Scots Taffer on 14/9/2007 at 00:27

---

How did they have something real to attach their beliefs to? I'm presupposing that God, Jesus, Mohammed, Bhudda etc existed or have manifested themselves to people but I don't have any proof. They all constructed their own visions of a deity, much in the same way the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians did. I'm saying that geocentric belief structures are infleunced by culture and people, but essentially there is always the underlying belief in a higher power. StD calls that "the God of Gaps", I like to think of it as "the reason why".

Scots Taffer on 14/9/2007 at 00:49

---

I'm talking different plane of existence or perspective higher.

fett on 14/9/2007 at 02:42

---

Gah - I feel obligated to respond to the things GBM and Dia (and some others) are bringing up here about the Bible and Christians because I taught advanced theology and have a really strong background in Hebrew culture and language. Beyond those credentials, I actually considered myself a believer for about ten years and I can tell you guys exactly what's happening in the mind of the typical Bible believing Christian, and then something pretty surprising about the Bible itself. The reason I feel obligated is because I spent so many years perpetuating this belief system. For me it had everything to do with the Bible itself, and very little to do with tradition, religion, politics, or faith.

There are a variety of reasons why people stay attached to a belief system, the main one (in America) being that's it's possible to be accepted in the mainstream religious culture and churches without being able to articulate those beliefs. I taught college-level classes for free at churches all throughout the Bible belt from 1996-2002 and the reason I was able to do it for so long and at so many places is because pastors and priests have realized that about 80% of Christians don't know why they believe what they believe. Oh- they'll tell you all day about how Jesus changed their lives and that's all they knew, so they believed in him. These are all extremely subjective experiences that can be seen in any other religious context, but like most Americans, most Christians don't know squat about Hinduism, Taoism, and the other 'isms' - they know mostly about the JW's and Mormons because those guys are next door.

So my job was to explain to Christians why they should believe the Bible objectively - apart from faith or subjective salvation/miracle/healing/warm fuzzy experiences. I dealt with everything from post-modernism to church history, to translation and contradiction issues, Cannonization, etc.

I got sucked into the church culture because believe it or not, they're mostly normal, human people just like you and me. I encountered very few Pat Robertsons (along with Pat Robertson himself) and a lot of ministers, missionaries, and joe-church goers who really did have a heart and vision to feed the hungry, comfort the sick, and were just in general really good people. But what I discovered along the way was that many of them wouldn't stop going to church or holding to their belief in God if you were able to disprove the Bible - because there is comfort in the culture. Here's what I mean:

Whether you grew up in a stable family, or a 'broken home' - everyone wants to belong somewhere. There are a lot of people out there who are still offended by profanity, gangsta rap, R-rated movies, gay relationships, etc. because these things are either outside of their life experience (growing up in a 'christian' home) or they have been hurt or scared by something and want to escape it. Here's the bottom line: The local church is SAFE. The entertainment for your kids is SAFE. The conversation is SAFE. There is security in conformity to a moral and spiritual code.

This is not to say that they're cows - on the contrary, some of them are very intelligent, well-thought people (remember I said 80% don't know whey they believe what they believe) who can articulate why they don't believe in evolution and give a reason for their faith.

Here's the reason (and the surprise I mentioned): When you get beyond the surface study of the Bible - the Dan Brown stuff, the sensationalized conspiracy theories, etc. what you have is an astounding piece of literature that really does cause you to pause for a moment and consider that all this God stuff just *might* have something to it.

Putting aside all the Bible Code nonsense, there are very disturbing things in the Old Testament that come to light in the New.
Here's just one example: The Jews kept strict genealogies, right? Pre-Israel, Moses (or someone) either wrote or translated the book of Genesis. Check out Chapter 5 - a seemingly endless genealogy starting with Seth, ending with Noah. Noah is used throughout the OT as an archetype of Christ. Translate the names - they read "Man (is) Appointed (to) Moral Sorrow. (but) The Everlasting Shall Come Down (to) Teach. [and then the kicker] His Death Will Bring (the) Despairing Rest." In context with the story of the Flood, Noah's family, etc. - this has been interpreted for centuries as Messianic. Someone put it there purposely - who? The Jewish scribes? Who thought the idea of a *dying* Messiah was blasphemous?

There are hundreds of things like this (remind me to tell about the time I slogged through 5 chapters in Numbers describing the specific details of Israels camp only to discover it made the shape of a Roman cross. HA! Good times...:erg:). The dietary laws, the Temple furniture, materials, the fucking placement of the doorways, etc. - there's barely a page in the OT that doesn't speak to some aspect of Christ's life or death. Why? How or why would Jews who rejected Jesus put this stuff in their venerated Torah and Prophecy? Not to mention they couldn't b/c now the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that it was all finished about 400 years before the Romans even came on the scene.

Here's some more specific ones: The book of Isaiah (now confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls to be written at least 400 years if not 500 before the time of Christ) and Zechariah (at least 200 years earlier) describes the final entry of the Messiah into Jerusalem, the details of his betrayal (to the exact penny), the nature of the betrayal, the reaction of the apostles (and the names of some of their hometowns), the decision made by Pilate (not named), the time of day the crucifixion took place, etc. Psalms (written at least 800 years prior) go into excruciating detail about the *method* of crucifixion that didn't exist until the Roman Empire.

Some of this may sound contrived (and I'm sure some of it is), but it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of other prophecies that were fulfilled in the OT having to do with the rise and fall of Assyria, Babylon, Greece, and Rome (dates, names of kings, boundaries of Empire, relation to the Jews, etc.) - things confirmed not only by archeology but by the literature of the Empires in question. This is the sad thing about Bible criticism - it dwells on some very minor historical discrepancies while ignoring the vast amount of stuff it got right. It makes Nostadamous into a fucking HACK. But I digress. I'm just saying that when you start seeing 3 and 400 of these things piled one on top of the other, it doesn't matter how atheistic you are, it makes you scratch your head. I don't believe in God anymore. If he exists, I don't understand him and don't want to. But after REALLY studying the Bible for the better part of 12 years, it fucking scares the living shit out me because there is some seriously extraterrestrial stuff going on with it that I simply can't explain away with Dan Brown conspiracy theories. Where does that leave me? Drunk a lot, but enjoying life like I never thought possible. Maybe I'll figure it out when I'm 80.

To address Dia's post directly, all the hub-hub that's been floating around since the DaVinci code is mostly inaccurate (I love you Dia! You're not bad, you're just wrong! ;) ). Constantine had very little to do with the Council at Nicene other than putting his stamp of approval on it. This council was comprised mostly of the disciples of the disciples of the disciples (three generations down, and yes it's documented, yadda yadda, I'm not adding a bibliography to this post). They merely confirmed the theology that had been passed down over those three generations (and yes the theology can be documented via the writings of the early church fathers back almost to the end of the first century). Whether you as an atheist/agnostic/whatever believe that theology is irrelevant to the conversation. It WAS the theology passed down to them from the disciples. The gospels that were cannonized were the only ones accepted by the church fathers because they were the only ones that could be authenticated (which means far more than just "knowing who wrote them").

As for the 'hundreds of gospels floating around at the time' - that's a complete misconception. Most of the gospels that you hear about (Thomas, Mary, etc.) were written between 90-200 years after Mark started it's circulation and most were written to challenge specific already held doctrine that was not accepted because it was refuted by the disciples and the church fathers. I took 5 semesters of church history, so there's no way to break this down in an internet post without it sounding trite and convenient; I can only say that what often sounds like an attempt to 'control the theology' by the Romans, was little more than a confirmation of what the church already believed at the time. The believers at Nicene (and I'm excluding Constantine's token appearance) had lived through horrible persecution to defend the theology in question - they didn't cow to the Romans because the Emperor decided he suddenly wanted to be buddies. It's not up for debate - the theology, the cannon, the controversies over that theology and cannon, and the resolution of the 'doctrine handed down to us' is clearly and exorbitantly documented before and after Nicene - it didn't change. If anything it became more clear and precise, but not different. The only threat to an existing "accepted" book was 3rd John and there's nothing of doctrinal relevance there anyway. The Roman Catholic thing with the Apocrypha came much later and is also clearly documented. I could go into a long thing about Athanaseus and the Trinity but that's what it all boils down to.

Canonization was the final step resulting from the Roman persecution. Anyone who believes canonization happened at Nicene doesn't understand what the Council was about in the least. These guys had Roman soldiers beating down their doors for about a hundred years threatening to kill them if they possessed scripture. Are you willing to die for the Gospel of Joe-Blow? How about 8th Peter? Is it really scripture? You bet your ass they had decided what was and wasn't authentic and inspired (another subject entirely, but not as subjective as it sounds) WAY before the Council of Nicene.

Wow, there's a lot to say on this subject, but this is the only safe place for me to talk about my opinions on the matter right now, so I tend to get carried away. Sorry. :erg:


*Longest Post EvaR

The_Raven on 14/9/2007 at 03:24

---

Says you.

I AM LEGEND!

Scots Taffer on 14/9/2007 at 03:56

---

Nice post, fett. I may digest some of this away from the forums and ask you some questions.