life, much like you value the same.

What would you say if your kids told you they'd decided to become Christian?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

You know, boiling down a complex faith to "an invisible man in the sky did it" is totally disingenuous and cheapens it entirely. That is as dogmatic a statement as a creationist saying "evolution says monkeys had a human baby all of sudden and that's ridiculous". It's a deliberate misinterpretation of the other viewpoint in order to have an easier target to attack.

Fair enough. But he keeps yakking about Creationism. Now I'm no theologian, but I've read Genesis and as far as I can tell, if you believe in a literal interpretation of that then you do believe an invisible man in the sky did it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I quote posts so people know who they are directed at. I also try not to put words in other peoples mouths or assume their motivations.

I don't really know who Hockeypuck is, or what they plan to do with their child, I ask questions, get answers and formulate opinions with information. Cheese is leaning in the direction I was talking about, I have friends who have been rejected by their families for not taking on the religion. My grandfather did not get an inheritance which was supposed to be divided between him and his brothers because he was not a JW. He then recieved a lot of flak when he got a blood transfusion as well, which saved his life. It involved over 20 years of not even speaking with his older brother.

I don't have some hate for religion FireFly, I am asking questions, I'm not telling you what you should beleive in.

From a sociologist's perspective, it was a very leading question and I'm sure you're aware of that. A better question might have been 'do you plan on pressuring your children into retaining their Christianity into adulthood' but then that would also be a leading question.

20 years is a long time of not speaking to an older brother. Based on the information you've given, I assume the persons in question are all fairly old now. Again, times are changing. Now, JWs and Mormons are a little different (though my chiropractor is Mormon and is a fabulous man,) and I would suggest that they are not the 'average' religious Canadian.

50 years ago that absolutely would take place. 50 years ago religion was a much larger part of everyone's life. People born 50 years ago would have been born at a time when it was important and would likely face that same kind of persecution. 20 years ago... just not the same. Now you have those born 50 years ago being parents and they are a competely different generation.

While I respect your opinion because it is true it does happen, you both are not looking at the changing times.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough. But he keeps yakking about Creationism. Now I'm no theologian, but I've read Genesis and as far as I can tell, if you believe in a literal interpretation of that then you do believe an invisible man in the sky did it.

I don't disagree...but then, I don't support a literal interpretation of Genesis. In my honest opinion, anyone who supports a literal interpretation of scripture is an idiot anyway. I don't think it was ever meant to be read like a storybook.

Furthermore, there are many theories of "creationism" that don't involve dinosaurs and man living together 6000 years ago and all that nonsense. There are versions of "God created the Universe" that don't conflict with modern scientific theories whatsoever.

It's easy to criticize flagrantly ignorant theories, but as far as I know, none of us here are touting them, either.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FireFly

20 years is a long time of not speaking to an older brother. Based on the information you've given, I assume the persons in question are all fairly old now. Again, times are changing. Now, JWs and Mormons are a little different (though my chiropractor is Mormon and is a fabulous man,) and I would suggest that they are not the 'average' religious Canadian.

Well, it was my Grandfather, and eventually they did start speaking only a few short years ago.

I know they are not even close to resembling the average person, but the stuff does happen. Some of my best friends are people who are religious, and through my experiences through Church, I have met a lot of great people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

It's easy to criticize flagrantly ignorant theories, but as far as I know, none of us here are touting them, either.

I don't know, but I get the impression that I was dealing with someone touting that theory. When I hear "creationism" and "there is just as much science in creationism as there is in evolutionary theory" over and over, it sounds to me like I'm dealing with a literal-type.

Other than that though, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I don't disagree...but then, I don't support a literal interpretation of Genesis. In my honest opinion, anyone who supports a literal interpretation of scripture is an idiot anyway. I don't think it was ever meant to be read like a storybook.

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you have overstated your case. Without question, the original authors of the sacred traditions which became scripture believed in their "literal" (or "plain" as so many so-called "creationists" like to say) application. The creation myth in Genesis is an adaptation of several similar myths from the Mesopotamian region, all which date far back into the 3rd millenium B.C.E. The emphasis of the story is primarily twofold: 1) That ONE "Super" God (as opposed to several or hundreds of "demi-gods" created everything, and did so within six solar days. 2) That the order and function of the cosmos is a direct and patterned reflection of the Jewish calendar, which emphasizes sabbath observance. There is little doubt that the authors intended this story to be read and understood otherwise. That, however, does not mean that a Chirstian or Jewish interpretation of Scripture must read the myth the same way. Both Christianity and Judaism have proven to be remarkably adaptable, and they will continue to survive and flourish as a result. Faith always finds a way, and those believers who are not afraid of facing the tough questions which challenge their faith ultimately come to comprehend their beliefs in a manner which does not depend on a theological straw man or uncredible pseudo-science.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Furthermore, there are many theories of "creationism" that don't involve dinosaurs and man living together 6000 years ago and all that nonsense. There are versions of "God created the Universe" that don't conflict with modern scientific theories whatsoever.

I believe a definition of creationism is needed at this point. Creationism is properly ANY attempt to make sense of the Genesis myth through the application of science. I, for one, believe in a creator God, but I reject ANY and all attempts to apply science to the interpretation of ancient scriptures. It's ridiculous. Everything contained in the Bible is pre-scientific, and it is naive to think that those who wrote any of the documents of Scripture were as sophisticated in their thinking and worldviews as is modern man. Science and the rapid advances in technology in the last 350 years has radically changed the way that all of humanity interprets the world. Something as simple as language, writing and literacy has had a dramatic effect on our understanding of history, legend, and myth.
I am NOT a creationist, however, that is not to say that I do not believe in creation.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

It's easy to criticize flagrantly ignorant theories, but as far as I know, none of us here are touting them, either.

True enough. But the scientific practices of so-called creationists is seriously flawed, and no matter how much they choose to deny it, ANY science whose starting point is the absolute inerrency and absolute, radical infallibility of any piece of religious literature is simply bad science which is doomed to fail. Creationism is more theology than scientific theory (and it is BAD THEOLOGY at that!).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know, but I get the impression that I was dealing with someone touting that theory. When I hear "creationism" and "there is just as much science in creationism as there is in evolutionary theory" over and over, it sounds to me like I'm dealing with a literal-type.

Other than that though, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

"Creationism" is a doctrine, and it is quite distinct from believing in "creation". I believe in a creator God, but I reject the application of science as a method for interpretting scripture, which is religious literature. A creationist MUST find a scientific explanation for legitimating his understanding of the Genesis myth, because his faith is primarily founded upon observable phenomena (much like athiests, although they have a reasonable case to reject God, simply because his activity can hardly be "observable" according to the canons of science.
"Creationism" is more theology than science, and it is—in my professional opinion BAD THEOLOGY.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

"Creationism" is a doctrine, and it is quite distinct from believing in "creation". I believe in a creator God, but I reject the application of science as a method for interpretting scripture, which is religious literature. A creationist MUST find a scientific explanation for legitimating his understanding of the Genesis myth, because his faith is primarily founded upon observable phenomena (much like athiests, although they have a reasonable case to reject God, simply because his activity can hardly be "observable" according to the canons of science.
"Creationism" is more theology than science, and it is—in my professional opinion BAD THEOLOGY.

faith
religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.

I think most of the theists here are having a tough time trying to get ahold of what you speak. A supposed Christian who believes in a God...yet knows theres no legitmate explanation for the vast majority of theist principles...other than faith.

A Deist perhaps?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

faith
religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.

I think most of the theists here are having a tough time trying to get ahold of what you speak. A supposed Christian who believes in a God...yet knows theres no legitmate explanation for the vast majority of theist principles...other than faith.

A Deist perhaps?

No. Not a deist.
I am no expert, but in my estimation, deists dealt with the vast complexities of the universe and its natural order by explaining away the supernatrual elements of scripture (miracles) through natural means. For example, the ridiculous nonsense that perhaps Jesus walked on an ice-covered sea of Galilee serves as an explanation for the New Testament's record as a legitimate one. For a deist, there is an element of scientific veracity to the claims of scripture. As such, one is confronted with the need to rationalize those elements which do not conform to their highly naturalistic constructs. I experience no such need.
I do not reject the miraculous—I actually believe I may have witnessed a few!—but neither do I accept that the Bible's presentation of miracles is necessarily factual. I believe in the divine inspiration of sacred literature, but this is a different matter than the concept of "biblical innerency." My faith remains something that is intangible and difficult to explain in large part because I refuse to rationalize it. It may appear contradictory and perhaps paradoxical to many—especially to those who require a naturalistic explanation for the order and opperation of all things (naturalists and creationists alike! most of the latter tend to label me a heretic, but aren't we all?). Reason is the liimit of man's capacity to explain the unexplainable, and herein—I believe—is where God and the supernatural is inscrutable and accessed only through faith.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I actually believe I may have witnessed a few!

Please, do tell.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Please, do tell.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO TEXTCRITIC
~ 16th Revised Edition; Translated from the Original by a Divinely Selected Group of 70 Spiritually Endowed Experts ~

In Summer 2001 I was backpacking with 5 friends in the Big Elbow region—at least, I think it was in the Big Elbow region. While there for several days, my party set out to explore Burns Lake; which is situated atop a waterfall, and surrounded on three sides by sheer faces of stone and steep slopes of skree. There is only one way in and out of Burn's Lake: following a loose path of small boulders up the precipitate face to the right of the waterfall.
We reached the lake in the late afternoon, and were pleased to find a group of campers relaxing on the lakeshore and fishing. They were four in all; an anonymous and friendly group of adventurers from Calgary, who had come to the lake for a weekend of bad fishing, good camping, and a liberal supplement of alcohol. My companions and I explored the high valley for a brief period of time, and then converged on the shores of the lake where the others were fishing for some good conversation. We chatted for several minutes; all quite oblivious to the time and our surroundings, when I distinctly heard one from out of the group say: "Look over there." We all at once noticed a very large male grizzly bear approaching from the only point of entry to the valley.
All of us, to a man responded in the highly rational fashion by turning quickly and running as fast as each of us could for the saftey of the inhospitable skree. As we clambored up the boulders, the bear encroached upon the abandoned fishing gear, and consumed the meagre and boney Rocky Mountain prizes on the shore. He lunged towards the boulders where we perched apprehensively, but determined shortly that we were not worth the trouble, and ventured towards the tents of our nameless cohorts. He stayed there.
After nearly an hour of gathering our wits and attempting to determine an appropriuate course of action, one of my friends suggested to the other party that they leave their gear and head for home. the bear had made the unpopular decision to spend the night, and none of the others were much in the mood for a battle over sleeping arrangements with a grizzly. Two from the group bravely returned to the shore of the lake (which was close but quite out of site from the grizzly's new found abode), and returned with a set of keys, which they determined would be necessary for the drive home.
We managed to blaze a new, and much more hazardous avenue for descent from the valley, on the other side of the waterfall.
It was once upon the trail leading home, that our discussion surrounding the events of the past hour, or two, or four became animated and charged with adrenaline. What was particualrly frightnening of the experience, was that none of us had noticed the approach of the giant bear; he seemed to float noiselessly but with confindence into our vicinity. No one noticed, that is, not until our attention was drawn by the disembodied voice of the man behind us; he who beckoned us to see..."Look over there..." He who spoke so clearly and with such composure, but whose presence none of us could account for. We—ten in all—heard the voice; we all responded, and yet we all remain at a loss to explain its origin.
I am a firm believer that our experiences with God will occur in the obscure, the unexpected, the unspectacular moments of our lives. But that amid those subtleties, when the finger of God touches us in a fashion that defies explanation, it is the scourge that drives our faith. I have little doubt that another man could find a way to reduce my experience to something which might conform to a rational explanation; but I doubt very highly that I could accept it or find it to be more plausible than this: That I was amid a collection of friends and strangers who ALL quite perspicuously heard the audible voice of the Divine.

[RougeUnderoos]

That's a pretty cool story.

[Alpha_Q]

Originally Posted by HockeyPuck

Whoa, there buddy - I thought we want to teach our children science? As I mentioned above, there is as much science in evolutionary theory than creationism. Our teachers should help our children learn the scientific process - observing, reproducing the results, and making conclusions - not pushing one theory or the other (which they are doing in public schools).

Sorry, but creationism is just religious metaphysics with a new name. It's like trying to teach an old Dogma new tricks. When at it's best creationism is an attemp to build a bridge between the bible (or other holy book) and science by trying desperately to find holes in accepted fact about such things as the dating methods of rock and how we measure the shift in light to determine how far away a star is and how old the universe is. At it's worse creationist science is utter junk - an attempt to use *******ized pseudo-science in the public realm to sway the opinion of Joe Churchgoer against science.
If we feel that a creation myth is plausible enough to teach our children in public institutions then we must include all other allegedly plausible myths and other possibilities that may account for the creation of man and the universe, whether it be the belief of the ancient greek gods or the belief in superior alien civilizations. It's like teaching a child the process of lightning then having a day long class on the theory of 'god making lightning when he wants to punish someone'.
Creationists traditionally have not worried themselves enough to develop theories about geological, physical and biological processes that jive with the bible, the spend their time trying to refute evidence that supports theories that DO NOT jive with the bible. Until creationists can use established scientific methods, (such as observation and the reproduction of results), to come to their own conclusions it should not be taught in public institutions.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Alpha_Q

...Creationists traditionally have not worried themselves enough to develop theories about geological, physical and biological processes that jive with the bible, the spend their time trying to refure evidence that supports theories that DO NOT jive with the bible. Until creationists can use established scientific methods, (such as observation and the reproduction of results), to come to their own conclusions it should not be taught in public institutions.

do you realize what you are suggesting? If creationists were ever incumbered by such a thing as legitimate science, they could no longer support their ridiculous theories of origins and biblical interpretation. It is not fair to demand the same quality of work from creationists, because in the end it would render creationism little more than a brain fart...
In the end, all creationists brains would explode.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's a pretty cool story.

Yes it is.
Thank you.

[STeeLy]

All I can say is that... I smell an conspiracy coming.

All the version tells pretty much the same thing, Judas betrays Jesus, and he dies because of it. However, this one is saying Jesus tells Judas to betray him. In the end, Judas still betrayed him.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think I understand the point you are trying to make, but you have overstated your case. Without question, the original authors of the sacred traditions which became scripture believed in their "literal" (or "plain" as so many so-called "creationists" like to say) application. The creation myth in Genesis is an adaptation of several similar myths from the Mesopotamian region, all which date far back into the 3rd millenium B.C.E. The emphasis of the story is primarily twofold: 1) That ONE "Super" God (as opposed to several or hundreds of "demi-gods" created everything, and did so within six solar days. 2) That the order and function of the cosmos is a direct and patterned reflection of the Jewish calendar, which emphasizes sabbath observance. There is little doubt that the authors intended this story to be read and understood otherwise. That, however, does not mean that a Chirstian or Jewish interpretation of Scripture must read the myth the same way. Both Christianity and Judaism have proven to be remarkably adaptable, and they will continue to survive and flourish as a result. Faith always finds a way, and those believers who are not afraid of facing the tough questions which challenge their faith ultimately come to comprehend their beliefs in a manner which does not depend on a theological straw man or uncredible pseudo-science.

Bear with me. You obviously are more immersed in the subject than I but I'll try to present my case.

I have read that certain sects of Judaism believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible (OT) through Qabbalah; in that, it was a secret doctrine or book passed from God to the holy priests, and it was "encoded" -- in much the same way the tetragrammaton is "encoded" -- through gematria and other numerological systems to preserve it's "truth".

Now, that's not really where I'm going (I don't care for numerology), but since I read that it really germinated the idea in my head that the Bible was non-literal: that is, meant to be "interpreted", such as is done through priests in the Catholic faith. Like parables, you know? It makes far more sense to me to suggest that many of the events in the Bible are not unlike our modern mythologies.

A quick example here. Spiderman is not real, but he represents much of the way modern North-Americans think. It is romantic to think that, because life is so "ordinary" for many people, something truly exceptional can happen to an individual so that they can make a real difference on the world. Now imagine that there was some massive breakdown of modern society, and only some information was recovered say two hundred years in the future. It's not so hard to believe that those recovering the information would think Spiderman was actually a real entity, is it? Similarly, it's not so hard to believe that two thousand years ago, stories and second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus were re-interpreted, exaggerated, and changed. Or that a particularly bad storm became a huge storm, then an epic storm, and then that God flooded the entire earth. Even given the different dates at which the different books of the New Testament were written, there are some discrepancies. When one book (I forget which) is written in like 130AD and the rest much earlier, and given the non-ideal record keeping systems of the time, human fallibilities play a significant role.

A certain amount of leniency must be afforded those who wrote the Bible as their experiences would be extremely colored by the way human beings thought in that part of the world at that time. What may be an easily explainable meteorological phenomenon now may seem like God raining fire from the Heavens. What might have been just a powerful storm or tsunami might appear to be God flooding the world. When every event is colored by the presence of the divine, one has to expect that the same event would look massively different to a North American in 2006 AD than a Mesopotamian two thousand years ago.

So...yeah, that's my case for why I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. A little bit disjointed, but it's 12:30 AM.

[Vulcan]

The only ones who like to interpret the Bible literaly are fundamentalists and atheists.