Creating Our Own Theology

[airclean33]

Hi Jae:

What makes you so certain that the Biblical authors were led in a unique way by the spirit of God? Sure, this is what you believe, but is there any evidence other than that?

Airclean-- I will attest to that.So do a few of my Brothers Matthew--Mark--Luke--John--Paul.He is with us and will never leave us.

The oldest surviving religious scriptures, the Vedas, contain wisdom that is every bit as profound, or more so, as the wisdom found in the Bible. Were the Vedic writers not inspired by the spirit of God?

Airclean-- Did they have The Son of god as well? You see Hermann, Jesus The Christ" said..
Jhn 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
You see that Spirit is the Spirit of GOD.

Moreover, a great many writings that are not considered religious scripture are highly inspirational, like, for instance, T.S.Eliot, Gibran, Shakespeare, Rumi -- I am only scratching the surface here. Were they not divinely inspired? Is not every art that touches us profoundly divinely inspired?

Airclean--Here Hermann you and I can agree . Many speak the word of GOD, even Christians without knowing it.

So oft have I invoked thee for my muse,
And found such fair assistance in my verse,
As every alien pen hath got my use,
And under thee thy poesy disperse.
Thine eyes, that taught the dumb on high to sing,
And heavy ignorance aloft to fly,
Have added feathers to the learned's wing,
And given grace a double majesty.
Yet be most proud of that which I compile,
Whose influence is thine, and born of thee:
In others' works thou dost but mend the style,
And arts with thy sweet graces graced be;
But thou art all my art, and dost advance
As high as learning my rude ignorance.

SONNET LXXVIII by William Shakespeare

 

[Jaebius]

I suspect you're trolling here again.

You don't think what I wrote here is accurate?? I can recall you yourself working to mock biblical prophecy, make fun of the "Scripture is the best proof for Scripture" concept, and laugh at Christian archaeological claims.

 

[chansen]

In my defense, that's because they're really funny.

 

[revjohn]

Hi chansen,

]
Perhaps "seriously" is the wrong word. "Elevated" is closer to what I meant.

Well, as far as Christianity goes it is our primary text. All faiths have primary texts that they elevate.

I don't know why we elevate it beyond other books, and I wish more people would not.

Who is the "we" you are identifying?

As far as elevating scripture beyond other books that is something that Christians are not at all monolithic about. Speaking personally the Protestant Bible would be my go to resource for any discussion about God. Simply because the texts contained within it are the texts I am most familiar with.

I have studied the deuterocanonical books, also known as the apocrypha, they read differently than other texts. That may be their unfamiliarity. I have read portions of the Quran, the Bagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Tibetan Book of the Dead. As a Protestant none of those books is recognized as authoritative it doesn't mean they don't have anything to offer, it does mean they will be weighted differently.

I suspect that this is reflected in other disciplines in one way or another. Study philosophy and you find differences between philosophical schools. Socratic or Aristotelian. Study psychology and you find differences there, Freudian or Jungian. Study literature and you find many point to Shakespeare but few who point to Dan Brown.

Why should Socrates be elevated over Aristotle or vice versa?

Why should Freud be elevated over Jung or vice versa?

Why should Shakespeare be elevated over Adams or vice versa?

It happens because people are free to make choices.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Some will choose to let each voice, be it Socrates, Aristotle, Freud, Jung, Shakespeare, Adams, Isaiah or Luke, speak for itself, in its context, to its time. Others insist that those voices speak for others, to every context and to every time.

Texts can speak across contexts and even across times provided we listen to the message being conveyed and weight it more heavily than the words used to convey that message. That requires a literary ability that is fading. Primarily because some portions of Christianity are devotedly anti-intellectual.

[/FONT]
One of the ways we can knock the bible off this pedestal is to make fun of the parts that are just ridiculous or awful, and stop treating it so seriously.

Again, who is the we that you are referring to?

One of the reactions to any attempt to knock the Bible off of any pedestal, particularly through mockery is simply to shut down conversation.

Try insulting some parent's child just to knock them off the pedestal their parents have placed them on. Would you think that the parents would be convinced by you or would they resist you?

When people of faith mock you rather than respect you do you find yourself thinking that people of faith really know what's going on or do you think that they tend to be jerks?

And I think that's an important thing to do.

Whether it is or isn't an important thing to do there are people who will disagree with you.

 

[Hermann]

I'm sure you notice this as you get older, that, because you are getting older, you see more and more of the same old, same old, same old actions, sayings, beliefs, dances, that are perhaps put out as if they are new (and they might be new to the people who haven't been doing it before) but since you're more 'experienced' (ie older) you've seen it before

Live long enough, more and more of the same old, same old...so the trick is, how to keep it fresh? How to keep the spark of life, the amazement, the wonder, and not give in to the same old, same old, boredom upon dullosity?

Imagine living forever in Heaven (as the stereotypical living forever without worry, puzzles or wants place) then? How boring would that be? You'd experience everything eventually...imagine living forever with your spouse and KNOWING EVERYTHING ABOOT THEM, no mystery left, no spark...*shudder* sounds like a German film to me...

What, German film? But, Inna, there are some interesting German films! Germany is not all about precision and perfection, as the stereotype will have it.

Of course, if Nietzsche's philosophy of determinism was ever made into a film about the afterlife, it would be exceedingly boring! Can you imagine, the same universe happening over and over again, ad infinitum and ad nauseum! Endlessly boring!

Determinism, of course, makes logical sense. Except that the universe, as we know it today, is not just logical but also anti- logical. Not illogical, though; illogic is twisted logic, whereas anti-logic is the precise diametric opposite of logic, and therefore logical in a complementary way. (There is that German pre-occupation with precision again. But, in this case, the precision is precise anti-precision. )

 

[Waterfall]

You have to say that. It's like a defense mechanism for you. But religious satire will only stop working when religion is mostly gone. Then people won't get it, and it won't be funny any more. Until then, and especially in a place where the majority are religious, satire is the best weapon we have against it.

I mean, read comments online. Young people have some of the best digs at religion. They were forced to attend during their childhoods, saw it was bunk in their teens or earlier, and certainly armed with more Sunday School background than I ever had, they can rip the faith apart quickly and concisely. The more they were indoctrinated, the angrier they are about it.

Now today you've got Christians touting books written by ex-atheists and people who went away and came back to the faith, trying desperately to highlight that movement, but those people are not convincing others, and they are by far the exception. We could see Canada become mostly non-religious in, what was the timeframe? Ten years?

Christianity is being knocked off its pedestal. We're watching it happen. Look at all the vitriol about atheists out there. Christians are feeling very threatened by atheists. Even in the United Church, there is a general disdain for atheists. Ministers will talk about "angry atheists". Well, yeah, if you're an atheist and you disliked your church experience, you might be angry at representatives of the church. But atheists are not angry people in general, and really not very different people at all when it comes to values compared to progressive Christians. They just do not believe, and they attend different clubs on Sundays.

And you attribute all this to a non belief in God? I see it more as the angst of youth looking for something or someone to blame as they are becoming human beings. In my generation we blamed the "establishment" and lashed out against it.....then quietly became a part of it while working for change. I think what we will witness is a different way to worship God over time, because history has proven religion does not "go away" for long. Many of these young atheists, I predict, will eventually realize that all the rhetoric doesn't nurture one's soul but does fuel a need for a sort of social community that agrees with one another. Many will stay the course of atheism. Will there be studies as to whether or not their lives are more content without belief in God? Because all of the psychological studies I've seen so far, point to a happiness scale far greater than those who don't believe.

 

[chansen]

There are US studies that show that, yes. The religious are determined to make atheism out to be some hellish existence, but actually, larger studies show the opposite, like this one in Psychological Medicine, titled, "
Spiritual and religious beliefs as risk factors for the onset of major depression: an international cohort study"

A CBC report on the study:
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcom...evers-more-depressed-than-atheists-study.html



In fact, one study titled "Religiosity, Social Self-Esteem, and Psychological Adjustment: On the Cross-Cultural Specificity of the Psychological Benefits of Religiosity" in the journal Psychological Science tried to look at the differences between measured happiness against religiosity in multiple countries. Their findings were actually pretty interesting, as the below synopsis puts it:

And Turkey also has the highest correlation between personal religion and psychological adjustment (and social self esteem).

Sweden, on the other hand, is on the far left, with the lowest average religiosity. It also has the lowest correlation between person religion and psychological adjustment.

In fact, there's a clear, statistically significant trend - the higher the average strength of religion in a country, the higher the correlation between personal religion and psychological adjustment or social self esteem.

Now, that's all very interesting and adds some more flesh to the picture which is revealed by other studies. But here's what I find particularly interesting about this graphic.

Even in the least religious countries, where even moderately religious people are in a minority, the correlation is not negative.

In other words, although non-religious people feel uncomfortable in religious countries, religious people have no problems living in non-religious countries.

The interesting observation is that it seems atheists do not make life depressing for religious people, but religious people make life depressing (or dangerous) for atheists. Where atheists are in secular countries, like Sweden or Denmark, they are among the happiest people in the world.

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2012/02/religion-self-esteem-and-psychological.html

 

[Waterfall]

I'm glad you found a couple to support your viewpoint. The majority (over 800 studies) say otherwise.

 

[Jaebius]

Happiness is a fleeting thing. I'm

I'm glad you found a couple to support your viewpoint. The majority (over 800 studies) say otherwise.

The most recent study I came across via Facebook (sorry folks, I don't have the link) found that people of faith tend to feel more pride and elation than non-believers do when we do good works, and more guilty when we make mistakes.

 

[chansen]

I'm glad you found a couple to support your viewpoint. The majority (over 800 studies) say otherwise.

LOL!

I come up with two recent studies from well-respected journals, and you just claim "over 800 studies...say otherwise."

Is this one of them? "Happy Tweets: Christians Are Happier, More Socially Connected, and Less Analytical Than Atheists on Twitter" (PDF)

You read that correctly. A study saying Christians are happier and more connected, but less analytical. On Twitter.

And of course, the study I linked above points out that the number of atheists in a country has no impact on the happiness of religious people, but the number of religious people has a inverse relationship with the happiness of atheists. That is, atheists don't make life miserable for religious people, but religious people may be making life miserable for atheists.

But mostly, there won't be 800 studies on this. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Think about it. That's one study released every month, since 1948. If that claim were true, every telephone poll would be about this. There would be public outcries about people asking how happy they are and then what their religion is, if any? There would be support groups for survey targets who just can't take it any more.

Did you get that number from a Christian organization? Maybe from a Christian chain email? Don't read those - you'll look foolish. Claims like these are way too easy to debunk.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The extremes - no belief, and fundamentalist belief - have a tendency to 'depress' all the Christians anywhere in the middle.

 

[Waterfall]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness

I suppose there is always something out there to support our position and to add to our theology, much the same if one doesn't believe, one can find articles that will support non belief. It probably has a minor role in justifying or creating our own theology. Overall, it seems that religion contributes to a sense of community with purpose, addresses a fear of death and prayer and meditation seems to offer a sense of well being.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...rlds-happiest-country-panama-overtake-denmark

Not that I take much stock in the worlds happiness scale, but it's interesting to read why Denmark has fallen to third place.

 

[chansen]

There have been 850 research papers on this?

Good catch. I'll have to look at this later. Under a deadline

 

[Waterfall]

As Christians, should our own personal experience, be considered "equal" to scripture? Do we blaspheme the Holy Spirit when we replace the authority of scripture with our own personal experience?

Is it even possible or necessary to question the validity of someone's "personal experience" these days? Or is it better to just let it go unchallenged?

 

[Waterfall]

These days, we seem to not want to put "God in a box", but how does one take God out of the box and preserve God's integrity and not replace it with our own thinking?

 

[Hermann]

Well, Waterfall, scripture is almost always based on someone's experience, or rather what they thought about their experiences.

So why should the experiences and thoughts of mystics who lived two- or three-thousand years ago take precedence over what contemporary mystics experience and think?

Do demystify mysticism: I believe in a divine universe. Therefore, to me, all pure, un-conceptualized or direct experience is innately mystical or divine. However, not the experience in itself but what we think about it is what makes it real to us. If we think reality and our experience thereof is profane, mundane or banal, then it is. If we think it is divine, then it is.

I think reality is divine, and I experience it as divine. Although I read and contemplate scripture -- not only Christian srcipture but also that of various other belief systems -- scripture is not particularly authoritative to me.

 

[Waterfall]

Well, Waterfall, scripture is almost always based on someone's experience, or rather what they thought about their experiences.

So why should the experiences and thoughts of mystics who lived two- or three-thousand years ago take precedence over what contemporary mystics experience and think?

Do demystify mysticism: I believe in a divine universe. Therefore, to me, all pure, un-conceptualized or direct experience is innately mystical or divine. However, not the experience in itself but what we think about it is what makes it real to us. If we think reality and our experience thereof is profane, mundane or banal, then it is. If we think it is divine, then it is.

I think reality is divine, and I experience it as divine. Although I read and contemplate scripture -- not only Christian srcipture but also that of various other belief systems -- scripture is not particularly authoritative to me.

Okay, I'm not going to say you're right or wrong, but it does bring up a point. What would you say to someone that believes in the Prosperity Gospel for instance? Should this false teaching/understanding be corrected? Does anything go for Chrisitanity despite what is taught? Or is it okay to interject our own understandings that may override Jesus' or the apostles teachings?

 

[Hermann]

The "Prosperity Gospel," as I understand it, is based on a particular interpretation of scripture. It actually is a case in point of not relying solely on something as ambiguous and multi-interpretational as scripture. If God wanted to dictate a cosmic constitution to us, I am sure he woudl have done a much better job than conventional Christian scripture.

My intuitive or mystical understanding of reality does not override the core teachings of Jesus. On the contrary, it confirms them, even though I don't agree with many of the doctrines that were spun out of Jesus' teachings by various sectarian propagandists.

 

[Mendalla]

As Christians, should our own personal experience, be considered "equal" to scripture? Do we blaspheme the Holy Spirit when we replace the authority of scripture with our own personal experience?

Is it even possible or necessary to question the validity of someone's "personal experience" these days? Or is it better to just let it go unchallenged?

It is impossible to keep your personal experience out of it. Consciously or unconsciously, personal experience is the lens through which you see and understand the world, including scripture. It is the reason why you interpret scripture differently than ac or jae or seeler or me. Does that make it equal to scripture? Arguably, it puts it before scripture in some sense.

And, yes, questioning one's personal experience and the impact it has on one's understanding of the world is definitely a valid path of questioning.

 

[Hermann]

I think God wrote ITs Truth into the universe. IT can be experienced, and is being experienced, in the pure experience of reality, as in meditation, when we experience God directly, as is, untainted by human thoughts and concepts. I am, of course, speaking of the pantheistic God. Other versions of God may not be as readily experiencable.

Everyone experiences the ultimate reality which is God differently, and everyone conceptualizes and expresses it differently, but most people who have experienced IT agree that it is an experience of utter unity and synthesis, of universal interrelatedness, interdependence, inseparability or oneness, an experience of being at one with a divine whole. The emotion accompanying this experience is one of universal, unitive love, and the feeling is sheer rapture.

When we act spontaneously and dynamically, directly from the depth of this experience and emotion, then we can't go too wrong -- with or without scripture.