"Would Christianity change fundamentally if I said, “Jesus was only in a coma.” No. If Jesus was in a coma it doesn’t invalidate the Sermon on the Mount. The symbolism of the Christ would remain in tact."
Isn't the description of the water and the blood pouring out separately telling us the body is dead? And after that telling us this is true and witnessed and important?
How can Christ be the firstborn of the dead if he didn't die?
Even more pointed in Revelation 2: 8 “And to the [d]angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Should we call the First and the Last a liar or the very least uninformed? Christianity is not Christianity without the death and resurrection. You can of course believe in God as you choose, but not believing in the death and resurrection will not keep the symbol of Christ in tact...perhaps this text may spell it out as soundly as possible:
In the history of mankind, I find impossible to believe that someone has been declared dead who was not actually dead, and if it only happened once, then that would suffice. But the fact of the matter is that even today, the laws for declaring a person dead are different from country to country. Even within a country the laws and procedures vary. https://www.registerednursing.org/answers/can-rn-pronounce-death/
In ancient Rome, it may have been common practice to allow any old soldier to declare death with a spear. I don't know. But my point is to say that a scientifically universal declaration is not required for the sacred symbolism to be legitimate. I'm sure many atheists who don't get it might challenge me on this. The resurrection of the Christ is surely central to Christianity, but then in that same faith, the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead is not. There was no spear bringing forth blood and water in the case of Lazarus.
Faith is different than proof. Proof destroys mystery and allows the will of men to be absolute. Faith puts the will of men on the back foot and forces contemplation and it is only through such contemplation that one may grow.
Faith is different than proof, true enough, and I guess things that we can see and touch and reproduce in a lab are proofs. However that leaves a sizable amount amount of scientific pursuit as mystery. And to be clear, there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having an assumption and trying to find out if its true.
As for your Lazarus example, I think you could argue that it is not as prominent as the resurrection of Christ, but I would still call it a central Christian belief. Since Christianity about believing in Christ and what he says before anything else, like it says in John 16:
29 His disciples said to Him, “See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! 30 Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God.”
That would mean believing what Jesus said in John 11 when he said "Lazarus is dead".
From the text its evident this was not a parable, or any symbolism its what happened. And in verse 45 of that same chapter it says many believed in Him because of this.
Anyway enough of that, I guess I see many today trying to figure out how much of the Christian belief can be reduced to make it fit properly in their belief box, and the Christian faith was never meant to be something to agree with or used as a tool, but instead Christ was to be the authority and the way one lives his life.
I am not of any belief that true open ended science will conflict with Christianity and in the past and now Christians pursue science.
What if God = The Universe? That’s what I say, by the way. More specifically, God is nothing more or less than the ultimate rules by which the universe functions.
You are free to make up a religion like this and call the universe your god....but I would like to hear more about your god and where he was before the universe. There is some science that says maybe there was something before the big bang, and some who say matter might be eternal, but they are on the fringe, most give matter a beginning, and therefore the question has to be asked how did your god/universe begin, was there something before that? Or are you of the belief the universe is eternal?
This is why the logic of the Bible starts...in the beginning, or when John introduces his case for the Messiah he starts out in the beginning.
At some point, for me it was being confirmed into my denomination by an archbishop, you get a sense of confidence that your religious education has served its purpose. At some point beyond that, your continued religious discipline also serves its purpose in keeping your soul intact. For some, this pursuit continues as a mission in evangelism. My pursuit is one of self-mastery and does not require much more than the periodic ritual as a refresher. Several years ago, I did this as a matter of pilgrimage in and around Los Angeles County. As well I have a kind of curiosity about the origins of the different denominations and how these differences have evolved rites and liturgical practices. It is not coincidental that I am disappointed in the alterations of languages. It seems every year a new version of the Bible is published, nah mean?
So there is nothing to the 'before the universe' question of any interest whatsoever to me. I was instructed in biology and computer science by Catholic priests and prelates. There has never been a conflict between science and religion of any substance to me. That is why I think I find controversy in my equalities between philosophy and theology, and why I think most cosmologists are just shallow evangelists of one sort or another. If Presbyterians want to go to war with Mennonites over the age of the planet or the shape of dark matter in the universe, I would be happy to watch from the sidelines. But I don't expect anyone is keeping their powder dry for such an eventuality.
It is that lack of a cold or hot war that keeps all evangelism as little more than an annoyance, only slightly more annoying than manners of Biblical interpretation. But I think that which gets on my nerve the most is the kind of parochial insistence on worship as dictated to the sinners of the world. This is the kind of fervor that I am happy that more mature congregations avoid. I have the same sentiments when it comes to politics and other third party imperatives.
I don't ask the question of the beginning for any reason except to make one consider that possibly there was a non material entity before matter. In fact there must have been. I am pretty sure science has mostly decided matter had a beginning and its problem is how. I don't believe science will find an answer to this without considering an entity beyond all matter.
This entity outside of time and the universe put forth the universe you call god with all its laws and boundaries out of nothing. I think when you consider the beginning you end up logically having to believe in the supernatural where up above in the post you call illogical. What are the logical alternatives...eternal matter which science has rumblings about, or something putting it into motion, both from where we sit would be illogical thought.
When I watch most discussions like this talking about what god is, the universe, or we're all gods or god is whatever we think he is, its a strange notion to believe we can imagine a god with whatever characteristics we wish and god molds to our personal though bubble. The God who put forth the rules of the universe and natural law can be manufactured to our mental whims, doesn't seem as logical as thinking God must have his own character and nature and purpose beyond our mental moldings.
Cool. I recall that many years ago I came upon the Akan myth. There was a brief period of time when reading the Neveryon Series, that such origins of things were very interesting.
At any rate, in the Akan cosmology, the prime mover existed outside of time and space but could not bear it. And so, this god invented death. Aside from that, this god created the Demiurge. It was the Demiurge that created the Universe which was itself. The prime mover and creator of the Demiurge could not defy his own creation of death, and so died, resolving all contradictions that might be raised. So the indirect creator of the universe died and the universe itself can die.
As men live, they cannot ever and will not ever have any way to communicate with the prime mover and creator of the universe. Nor will they after death which is the absolute end not only for the universe but even the creator of the universe. Thus it is not to revere or denigrate death but accept it as the end of all things.
In this philosophy there is no need for the transcendence of death. It is not required for the Akan faith which has no need for that kind of supernatural - it is sufficient for them to explore and attempt to understand the universe and no way for them to call for any divine intervention - for all that the prime mover intended there to be is the universe that is, finite and yet mysterious and incomprehensible to all creations of the Demiurge.
So the entity beyond all matter has served its entire purpose and disappeared outside of its creations so as to respect the intent of its creation of the ends of things. Thus there is no 'beyond' to be discovered, no other knowledge of fact possible.
This lands us in the same place. With an intuition and induction that there must have been something beyond the universe as we know it which is unknowable from within the universe. From this perspective, which remains religious and mythological, we are in the same place as what we must admit science is and will remain. There can be no proof. There can only be myth and speculation.
The desire for the supernatural still holds sway in the minds of men, so it is used as a device. It is magic, which is easily comprehensible to human minds. FTL travel, for example. In this way, myth and fiction can serve human purposes.
Well since this was a thread about how to believe in God, and I know you lean towards somewhat of a stoic philosopher, and also see the desire of men looking for the supernatural, I thought this text might be a good to drop here:
There is not any mention of the enemy of God and man, from the beginning of this post and through the comments. It is as if God is viewed as both good and bad, blesser and curser, creator and destroyer, Savior and condemner. The Bible teaches that only a fool says there is no God. Therefore, it could be assumed foolish to ignore man's mutual enemy of God. One of the foundations of Christianity includes man created with free will. An individual chooses their object/focus of faith. Faith is not absent our will/choice. God and man's enemy is as much a fundamental part of Christian teaching as the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is helpful to be a scholar of ancient greek but we can begin to grasp the fundamentals from those who are proficient. Was an absence of the adversary intentional and/or will the foe be a part of an upcoming article?
I view the universe in terms of order and chaos (structure and randomness), and mankind's actions in terms of virtue and vice. Mapped on top of that is the known and the unknown. Faith is the application of order upon the unknown - to giving names to the mysterious in order that they may be discovered over time. Faith is a mapping of the meaning of the known and taking that confidence to justify leaps into the unknown. It is both an act of courage and of arrogance.
Faith in angels implies faith in demons. Mankind must deal with all conceivable things in the universe, ordered and chaotic, known and unknown. From a Christian perspective, free will and the cause of Original Sin has given us through the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, the innate capacity to recognize the difference between good and evil, the very same capacity of the great I Am. Thus through our actions can embody the angelic and the demonic. We invoke our faith to recognize or capacity to embody both and structure our lives through ritual and prayer to turn towards the godlike, to serve the virtuous and to combat the vicious.
"Would Christianity change fundamentally if I said, “Jesus was only in a coma.” No. If Jesus was in a coma it doesn’t invalidate the Sermon on the Mount. The symbolism of the Christ would remain in tact."
What fact is trying to be solidified with this detailed witness text? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A31-37&version=NKJV
Isn't the description of the water and the blood pouring out separately telling us the body is dead? And after that telling us this is true and witnessed and important?
In this text:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1%3A1-8&version=NKJV
How can Christ be the firstborn of the dead if he didn't die?
Even more pointed in Revelation 2: 8 “And to the [d]angel of the church in Smyrna write,
‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life:
Should we call the First and the Last a liar or the very least uninformed? Christianity is not Christianity without the death and resurrection. You can of course believe in God as you choose, but not believing in the death and resurrection will not keep the symbol of Christ in tact...perhaps this text may spell it out as soundly as possible:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A12-58&version=NKJV
In the history of mankind, I find impossible to believe that someone has been declared dead who was not actually dead, and if it only happened once, then that would suffice. But the fact of the matter is that even today, the laws for declaring a person dead are different from country to country. Even within a country the laws and procedures vary. https://www.registerednursing.org/answers/can-rn-pronounce-death/
In ancient Rome, it may have been common practice to allow any old soldier to declare death with a spear. I don't know. But my point is to say that a scientifically universal declaration is not required for the sacred symbolism to be legitimate. I'm sure many atheists who don't get it might challenge me on this. The resurrection of the Christ is surely central to Christianity, but then in that same faith, the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead is not. There was no spear bringing forth blood and water in the case of Lazarus.
Faith is different than proof. Proof destroys mystery and allows the will of men to be absolute. Faith puts the will of men on the back foot and forces contemplation and it is only through such contemplation that one may grow.
Faith is different than proof, true enough, and I guess things that we can see and touch and reproduce in a lab are proofs. However that leaves a sizable amount amount of scientific pursuit as mystery. And to be clear, there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having an assumption and trying to find out if its true.
As for your Lazarus example, I think you could argue that it is not as prominent as the resurrection of Christ, but I would still call it a central Christian belief. Since Christianity about believing in Christ and what he says before anything else, like it says in John 16:
29 His disciples said to Him, “See, now You are speaking plainly, and using no figure of speech! 30 Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God.”
That would mean believing what Jesus said in John 11 when he said "Lazarus is dead".
From the text its evident this was not a parable, or any symbolism its what happened. And in verse 45 of that same chapter it says many believed in Him because of this.
Anyway enough of that, I guess I see many today trying to figure out how much of the Christian belief can be reduced to make it fit properly in their belief box, and the Christian faith was never meant to be something to agree with or used as a tool, but instead Christ was to be the authority and the way one lives his life.
I am not of any belief that true open ended science will conflict with Christianity and in the past and now Christians pursue science.
What if God = The Universe? That’s what I say, by the way. More specifically, God is nothing more or less than the ultimate rules by which the universe functions.
You are free to make up a religion like this and call the universe your god....but I would like to hear more about your god and where he was before the universe. There is some science that says maybe there was something before the big bang, and some who say matter might be eternal, but they are on the fringe, most give matter a beginning, and therefore the question has to be asked how did your god/universe begin, was there something before that? Or are you of the belief the universe is eternal?
This is why the logic of the Bible starts...in the beginning, or when John introduces his case for the Messiah he starts out in the beginning.
At some point, for me it was being confirmed into my denomination by an archbishop, you get a sense of confidence that your religious education has served its purpose. At some point beyond that, your continued religious discipline also serves its purpose in keeping your soul intact. For some, this pursuit continues as a mission in evangelism. My pursuit is one of self-mastery and does not require much more than the periodic ritual as a refresher. Several years ago, I did this as a matter of pilgrimage in and around Los Angeles County. As well I have a kind of curiosity about the origins of the different denominations and how these differences have evolved rites and liturgical practices. It is not coincidental that I am disappointed in the alterations of languages. It seems every year a new version of the Bible is published, nah mean?
So there is nothing to the 'before the universe' question of any interest whatsoever to me. I was instructed in biology and computer science by Catholic priests and prelates. There has never been a conflict between science and religion of any substance to me. That is why I think I find controversy in my equalities between philosophy and theology, and why I think most cosmologists are just shallow evangelists of one sort or another. If Presbyterians want to go to war with Mennonites over the age of the planet or the shape of dark matter in the universe, I would be happy to watch from the sidelines. But I don't expect anyone is keeping their powder dry for such an eventuality.
It is that lack of a cold or hot war that keeps all evangelism as little more than an annoyance, only slightly more annoying than manners of Biblical interpretation. But I think that which gets on my nerve the most is the kind of parochial insistence on worship as dictated to the sinners of the world. This is the kind of fervor that I am happy that more mature congregations avoid. I have the same sentiments when it comes to politics and other third party imperatives.
I don't ask the question of the beginning for any reason except to make one consider that possibly there was a non material entity before matter. In fact there must have been. I am pretty sure science has mostly decided matter had a beginning and its problem is how. I don't believe science will find an answer to this without considering an entity beyond all matter.
This entity outside of time and the universe put forth the universe you call god with all its laws and boundaries out of nothing. I think when you consider the beginning you end up logically having to believe in the supernatural where up above in the post you call illogical. What are the logical alternatives...eternal matter which science has rumblings about, or something putting it into motion, both from where we sit would be illogical thought.
When I watch most discussions like this talking about what god is, the universe, or we're all gods or god is whatever we think he is, its a strange notion to believe we can imagine a god with whatever characteristics we wish and god molds to our personal though bubble. The God who put forth the rules of the universe and natural law can be manufactured to our mental whims, doesn't seem as logical as thinking God must have his own character and nature and purpose beyond our mental moldings.
Cool. I recall that many years ago I came upon the Akan myth. There was a brief period of time when reading the Neveryon Series, that such origins of things were very interesting.
At any rate, in the Akan cosmology, the prime mover existed outside of time and space but could not bear it. And so, this god invented death. Aside from that, this god created the Demiurge. It was the Demiurge that created the Universe which was itself. The prime mover and creator of the Demiurge could not defy his own creation of death, and so died, resolving all contradictions that might be raised. So the indirect creator of the universe died and the universe itself can die.
As men live, they cannot ever and will not ever have any way to communicate with the prime mover and creator of the universe. Nor will they after death which is the absolute end not only for the universe but even the creator of the universe. Thus it is not to revere or denigrate death but accept it as the end of all things.
In this philosophy there is no need for the transcendence of death. It is not required for the Akan faith which has no need for that kind of supernatural - it is sufficient for them to explore and attempt to understand the universe and no way for them to call for any divine intervention - for all that the prime mover intended there to be is the universe that is, finite and yet mysterious and incomprehensible to all creations of the Demiurge.
So the entity beyond all matter has served its entire purpose and disappeared outside of its creations so as to respect the intent of its creation of the ends of things. Thus there is no 'beyond' to be discovered, no other knowledge of fact possible.
This lands us in the same place. With an intuition and induction that there must have been something beyond the universe as we know it which is unknowable from within the universe. From this perspective, which remains religious and mythological, we are in the same place as what we must admit science is and will remain. There can be no proof. There can only be myth and speculation.
The desire for the supernatural still holds sway in the minds of men, so it is used as a device. It is magic, which is easily comprehensible to human minds. FTL travel, for example. In this way, myth and fiction can serve human purposes.
Well since this was a thread about how to believe in God, and I know you lean towards somewhat of a stoic philosopher, and also see the desire of men looking for the supernatural, I thought this text might be a good to drop here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A18-34&version=NKJV
There is not any mention of the enemy of God and man, from the beginning of this post and through the comments. It is as if God is viewed as both good and bad, blesser and curser, creator and destroyer, Savior and condemner. The Bible teaches that only a fool says there is no God. Therefore, it could be assumed foolish to ignore man's mutual enemy of God. One of the foundations of Christianity includes man created with free will. An individual chooses their object/focus of faith. Faith is not absent our will/choice. God and man's enemy is as much a fundamental part of Christian teaching as the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is helpful to be a scholar of ancient greek but we can begin to grasp the fundamentals from those who are proficient. Was an absence of the adversary intentional and/or will the foe be a part of an upcoming article?
I view the universe in terms of order and chaos (structure and randomness), and mankind's actions in terms of virtue and vice. Mapped on top of that is the known and the unknown. Faith is the application of order upon the unknown - to giving names to the mysterious in order that they may be discovered over time. Faith is a mapping of the meaning of the known and taking that confidence to justify leaps into the unknown. It is both an act of courage and of arrogance.
Faith in angels implies faith in demons. Mankind must deal with all conceivable things in the universe, ordered and chaotic, known and unknown. From a Christian perspective, free will and the cause of Original Sin has given us through the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, the innate capacity to recognize the difference between good and evil, the very same capacity of the great I Am. Thus through our actions can embody the angelic and the demonic. We invoke our faith to recognize or capacity to embody both and structure our lives through ritual and prayer to turn towards the godlike, to serve the virtuous and to combat the vicious.
ha! I was just having a discussion about scientism vs religion this past weekend. Very well put.