Pardon my ignorance but I don’t see why I have this burden of proof. It is hard enough pondering “God” for myself. I would like to at some point feel assured that I have passed from talking into genuine thinking with the possibility of eventually seeing. What good is trying to prove through talking?
I may be old fashioned but I prefer conversing with those seriously trying to grow in their understanding instead of practicing talking. Hopefully the common need to “understand” would make the “burden of proof” question irrelevant.
We are in agreement; I have spent some considerable years following up on Jewish scholars who have said the same. In fact, the book “Christianity in Jewish Terms†is something I’m working through right now. Interestingly enough, the Authors of that book do show a great amount of understanding for the development that Christianity took, but at the same time, they say it is clearly a different thread moving in the same direction. However, it isn’t a book that Christian conservatives and fundamentalists would entertain.
You get the feeling in different times of church history that the Life of Jesus disturbs the ideas that these people have put together. That is why many people who died in the inquisition were in fact Christians and Jews. Even here, it seems that Paul provided a path to go down:
2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we no more.
In context it isn’t Christ the man that Paul preaches, but Christ the godly attribute or identity. He is so rigorous in doing this, that we can be glad that someone actually took the time and energy to promote the Gospels, even if their intention is clear. Even the less well known of the Life of Jesus writings are following a similar goal, albeit that they seem to have been utilised by rivalling Christian groups.
Going by Strong’s, the greek is “mustērion†from a derivative of muō (to shut the mouth); a secret or “mystery†(through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites): - mystery. I think that this explains the Gnostic movement and that would have perhaps been the end of Christianity if Paul hadn’t moved in and opposed them. It is Paul and Constantine between them that were the biggest influences that ensured the growth of the church. The Authors of the book I mentioned actually state that the Christian church, excepting the persecution that followed, could have been a positive development for Jews – at a critical distance – being as Christianity references the Torah and could mirror Jewish theology. This is of course what they hope for today.
That is an interesting slant on my own opinion. I see Jesus in the line of Jewish Prophets, but with a message of fulfilment, rather than of promise. He was telling people that redemption is something that needs to be grasped and lived. Now is the time, now is the Jubilee Year. It is when people put their faith in the prophecy that it comes to life. Hope is when you do something for it. His day was the moment of realisation, the day when the realm of God or the spirit of freedom touched down in the hearts of men and caused a movement, sending out waves of faith.
I think his biggest problem was the corruption of the Sadducees – which even Jewish scholars agree with – but also the progressiveness of the Pharisees. It was the Sadducees that saw the biggest threat in Jesus, seeing as it was them that he sought to depose first off. Pharisees are said in the Gospels to be poisoning the well, but that was rhetoric between opposing schools of thought, especially as there were some who were fraternising with the Sadducees (see the corban regulation). The scribes and the Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses, but he mistrusted them because of their readiness to support the Sadducees.
Yes, if Jesus had proven to the masses that the Sadducees were corrupt and managed to call the Pharisees to order, we would have had a different Judaism and Jerusalem might have not fallen. But at the same time, the Romans used the Sadducees to denounce the uprisings, so they too would have had a vested interest in getting rid of Jesus. That is what the Sadducees are so sure of and makes them despondent when Pilate plays with them. Some think that Pilate was interested in Jesus, but he wasn’t. He hated the Sadducees. It may actually be that Bar Abbas was a bandit that the Jewish authorities had imprisoned, and that Pilate was goading them by offering to free him in place of Jesus. They couldn’t have wanted either – but it may be that they saw the biggest danger in Jesus because of his popularity.
Of course the political power of fundamentalist Christians and sympathisers for Israel has supported Bush greatly, believing to be on the way to Armageddon and finally to the return of Christ and the coming of the Messiah. If millions of people can consume those rapture books, then we are a long way off from the Jesus of the Gospels. But we are even a long way off from Paul.
I think Paul believed that he had grasped the message of Christ. However, as time passed by, the experience amongst the non-Jews changed his attitude and his own fellow Jew didn’t recognise him anymore. He was alienated from Jerusalem, which was probably the reason he wanted to bring the money he had gathered from the churches to Jerusalem himself. However his reputation seems to have done the rounds and he was arrested when he entered the Temple, whilst James, the brother of Christ was actually regarded a devout man. This shows the broad difference between the two. The division was there early on and it never recovered.
If jesus told a parable about a master beating a slave and that if the slave should turn the other cheek would that be ok?
well of course it’s a PC translation. It’s like the NIrV. it degenderizes the whole bible, to make it more PC.
that I concede, His parable simply has a slave running an errand. I think it supports slave owning in kind of a derivitive(sp?) way.
slavery was accepted too. Racism, predjudices, bigotry, all these things were accepted and some of these things did escape into the new testament.
well think about this, what if Tom in Landover 200 years ago supported beating his slaves to death, and raping the female slaves. But he said “we should do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
Sure that’s a nice message, but would you listen to anything the guy had to say knowing his other actions? No.
You give the judeo-christian authors special exception. Tell me you don’t, read from the bhagavad vita, it’s got it’s fair share of good and bad messages. mixed metaphors. What makes the bible a great spiritual guide?
would you follow a book from the same time entitled “How to treat your slaves and stone homosexuals.”
My treatise is that we can have strong moral values without relying on the mixed metaphors and jumbled morals of the “holy books”.
slave. remember servant is PC for slave, though honestly the only way servantude is better is that you have the chance to earn your freedom.
if it’s a parable, if he didn’t support slavery do you think he would make a parable about slaves?
then why not better explain what you meant, instead of just doling out vagaries?
If you weren’t saying that you personally believe in the life force (which to me it certainly looked like you were saying) or that you don’t personally believe in the power of AYEH (which again it looked to me like you were saying.) then tell me what you do think. This isn’t a contest. This isn’t a tournament. I’m not here to win. Are you? By conceding do you have some egotistical hope that it’ll make you look like your taking the high road in an argument where you refuted nothing I said, and never explained yourself?
and then resulted to an ad hominem attack.
remember what I told bob a few posts back. I’m here to stretch the limits of belief.
I’m here to poke the soft white underbelly of god.
I disagree… I think your only interested in readers that are willing to accept your opinions/beliefs without challenging them. If you really were searching for accuracy or inaccuracy you’d be willing to at least contemplate my opinions of the bible’s unimportance, and the search for meaning without god.
Maybe you need to think about that.
The only thing to fear is fear itself. - T. Roosevelt
If you are alive you need not fear death. - Epicurus
I agree. People can adopt moral values without holy books. Sacred text is not essential for Christendom. It can survive well on “expert” interpretation. Sacred text is important IMO for comprehending and beginning to feel the truth and depth of Christianity for those open to it.
Yes I believe a good parable good be made from it from a Christian perspective. Christendom would be reluctant to accept such a parable.
Often this is true in Christendom. Christianity though realizes what is lost. I like how Simone Weil phrased it:
The solidification of opinions into beliefs is really the loss of Christianity and creation of Christendom.
Quite true in the great majority of cases. However, Christianity strives to experience beyond the the limitations of egotism in order to experience the God/Man relationship. In the words of Father Sylvan:
We agree. Not mystery like something mysterious in the sense of supernatural and unknowable, but mystery in the sense of secret or hidden. That was all I was pointing to as another viable translation. If the word “mustērion†was used in the sense of something secret or hidden, then the question arises who hid it (or how is it hidden) and why.
Is it possible that the Gnostic movement had to be quieted so that the “secret†remained hidden? That Paul modified the message of Jesus just enough to allow for the building and survival of his movement? That is sort of what I am exploring by examining the words ascribed to Jesus. I think if one reads what Jesus said and juxtaposes it with Paul writings one can see that the church of Jesus would be very different than the church of Paul and the one we know today.
This really gets to the heart of things: What is the message of Jesus? To understand that, we have to understand the message of Moses (realizing that they both may be composite figures like the Taoist Lao-tse.) I agree with his message being more about fulfillment than promise. In fact Jesus says “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.†The word translated as “at hand” can also be translated as “joined” and comes from a feminine noun that has a meaning of anything closely enfolding like the arms of the sea. So, Jesus meaning may well have been that the kingdom of heaven is here now (with the connotation of enveloping us like the arms of the sea). He also says, “The kingdom of god is within you.†As well as, “It is your father’s god pleasure to give you the kingdom.†These are not parables, they are statements. There are many other statements of Jesus very similar to this. A very viable conclusion to reach is that he is saying (to paraphrase) is: Heaven is here now and it is within us and surrounding us. How did this happen? It was the father’s good pleasure to give it to us. What does it mean “within us?†Look at Jesus statement, “I and the father are one.†That is how “god†is in us. We are one with god. That is why I like the idea of the ocean and the wave. That is why Jesus says you should pray by saying “Our father who art in heaven…†remembering that heaven in within us, not up in the sky. Jesus was not hoping or wishing for some day in the future. He was saying that it is all here now and it is within our grasp to understand that. How is it here? “As you believe, so it is done” Connect that with the story of the burning bush in Exodus 3 and really examine it closely (especially the original Hebrew) and the message of Jesus becomes completely different than the message of Paul and the organized church.
Moses passed on some astounding insights. Whether they were his or ancient Egyptian is not clear. Whether he even existed is not clear. The messages, however, are clear. some of the ones that astound me are the following: I am going to shorthand and paraphrase, if that is a problem I will get the exact references if you need. This is just food for thought.
Genesis:
“God looked at all he created and said it is good.â€
The story of Eve and the Apple. Man gets thrown out of the Garden of Eden when he eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When he comes to believe that something such as evil exists. It is in contradiction with God who said all is good. You can then reference Jesus who said: Love your enemies and bless those that persecute you; that you may be sons of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and the rain fall on the just and on the unjust. And add to that “Judge not lest you be judged.†It is probably one of the most difficult Biblical concepts to grasp: God looked at ALL he created and said it is GOOD. If god is in and of all creation like the ocean to the wave, then all creation is good. The Muslims have a saying, “All good comes from Allah, all evil is in the mind of man.†Man is thrown out of the garden of eden when he comes to believe in another force in the universe called evil. There is only one creative force in the universe and all it creates is good. I leave you with that thought. It is a huge one that I had wrestled with for the longest time. Much of the seeming “mystery†is unveiled when one looks at it from that perspective. Throw into the mix the name (read “natureâ€) of god from Exodus 3 and an entire new world of possibility opens like the heavens.
It appears that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil already existed for man to have the opportunity to eat from it.
There is a subtle distinction that appears which is always for some reason overlooked. Eve for some reason exaggerated what was told to her.
The Lord God had cautioned not to eat it but under the influence of the serpent who was the first “expert” in these matters, she went one better and added that “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” This idea of “touch” was her own invention with the assistance of this expert.
Now it becomes involved and not for this thread. However superficially, if touching it is an inner awareness of good and evil but eating is the ability to act from this awareness, it suggests something about the entire event especially if Jesus’ purpose was to open the way for the benefits of eating this fruit and partaking of the Tree of Life.
I think we are straying away from the original subject - apologies to scythekain. The burden of proof lies perhaps on those who make a proposition, but I find that the proof is not to be found in scripture, but in lives (as I have said in a posting on this thread long ago). The difficult thing that we have to contend with today is something that has been effective in disturbing true Religion since the beginning of civilisation - it is the permeating influence of society on religious groups. This is recorded well in the Bible as the biggest problem of Israel and also of the early church.
In the present day, we find integrity in seclusion, in people who are willing to become outsiders, dissenters or outcasts. We praise them of course, since they give us the feeling that all is not lost. But we do not follow them. Mother Theresa and others were buried with great pomp, but didn’t enjoy the same recognition during their lives. These are the people who bear the burden of proof with their lives.
There was a song that I believe catches this mentality, it was sung by George Michael …
Praying for Time
These are the days of the open hand
They will not be the last
Look around now
These are the days of the beggars
And the choosers
This is the year of the hungry man
Whose place is in the past
Hand in hand with ignorance
And legitimate excuses
The rich declare themselves poor
And most of us are not sure
If we have too much
But we’ll take our chances
Because God stopped keeping score
I guess somewhere along the way
He must have let us all out to play
Turned his back and all god’s children
Crept out the back door
Chorus
And it’s hard to love,
There’s so much to hate
Hanging on to hope
When there is no hope to speak of
And the wounded skies above
Say it’s much too late
Well maybe we should all be
Praying for time
These are the days of the empty hand
Oh you hold on to what you can
And charity is a coat you wear
Twice a year
This is the year of the guilty man
Your television takes a stand
And you find that what was over there
Is over here
So you scream from behind your door
Say what’s mine is mine and not yours
I may have too much
But I’ll take my chances
Because God stopped keeping score
And you cling to the things
They sold you
Did you cover your eyes when
They told you
That he can’t come back
Because he has no children
To come back for
As usual after reading your some of your posts I have goose bumps. I would however like to say the scriptures are the proof of our lives and thus of God - if we are so inclined to notice.
Therein lies the symbolic representation of free will. We live in a universe of infinite possibility what we chose to “eat†from that universe is our choice.
The larger question is: How does the concept of evil stand up against the words of god after the creation, “God looked at all he created and said it is good.†It can’t all be good and some be evil.
I started a thread called THE NATURE OF EVIL because Bob is correct in that I am getting of the topic here.
It seems that one has to acknowledge that there are forces at work that we observe everyday on this planet (let alone that which we cannot observe both here and in the greater universe) that we do not comprehend. If you choose to call those forces “god†or “gods†and call yourself a theist (of any stripe: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu) or you choose to call those forces “nature†or whatever and call yourself an atheist is completely irrelevant. For anyone who as thought about it, there are two broad possibilities: Either you acknowledge that there are forces at work in the universe beyond your comprehension, or you do not and instead take the position that you comprehend all the forces at work in the universe. If you take the latter position, please fill me in how it all came into being.
Yes we understand each other. Amazing, I go through life experiencing certain truths in my contemplations and realisations and then I open a scripture, any one and find it written. Interesting how I seem to only really grasp - in the real sense - the truth in the scripture when my heart is already there.
I can agree with that and uccisore struck a chord in JT’s thread that he started that was along similiar lines as this thread (the survival of the ego.)
That emotions strike a chord vs materialism… While I think that is true for all, the people who the ability to continue to fill their id with objects never come to realize what they are searching for.
People like Mother Theresa let their ego fall to the way side.
Another brilliant modern example would be ghandi.
I think it’s awesome finding the meaning of life in pop tunes. well SOME of them at least. Some times you have to search outside of the mainstream to find something that you connect with… Sometimes it’s a movie like Gladiator. The moment when he touches his dead wife’s feet with his face is heart wrenching.
It’s moments like that, that make you realize what is important in life.
Nick,
I think that the only way to find god is to first find ourselves. Only by finding ourselves can we truly begin the search for god. Of course when you find yourself you’ll also find the meaning and purpose within your life. such can be found within.
Now that I’ve seen the last four pages I’ve got to come to a conclusion myself.
I think “god” is the glue that we ignore. in short if we were truly connected to god, we could be like the flock of birds that turns in unison.
To find god is not to search within yourself (though you need to find yourself to not confuse your ego with god.)
You have to look outside yourself. When I was young I had some interesting meditative sessions where I saw myself looking down on the earth.
as for the burden of proof for god, had I been asked? i would’ve said the moon. without the moon earth would’ve been like mars.
My son’s favorite quote: Bad always wins because good id dumb.
What I do not understand in the attempt of proving a god exist, is the attitude.
Why do you have to prove it at the first place? You believe it, be happy with it. You can talk about it, write about it, let others know what you believe in, but what is the urge to prove it. After you prove something, you don’t have to believe in it anymore, it becomes fact (what will be questioned and reevaluated).
Otherwise the burden of proof is on the side of the initiator, especially when the others ain’t have a clue about what the proposal is.