NT & religions (& God)

[NightSymphony]

Well, ever since I was younger (Around the 6 or 7), I have never really believed in God. At all, actually. I used to think that there was something wrong with me, since every many people I know are strong believers in God.
Now that I think about it, I never really did ever believe in God, it seemed too unreal. And now, I know that I do not at all believe that there even is a God. I am Atheist.

And I am pretty much OK with that. Because I know that no God could possibly create all this pain.

However, a few people I knew wanted to convert me to Christianity. I am happy with being Atheist, though.

[Priam]

Originally Posted by Roger Mexico

Actually, I took a class on Islamic religion back in college, and I'd say Muslim theology is theoretically a bit more compatible with a need for logical coherence than is Christian theology. If, as many Muslim scholars have written, "God" is simply a way of expressing the same concept that Plato referred to as "the sun" in his cave metaphor--the single, universal truth of which all the varied phenomena we perceive are merely an imperfect reflection--then I can see an NT deriving a great deal of insight from the pursuit of an education in theology. But "Islam" understood as a set of unquestionable truths and rigid rules would be just as problematic from an NT standpoint as any other religion understood the same way.

I actually have the most objections with Islam! At least with Christianity and, depending on the specific movement in Judaism, there's room to debate the (in)errancy of their respective holy documents, the Quran is specifically THE WORD and unquestionable. The only room for debate is one of interpretation and application, which leaves no ability to grow in human understanding. What was progressive in 600AD isn't so much anymore.

Is it much more theologically consistent? Absolutely! Mohammad did an excellent job of tying up the strings left dangling in both Judaism and Christianity, but I can deal with hanging strings much better than monolithic unquestioning as a central dogma. Plus the idea of "submission" before God seems antithetical to my own understanding.

My personal belief rests on the tenet that God, whatever it may be, gave us emotions and intellect for a reason and intended us to use them, to reach out and understand the glory of creation, not to dogmatically preach "my way or the highway"! We are in a process of ongoing revelation, more beautiful and poetic far beyond any Psalm or hymn could encompass, an egalitarian lifting of the human spirit closer to full understand of ourselves and the universe. I believe that God speaks to us all as prophets; though some listen more than others, and that the truth we are whispered is unique to our paths; though sharing with others can help us find commonality and a better understanding of our direction. If I had to identify as anything, the Quaker concept of the "small, still voice" resonates deeply.

[lazyhappy]

God could exist- is unlikely but a possibility. everything had to start somewhere. but what made him? what made that?

i think thier could be a element that we havn't discovered yet that can create itself- how else did one atom form from nothing

or the universe could of always existed (which i have trouble believing) .

argh i have no time!

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Priam

I actually have the most objections with Islam! At least with Christianity and, depending on the specific movement in Judaism, there's room to debate the (in)errancy of their respective holy documents, the Quran is specifically THE WORD and unquestionable. The only room for debate is one of interpretation and application, which leaves no ability to grow in human understanding. What was progressive in 600AD isn't so much anymore.

Another curious difference is that Christianity tries to support the veracity of its scriptures by pointing out the thousands of document pieces/scraps and copies that are used to compare one to another [to show how little variation there has been].

meanwhile Islam claims divine origin for its scripture by pointing out there are only 6-7 (?) valid authentic copies of scripture. This lack of quantity is assumed to be a mark of divinity.

My personal belief rests on the tenet that God, whatever it may be, gave us emotions and intellect for a reason and intended us to use them, to reach out and understand the glory of creation, not to dogmatically preach "my way or the highway"! We are in a process of ongoing revelation, more beautiful and poetic far beyond any Psalm or hymn could encompass, an egalitarian lifting of the human spirit closer to full understand of ourselves and the universe. I believe that God speaks to us all as prophets; though some listen more than others, and that the truth we are whispered is unique to our paths; though sharing with others can help us find commonality and a better understanding of our direction. If I had to identify as anything, the Quaker concept of the "small, still voice" resonates deeply.

That was beautifully said.

[Mr Galt]

"I am a false prophet. God is a superstition."
-Eli Sunday, There Will Be Blood

[ShyINTP]

Originally Posted by Economica

I'm a hardcore atheist. In my worldview, there is no god, no afterlife, no absolute meaning with life and to boot we are all biological robots.

My feelings exactly!

From a logical stand point, if you allow for existence of one God, why not for two, or three, or the whole specie? .. as the ancients believed.

Since the civilization as we know it is 12,000 about years old (which is also highly debatable), it sounds rather silly, that the latecomer to the world religion stage -- Christianity -- is the "true" religion. There is more than enough evidence that they are just the latest plagiarism and modified copy of the ancient religions.

The only God(s) for me would be more advanced species living in the universe. (Organized) Religion is such a poor dogmatic replacement for the true wonders of the universe ..

[Priam]

Just saw this with the recent thread bump.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Another curious difference is that Christianity tries to support the veracity of its scriptures by pointing out the thousands of document pieces/scraps and copies that are used to compare one to another [to show how little variation there has been].

meanwhile Islam claims divine origin for its scripture by pointing out there are only 6-7 (?) valid authentic copies of scripture. This lack of quantity is assumed to be a mark of divinity.

To me, the shocking thing actually is how close to samizdat the various original language texts of the Bible have remained, though to be fair they weren't disseminated nearly as far or for as long as the various second or third generation translations. However, even the Latin bible from one end of the Roman Catholic world greatly resembled the bible from the other end, and this long before the printing press revolution.

The problem comes in when people don't realize that they're reading not a second generation, but rather a fourth generation copy of the original work that's been translated through at least three different languages, each of which had to use circumlocution to describe words that didn't exist in their own language. No matter how well-intentioned the scribe (and most of them honestly were), there are just some errors of meaning that always leak in.

However, even reading the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew texts, the saving grace of Christianity's ability to move with the times, is how impossible it is for any respected scholar of the Bible to argue that it is anything except an arbitrarily made thing, even if the books themselves are completely accurate. Some church officials over a millenia ago sat down and decided what of a few dozen books floating around were canonical, which were heretical, and which fell somewhere in-between. It's clearly recorded in church history and impossible for anyone who calls themselves a scholar to argue. The best case that can be made was that these leaders were wise people who could be trusted to make the right choice, but the concept of an infallible Bible sinks right there.

And that's a frickin' relief.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Priam

To me, the shocking thing actually is how close to samizdat the various original language texts of the Bible have remained, though to be fair they weren't disseminated nearly as far or for as long as the various second or third generation translations. However, even the Latin bible from one end of the Roman Catholic world greatly resembled the bible from the other end, and this long before the printing press revolution.

yes, the transmission accuracy was very impressive; they took their work seriously.

The problem comes in when people don't realize that they're reading not a second generation, but rather a fourth generation copy of the original work that's been translated through at least three different languages, each of which had to use circumlocution to describe words that didn't exist in their own language. No matter how well-intentioned the scribe (and most of them honestly were), there are just some errors of meaning that always leak in.

Exactly. Inevitable, because no two languages are alike. So when you translate, some nuance of meaning is ALWAYS lost.

Which is why we have different "styles" of translation. Some translate literally word by word (or close to it). Others translate by "meaning of the phrase." Some even translate more on meaning of passage. But the nuances of the language change, meaning that if there is a "literal perfect" version of the Bible, then any translation is necessarily imperfect and wrong.

it is funny how anyone who does translation automatically understands these limitations, but getting it through the head of the layperson is like pulling teeth sometimes.

The best case that can be made was that these leaders were wise people who could be trusted to make the right choice, but the concept of an infallible Bible sinks right there. And that's a frickin' relief.

Yup. I generally think the people were trying to make the best choices they could, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But they could still make mistakes, and sometimes there is no "perfect" choice, they were left with choosing between imperfect options. If you view the Bible in light of that, then you get a better sense of how to "take it."

And yes, it should be a relief because now we don't have to worry and fret about having the "perfect translation or understanding" of the texts. We are only obligated to try our best and get from it what we can.

[disTant_eCHo]

Originally Posted by niki

I have a curious question:
how does NT view religions?
what is the NT's notions of "God" ? can NT be as 'spiritual/religious' as most NF seems to be ?

and what does NT think , specifically, of Christianity concept of God? does it make sense? is it acceptable, or it is not acceptable for NT's rationale? and what's the reasons?

and for some unknown reason, is it true that NT's are more interested towards the New-Age-ism, or Buddhism, Hinduism, or even pantheism notion of "God" , rather than those Abrahamic religions (ie: Islam, Christianity, Judaism) ?
does this have anything to do at all with one being an "NT" (as opposed to an SJ, or ST, or NF, etc ) ?

I am an INTP and I am quite Christian. I wasn't raised in a very big Christian environment, it's just something that I developed on my own.

[Night]

I see absolutely no friction between logic and religion.

Religion is an alogical construct; working to reconcile theism with reason is to miss the point of spirituality altogether.