Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Quote:
Like me, you still accept that some of the Old Testament Law is valid to establish in society. "Thou shalt not murder," and "thou shalt not steal," are pretty broadly accepted in today's society.


I would say that the moral teachings of the Old Testament are true, but I'm dubious about importing the punishments. As you point out, the Old Covenant is more concerned with justice, while the new is the establishment of mercy and grace; as Christians, we are not under the Old Law:

"Rev 21:1, Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."

"Romans 7:6, But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held;"

Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

etc.; you of all people know I could keep going on at great length!

There are two senses I can immediately see, in which we are no longer under the Law. One is that some of the rituals in the Old Testament Law have been rescinded, because their completeness has been found in Christ. One doesn't need a photograph of a vista, if one is at the place in the photograph and seeing for oneself the fullness of the reality.

So ritualistic commands, such as those Sis referred to from Leviticus, are rescinded. Paul talked about circumcision the same way- it had a lot of ritualistic significance, because it was symbolically portraying what was to come.

Jesus' behavior on the Sabbath, such as allowing his disciples to eat heads of grain as they walked, was directed on a similar basis.

In that sense, we aren't any longer under the Law.

The more important sense in which we aren't under the Law, in my view, is that when Christ enters us, he makes righteousness the overflow of our actions. Thus we will fulfill in our behavior the righteous requirements of the Law. Laws against murder and theft, or adultery, or other, wouldn't apply to us because our spirits are functioning in harmony with God's Spirit. That is not to say that such laws are invalid, but we don't have to worry about them at all because we by instinct would not break them.

If Christ is alive in our hearts, creating the fruit of righteousness, then the civil laws in the Old Covenant would find nothing in us to judge, because we obey those laws automatically.

A third way in which Old Covenant is replaced by New Covenant is the one you mentioned: The New Covenant emphasis on mercy. The manner in which this mercy is to be extended is the place where our disagreement lies.

I agree with you that mercy must be practiced in law as well as on a personal level.

Let's start by talking about the law against murder, as that's something where everyone here probably has a good deal of common ground. You and I would agree, I think, that there should be a law against murder. You may not feel that the death penalty is a valid punishment for murder, in the modern context, but we both feel that murder should not be legalized. We probably would both agree, I think, that laws against murder should be practiced with mercy. Jurors and judges should act with justice, but they should also look with compassion on the person their sentence is going to be impacting. The practice of their justice should be tempered with mercy.

However, whatever the degree of punishment the law should lay out for murder, there should be some kind of punishment. Mercy might completely excuse some killers, such as people who kill for self-defense, or maybe some perpetrators of "crimes of passion" (though I feel punishment of some kind should be imposed in the latter case). There may be some premeditated murders where mercy should excuse much of the guilt. Perhaps mercy should wash away the death penalty, in modern society, allowing for laws against murder to be practiced in that much more generous a fashion. But even if the law should be practiced with mercy, we both (I suspect) agree that there should be laws against murder, and there should be a penalty for murderers that mercy can temper in various ways depending on the circumstances of the crime.

You would not feel, however, I expect, that it is good for society to have laws and penalties against murder completely removed in every case on the basis that we now live in an age of mercy and of the New Covenant.

Here is where I suspect that you and I part paths on the Old Testament Law. I would apply the above model of having punishments for murder, but tempering the application of those punishments with mercy depending on the circumstances, to other laws in the Old Covenant, including laws against idolatry and witchcraft. I don't believe that laws against these things are to be completely rescinded because we live in a New Testament era any more than I believe laws against theft or murder should be completely rescinded. The law should establish justice, and sometimes the just penalty can be a very hard one. But because we live in a New Testament era, we should temper the application of these laws with mercy.

Does that make sense to you?

I think it's more consistent than the common Christian view of today, which tempers Old Covenant laws against murder with mercy, yet still says that laws here should exist, but then in cases of witchcraft or idolatry says that Jesus' mercy means we should completely remove the application of the Law.

I think that we really should be thinking more about the fact that when Christ enters our hearts, he transforms us so that we will not have to worry about the requirements of the Law, as we fulfill them by instinct. This, to me, is the most central way in which we are no longer under the Law, though there are others. It is a responsibility of human governments to offer justice to their citizens and impose penalties against wrongdoing. We are not under these laws, because Christ makes us fulfill their just requirements by the godliness in the new nature we have in Christ. But for those that do break these laws (which, in my view, should be based on the justice of God that has been revealed in the Old Covenant Law, rather than on human ideas of what justice might be), penalties still exist. And we will be able to judge these cases of lawbreaking with mercy too, and be able to judge far more appropriately because God is perfecting our choices.

What our modern mentality is doing, however, is something that did not occur in the Christian time of government. The modern mentality is spurning more and more of justice, because its wickedness is increasing immensely. Because religious diversity became prominent, judgment against it was rescinded. Because sexual immorality became prominent, judgment against it was rescinded. With witchcraft, I think that the legalization partly came hand in hand with religious freedom, which isn't good, as they are different kinds of offenses (though there is a lot of crossover), and also with increasing disbelief in society in the potency of witchcraft.

The origins of the legalization of witchcraft, religious freedom, sexual immorality and now infanticide (abortion) are the origins of the modern era, the end of the Medieval Ages. These are the origins of the shift from interpreting Old Covenant laws as just and as good to mandate in society, while tempering their application with mercy, to the view that the New Covenant allows us to completely do away with Old Covenant civil laws. Old Covenant justice. We are no longer tempering justice with mercy, in many cases, but are instead doing away with justice altogether with regard to several extremely crucial forms of wickedness. Our society is moving toward increasing acceptance of sin, and many Christians are lagging behind them a few steps all the way, dragging their feet, objecting to new forms of immorality as they become legalized and fighting them, but ultimately Christians are shifting into the view that justice in society's laws should be completely removed in favor of New Covenant mercy, and all judgment should be left for the Last Day.

No Christian that I know of has gone that far, as yet, but very, very few Christians up to the modern age would have seen the freedoms of our society as anything other than the weeds of anarchy coming into maturity.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Since you mention that you are becoming a Catholic, I'll note that the Catholic Church opposes the use of the death penalty, except where it is necessary.

Since 1995, yes. This is an extremely new position, and opposes the Catechism's teaching that "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors ... not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." (No. 2266).

However, I will confess that I find very interesting the reasons John Paul II cited for changing the Church's historically held position. He said that the change is the result of new advances in governmental justice system and in penal laws. To me, that's rather like the reason I would object to many forms of slavery. In the past, national economics were less well developed than they are today, and it was pretty necessary to allow certain forms of slavery. As well as just, many times (Disclaimer: I am NOT talking about racist slavery, or kidnapping people to make them slaves. Racism is evil). But today, economics are sufficiently sophisticated that this is no longer necessary, and therefore, in my view, less valid today than it was in the past. The removal of the death penalty because of the advanced capabilities of modern society is interesting, and I will carefully consider it before saying whether I agree or disagree with this new Church position for the modern times.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I would also point out that many, many people who call themselves "witches" these days are nothing of the sort. They are usually just a rather bland sort of neo-pagan, whose "spells" are nothing more than prayers to Gardnerian gods. These are not the sort of people with whom Kramer and Sprenger concerned themselves.

Yeah, I know that idolatry and witchcraft share a lot of common ground. I'm not sure that I'd say their "'spells' are 'nothing more than prayers to Gardnerian gods,'" though, for prayer to some evil spirit can bear results akin to those found in the occult. As I said, there can be a lot of crossover between these two sins.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief
Pentecost. Which is actually rather neat for me, symbolically, as my experience of God up to now has tended to focus on Pentecost.


That's great to hear! I'll remember you in my prayers in the time leading up to your conversion.

Thanks .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief
In 324 AD, Constantine declared Christianity to be the official state religion, though, and he imposed fines on many pagan temples.


But doesn't the fact that there were functioning pagan temples for him to fine show that, though Christianity was the state religion, paganism was still allowed?

Sometimes . . . If by that you mean that the death penalty wasn't commonly used to punish it at that time, you're right. As I read more about it, I find that Constantine also demolished a number of pagan temples. He fined some and demolished others. He did allow some publicly displayed pagan festivities, though.

Constantine also didn't only banish Arius- he also banished all of the Arians and banned Arian writings.

I don't think that this kind of leadership could be considered religiously free, do you? It had more freedom than most later Christian governments, we can agree, but it certainly didn't have religious equality, and religious freedom was a matter of degrees.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief
There were a bit many of them in that time period, I think, for this to be a very viable option.


But even in the time of Augustine, pagans were still very much present and a part of Roman world, which would seems strange, if they had been repressed legally for about 100 years.

Not really. It takes a lot of time for things to change, and before Christianity transformed the West, it was almost all pagan. The Jews were the only non-Christians that weren't. It takes a long time to change the course of that much culture, tradition and history.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

If humans are are so fallible, then how can we trust ourselves in our faith in religious doctrines? how can we be sure we aren't trusting in the wrong religion? or the wrong God?

You know, in the Bible, when there was debate over who was the real God, the Lord proved himself by providing people with signs and a great deal of evidence to persuade them. The Lord behaves in the same way today. He can prove his reality and identity to anyone who truly wants to find the real God.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

How can we be sure we're interpreting God correctly?

That is why I find the Catholic Church's role of interpreting major doctrines of Christianity to be very important. If everyone can come up with whatever interpretations they like, a whole lot of people are going to get it wrong. That's why there needs to be one central institution to which God reveals the truth that everyone should accept in humility.

On minor doctrines, where the answer doesn't make as much of a difference in the soul's journey, the Catholic Church doesn't always have an interpretation people are required to accept.

The Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible is more reliable than ours for at least three reasons I can think of immediately.

The first reason is that it bases much of its interpretation on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The tradition of these Fathers was passed on to them directly from the disciples, and the disciples' original descendants. The disciples would have heard Jesus say a lot more than other people, since they accompanied him all the time and were his intimate friends. They made a lot of errors in understanding before Pentecost, but after Pentecost, Jesus' teachings were illuminated to them in an incredible way and their lives were transformed. Many modern people today interpret the Bible in whatever way we want to, rather than seeking out how it was originally interpreted by the people who knew Jesus, or who had the teaching of the disciples passed on to them directly. Our modern interpretations are also often influenced by the culture we grow up in.

The second reason for trusting the Catholic Church's interpretations is that the scriptures say that, “The pillar and foundation of Truth is the Church.” If the Church is "the pillar and foundation of Truth," it is natural to see it as possessing the authority to interpret. Historically, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church, in the beginning. Some Christian groups, such as Coptic Christians and the Greek Orthodox, broke off, but they maintained enormous similarity in doctrine to the Catholic Church. Protestantism was what introduced private interpretation of the Bible, in the sense that we are to distinguish for ourselves what the truth is of all doctrines based on our own reading. This shattered Christianity into thousands of denominations, where through most of Christian history, one could have counted them on one's fingers. To have any kind of stability in one's religion, any kind of consistent feeling about what truth is, for the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of Truth," there has to be a commonality that emerges from everyone submitting to the doctrine that Christ reveals through a source of authority that all believers acknowledge.

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit gives wisdom to believers and illuminates the scriptures and the truth to them through personal counsel. Our own wills and intellects often wrestle with God's teaching and twist it or don't accept it as God originally gave it, so the teaching of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient to replace the Scriptures.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

that someone didn't screw around with the Bible when it was time to print the next edition?

This can easily be established beyond reasonable doubt by comparing later texts with their earliest copies. Also, hundreds of thousands of copies of the scriptures were written over the first three or four hundred years of Christian history, and they were spread over a broad territory of the Roman Empire. One can compare copies from different regions and of different dates. There is a wealth of manuscript evidence available, and the amount of agreement between manuscripts has been calculated at something like 99.9%.

I can get you sources for these things, if you like. There is more documentation available surrounding the origins New Testament than there is for any other ancient historical document.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

You seem to make your main argument, Lief, for the abolishment of religious freedom around the fact that we can't make important decisions for ourselves, and need a religion or God to do it for us, particularly the Christian one. But I think it's very clear that either way we have to make a choice using our own reason and intuition, so I don't see what the point is deciding to let someone else decide for me, considering that decision itself could have been wrong.

Yes, there is a certain amount of personal decision making one must do, when deciding whether or not to trust God. But God does make it clear to people who are seeking that he is the true God. Jesus said, "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you." Those words are as true now as they were then, and countless believers worldwide will testify to you how God led them from unbelief to faith through a vast variety of different routes.

There are some extremely important proofs though, which I can mention right now, and which may help.

One is the historically demonstrable fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead by God.

We know from extremely early documents that the early teaching of the disciples was that they had seen the resurrected Christ with their own eyes, had talked with him and interacted with him, had eaten meals with him, had seen him rise into heaven with their own eyes, and that they had seen all of this happen with Jesus after he had risen from the dead.

The reason we can be sure that their testimony is true is that they were so convinced they were telling the truth that they died for their beliefs. People from many religions have died for their beliefs before, but the disciples were dying for things that they knew were truth or lies. People don't die for lies, and since the disciples claimed such amazing experiences with the resurrected Christ, they would have known whether what they were saying was true or false. The fact that all of them except John (who was exiled) died for their faith, many of them killed only after enduring hideous tortures, verifies the truth of their testimony. Their blood proves to the world the truth of what they said.

They would have known. Repeated mass hallucinations on their part, including at least two recorded instances where Jesus actually ate food with them after the resurrection, are not valid explanations. And that ten different men all died for something they knew to be either truth or lie, not even one of them abandoning his story, proves that they were sincerely describing and giving up everything for what had been their common experience. If they had been lying, at least one of them would have cracked when faced with torture and death.

The eyewitness testimony of these men is superb evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection from the dead.

Other evidence includes the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament. Mathematician Peter Stoner has statistically calculated the odds of Jesus fulfilling eight of the three hundred Messianic prophecies he fulfilled as one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

Stoner then calculated that the chances of Jesus having fulfilled 48 of the 300 prophecies was 1 in 10 to the 157 power.

The American Scientific Affiliation supports the validity of these data, saying in the Afterward to Stoner's book Science Speaks, "The mathematical analysis included is based upon principles of probability which are thoroughly sound and Professor Stoner has applied these principles in a proper and convincing way."

But Jesus can reveal himself to anyone, and he does if the person is truly seeking him. So you don't have to rely on evidences such as these, or others I could tell you about. You can seek for yourself, and Jesus can provide you with the answers that you personally need.

The evidence supporting Christianity's truth is absolutely overwhelming, but in the end, it is true that faith is required. There is never absolute proof. There is always sufficient proof.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

I'm curious as to why, Lief, you've said that liberalism has been a positive force up until the last forty or so years, but has since become a negative force. You've made this point clear, but why you think it's the case isn't clear to me. I hope you don't mind my asking what makes you think you're not like those conservatives who have, as you said, wrongly apposed liberal growth in the past? Just curious.

I think I didn't make my point in that other post clear. I meant that in the past, until perhaps two years ago, I saw liberal growth as having been a good thing until the last 40 or so years. Then my perspective changed, and I came to see how inconsistent that is, and I came to see it as pretty irrational. So now I've come to reject most of the liberal growth that has occurred since the Medieval Ages.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I don't think that's too far off base for most people. I don't think mine is really much of either, but a combination of pantheism and myriad other things.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that your particular combination of different belief sets is true? On what basis do you believe in it?

Originally Posted by Curufin

Oh, and as for spells, I've never really done any. I pray to the God/Goddess for guidance (I don't really think that there are two seperate beings, but one that has both parts), and I do a lot of meditation, but not really spells. Oh, I've done one or two - one to help a friend who was deeply troubled at the time and had attempted suicide, and one to help me with an exam. But really, they're not anything more than the directing of my energy in a certain way. I can't conceive of anyone thinking they're evil or satanic!!

Spiritual power always has a source. From your point of view, it seems, that source is yourself. The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't recognize humans as being a real source of spiritual power. It, rather, places them as a kind of conduit through which power flows from one of two sources: God or Satan.

The Bible also says that demons like to masquerade as angels of light, as good spirits, or as "gods." When a spirit offers a message that is strongly non-Christian, it would be seen as one of these masquerading demons, because God and the devil are the only two recognized sources of spiritual power.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

how do you know you've got an actual witch and not some new prophet or even Jesus' second visit or somethin'?

I think that my comments above to Curufin answer that to some extent. I posted another part of an answer to it in response to D. Sullivan.

If the message of the new prophet is not in accord with the central doctrines of Christianity, as interpreted by the Catholic Church, it cannot be trusted.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I recall some tales of children in Africa being abandoned by family, sometimes hurt pretty badly because some nut-job relative or local priest is convinced the children are witches and that against the Bible. If that what is takes for religion, I think I'll pass.

I can certainly understand that. I agree with you, also.

There is a great deal of real witchcraft going on in Africa. Much more so than in the West. So that people there are very sensitive about it is understandable. It is a greater, more immediate threat to many Africans than it is to most Westerners, and I think that that is part of what creates much of their concern.

Most children in Africa who are being accused are probably falsely accused. Of course, I don't know enough to say, really, but that's my suspicion, because young children are so impressionable and I can't see them easily going against their parents in so extreme a fashion during childhood.

If some child in Africa was being correctly accused, I'd recommend counseling from the parents, to teach the child no longer to do this. Children are so impressionable, this should work. I'm talking about pre-adolescents, here. Pre-adolescent children won't normally practice witchcraft against the will of their parents in the first place, and even if they did, usually their parents could talk them out of doing it or could spank them, or suppress it in some other such way. It's hard for me to imagine a child who continues to persist in witchcraft in spite of parental pressure.

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Out of curiosity, why do you think that your particular combination of different belief sets is true? On what basis do you believe in it?

What basis do you believe in your God? It's faith. Faith and an innate belief in what you're doing is right. You can't argue 'belief' or faith rationally, because they aren't rational, so I won't even try.

Spiritual power always has a source. From your point of view, it seems, that source is yourself. The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't recognize humans as being a real source of spiritual power. It, rather, places them as a kind of conduit through which power flows from one of two sources: God or Satan.

How nice for the Bible. I see it as a rather tedious work of fiction, so I don't see how this affects me.

The Bible also says that demons like to masquerade as angels of light, as good spirits, or as "gods." When a spirit offers a message that is strongly non-Christian, it would be seen as one of these masquerading demons, because God and the devil are the only two recognized sources of spiritual power.

Good for the bible.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

What basis do you believe in your God? It's faith. Faith and an innate belief in what you're doing is right. You can't argue 'belief' or faith rationally, because they aren't rational, so I won't even try.

Thanks for answering .

I don't think my faith is really like yours, though. I believe Christian faith is meant to be like that which a child has when expecting his mother to bring him breakfast. He feels sure that his mother will, because his mother always has, and he knows his mother loves him. So it's a seeing faith, as opposed to a blind faith. It's supported by evidence and reason. The second half of my post to D. Sullivan discusses that.

Just wanted to clarify that point about my own beliefs.

[Curufin]

I don't think my faith is really like yours, though. I believe Christian faith is meant to be like that which a child has when expecting his mother to bring him breakfast. He feels sure that his mother will, because his mother always has, and he knows his mother loves him. So it's a seeing faith, as opposed to a blind faith. It's supported by evidence and reason. The second half of my post to D. Sullivan discusses that.

My faith is hardly blind. It's taken me years of study, self-examination, and prayer to come to where I am right now. As for evidence and reason, with so much of it your 'evidence' coming from the bible (which you're supposed to believe is true because it says it's true), forgive me if I discount it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So it's a seeing faith

Faith is the conviction of things unseen.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

My faith is hardly blind. It's taken me years of study, self-examination, and prayer to come to where I am right now.

When I say "blind faith," I mean faith without evidence, faith that is essentially guesswork. I don't know if that's what yours is, but as you didn't provide any evidence and instead said that your beliefs can't be argued rationally, I presumed it was. I venture to still presume it is mainly guesswork, since you haven't really contradicted what I said.

If Christianity was all evidence from some book that said it was true, and there was no reason to believe anything in the book, and there was no evidence aside from the book, and it was all a matter of personal subjective feelings or beliefs, then I'd say that Christianity was "blind faith." And for some people, I say that it is. Some people have no reasons of any kind to be Christian, and simply believe it because it's in the culture they grew up in, or their parents believed in it and passed it down, or something like that occurred. For them, it is blind faith, though it doesn't have to be.

I mentioned a couple key evidences supporting Christianity in my post to D. Sullivan. They are reasons to believe the Bible, rather than Bible to believe the reasons.

There are plenty more. The Book of Acts describes the experience of many modern Christians pretty well, and it describes a seeing faith, a belief that is also an experience of miracles, visions, and countless interactive, personal, supernatural encounters with God. That kind of lifestyle is very available to everyone, for Jesus said, "he who asks receives, and he who seeks finds." It became available to me when I prayed for it. Not on the same level of supernatural experiences as the early disciples had, though I have known God to act in supernatural ways in my life a few times, and my life is an interactive experience of answered prayers and God guiding.

It's not all belief. There is belief, but there is also reason to believe, and so I believe. It's a logical faith as opposed to an "irrational" one. There are emotions tied up with it too, of course, and emotions are irrational, but so is the love of a child for his mother.

Originally Posted by Curufin

As for evidence and reason, with so much of it your 'evidence' coming from the bible (which you're supposed to believe is true because it says it's true), forgive me if I discount it.

That's not the evidence I use when trying to convince non-Christians to believe what I do. I only use it when talking with fellow Christians, unless I can support what the Bible says through corroborating evidence. When talking with fellow Christians, the Bible alone is sufficient evidence, but I understand your point of view.

It is true that Jesus says in the Book of Matthew that all of the Old Testament is completely true. Then, later on in the Bible, Peter writes of Paul's writings as "scripture," putting it on the same level that Jesus put the Old Testament on. There are several other passages also that say that the Bible is true. But that is no reason to believe it, if you see the Bible as just some old book. You wouldn't believe I'm president of the US if I say so. The evidence doesn't support my words.

There is a great deal of evidence that the Bible is true, though. It was taught just about everywhere in the Early Church as truth (not that this makes it true- just bear with me). The early Christians believed that it accurately represented the teachings passed down to them by the disciples about their experience with Jesus. Mark was a friend to Peter, and so had his gospel taken largely from what Peter said. The other Synoptic gospels contained many parallels to Mark, but John breaches off and tells another side of Jesus that was also considered by all the early Christians to have been true teaching about Jesus.

The fact that these teachings were seen as wholly consistent with the teaching of the disciples had passed on suggests that they really are what the disciples believed. The Early Church embraced them and taught them over a very wide distribution of churches.

So it is not hard to say that these teachings were the beliefs of the disciples. In my post to D. Sullivan, I pointed out why the beliefs of the disciples are extremely reliable. They died for what they claimed to have personally experienced, and what they claimed to have personally experienced was written in the New Testament. So what is written there has the testimony for its veracity of at least ten eyewitnesses who died for what they believed. They weren't dying for "what they believed" alone, either, but for what they claimed to have experienced firsthand, and what therefore is not likely at all to be a lie.

Threaten a person giving courtroom testimony to change his testimony on peril of torture and death, and if you have the law to back you up, he'll probably change his testimony, even if what he originally said was true. Take ten people and line them up, and threaten them all in this way, and at least one of them will probably back down out of cowardice.

The torture was actually used on these disciples. All of them except John died for their beliefs, and many were tortured hideously before they died. The fact that all of these firsthand witnesses gave up their lives to torture and death would be pretty incredible even if we believed that they were dying for what they knew to be truth.

But if we assumed that they were telling lies, or were fudging the facts, if we felt that they were making up the incredible miracles, like the ascension or Jesus' resurrection from the dead, then if you lined up all ten of the disciples (I'm not counting Judas or John, because John was exiled and so never martyred, and Judas ended up committing suicide because he believed he had turned in an innocent man) in a courtroom and threatened them all with torture and death if they did not confess to lies they knew they had told, one would expect them all to give up.

People don't allow themselves to be tortured and killed for their beliefs, if they know the beliefs they profess to hold to actually be lies. One person is unlikely to do that. All ten disciples, though? All ten held to their story no matter what was done to them. One person alone is extremely unlikely to do that if he knows his story to be a lie. Ten person all accepting to be tortured and killed for a lie spits in the eye of reason. It just doesn't ever happen.

So there's a lot of reason to believe their testimony, and the teachings in the Gospels are the testimony their early supporters, friends and successors held to be their own, about what they experienced while knowing Jesus.

And there's a lot of other reason too, to believe the Bible. Such as the things it says that a Christian who wanted to fudge the facts wouldn't have normally bothered to mention. Textual details, such as the enormous slowness of the disciples to understand Jesus' teaching. The disciples look like fools throughout most of the Gospels, misunderstanding Jesus frequently, failing to grasp things he repeats repeatedly, failing in their faith and so being criticized by Jesus, and finally Peter, a leader amongst the disciples, disowning Jesus, and all of the disciples fleeing from his side when he was in need.

These were the leaders of the Early Church, and the testimony about them portrays them in a pretty heavily negative light. Christians would have had a normal bias to make their leaders look good, instead of criticizing them so thoroughly in their texts.

There are other points. For instance, these texts were originally being distributed in Jewish communities, where Pharisees were extremely hostile to Christians and eager to seize upon anything they could to invalidate Christians' testimony. Christians, in this climate, had strong incentive not to fudge the truth, because if they did, it would have been torn apart by the experts of the time and would then have been used against the Christian movement, to invalidate its message.

In the Bible, women were the first to learn about the resurrection of Jesus, and shepherds were the witnesses of the angelic promise about his birth. These kinds of witnesses wouldn't have been considered to be reliable in this time period. The Christians, if they were willing to fudge the truth, would have had incentive not to portray these people as their first witnesses of the supernatural. Also, Jesus calls out on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This passage takes some theological explaining for Christians, when some people suggest that it was a moment when Jesus' faith wavered. It's the kind of thing that the early Christians would have done better to leave out, if they had been willing to inaccurately represent facts.

The Christians also were not writing or speaking about things that had happened a long time ago, but about things that had happened within their own generation. They had the job of trying to convince people who had lived through what they were describing. This also would have been a strong incentive not to make errors. Much of what happened was witnessed by large crowds, so if you weren't careful to be accurate, you could easily run into someone who says, "No, I was there and that is NOT what happened!"

The context of early Christianity was such that they had a strong, strong motive to be as accurate as they could be. If they weren't, they'd be handing their enemies weapons to use against them.

So there are a lot of reasons to believe in the Gospels' accurate portrayal of Jesus, and if one believes it portrays his words and deeds, and the events involving and surrounding him accurately, then it becomes logical to believe he was the Son of God, and to trust his words. If one believes this, then the rest of Christianity falls into place. And this happens on a purely rational, reason-based level.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Faith is the conviction of things unseen.

*Sobs.* All right! Debunk me!

Humph.



Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.” He wasn't talking about the physically blind men he was going to heal.

People don't just randomly start feeling conviction (hopefully). They feel conviction for a reason, and that reason is the sight I'm referring to.

[D.Sullivan]

To Lief,
Thanks for the reply.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The first reason is that it bases much of its interpretation on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The tradition of these Fathers was passed on to them directly from the disciples, and the disciples' original descendants. The disciples would have heard Jesus say a lot more than other people, since they accompanied him all the time and were his intimate friends.

Exactly my point. And as sure as I think we both are that it would be fair to trust someone who was there, you have also said that humans are fallible in such matters, and aren't to be trusted. So I feel you're contradicting yourself. You still end up having to trust direct human experience, so why not trust your own? why not balance faith with experience, especially considering that so much of the evidence you have to support the Bibles claims come from INSIDE the Bible?

The Buddha had disciples. Just like Jesus, The Buddha didn't write any of his teachings down himself, and the teachings have been passed down through the generations, just like the Christ's teachings were. And they, The Buddha's disciples, witnessed for themselves the miracles the Buddha is said to have performed, and passed those stories down through the generations as well. His disciples practiced his teachings in order to find out for themselves what the truth was, and found his teachings to be true. And millions of people since then have heard the Buddha's teachings as relayed to them from The Buddha's closest disciples, and found truth in it. If this is a viable way to conclude that what you've heard is true, as you imply, then I should feel free to believe both these stories are true. And I do. But I take neither story for granted to be completely true, and certainly don't take belief in either so far as to think it's alright to force those beliefs on others. Because I respect the experience of the disciples of Jesus and of Buddha, and respect the right of the human being to experience something like that for themselves.

That's just how I feel, anyway.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Exactly my point. And as sure as I think we both are that it would be fair to trust someone who was there, you have also said that humans are fallible in such matters, and aren't to be trusted. So I feel you're contradicting yourself. You still end up having to trust direct human experience, so why not trust your own?

To me, that would be the same as having a doctor and a car mechanic together in the same room, and the car mechanic says to the doctor, "no, you get out of the way when I'm trying to heal this baby. If I'm going to trust human experience either through you or through me, and it's human experience both ways, I might as well trust my own."

The Early Church Fathers knew what the disciples said, and the disciples had access to more information about Jesus' life and teachings than we do. The Early Church Fathers are therefore more reliable when interpreting the scripture than we are in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

why not balance faith with experience, especially considering that so much of the evidence you have to support the Bibles claims come from INSIDE the Bible?

I don't follow this argument, exactly. My use of statistics to show that Jesus was Christ, and my pointing out the deaths of the apostles to validate their eyewitness testimony are not arguments supporting one Bible verse by use of another. They instead support the Bible's accuracy by exterior evidence and reasoning.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

The Buddha had disciples. Just like Jesus, The Buddha didn't write any of his teachings down himself, and the teachings have been passed down through the generations, just like the Christ's teachings were. And they, The Buddha's disciples, witnessed for themselves the miracles the Buddha is said to have performed, and passed those stories down through the generations as well. His disciples practiced his teachings in order to find out for themselves what the truth was, and found his teachings to be true. And millions of people since then have heard the Buddha's teachings as relayed to them from The Buddha's closest disciples, and found truth in it. If this is a viable way to conclude that what you've heard is true, as you imply, then I should feel free to believe both these stories are true. And I do. But I take neither story for granted to be completely true, and certainly don't take belief in either so far as to think it's alright to force those beliefs on others. Because I respect the experience of the disciples of Jesus and of Buddha, and respect the right of the human being to experience something like that for themselves.

That's just how I feel, anyway.

I don't know enough about Buddha to comment on the evidence concerning the miracles he is purported to have engaged in, so I can't comment on this.

[Lief Erikson]

I had a really neat insight this evening about the number pie. Throughout history, people have often seen a circle as symbolic of eternity, because it has no beginning and no end. Plato discussed these parallels- the view predated Christianity, and Christians believed it too. Many different cultures and religious groups have believed this.

No one can calculate circles without the number pie. The number pie begins with the number 3 and then the next number is 1. This parallels Christian theology in a very interesting way. God is 3 and he is 1, a Trinity and One Lord, and according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. Similarly, no one can calculate circles without the number pie. No one can calculate the circles without pie, a random number that begins with 3 and 1, goes on infinitely and is beyond the technology of humans to find order in. In the same way, no one can reach eternity without Christ, an eternal and infinite being whose glorious ways are, according to St. Paul, "beyond tracing out."

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I had a really neat insight this evening about the number pie. Throughout history, people have often seen a circle as symbolic of eternity, because it has no beginning and no end. Plato discussed these parallels- the view predated Christianity, and Christians believed it too. Many different cultures and religious groups have believed this.

No one can calculate circles without the number pie. The number pie begins with the number 3 and then the next number is 1. This parallels Christian theology in a very interesting way. God is 3 and he is 1, a Trinity and One Lord, and according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. Similarly, no one can calculate circles without the number pie. No one can calculate the circles without pie, a random number that begins with 3 and 1, goes on infinitely and is beyond the technology of humans to find order in. In the same way, no one can reach eternity without Christ, an eternal and infinite being whose glorious ways are, according to St. Paul, "beyond tracing out."

[smartarse]Do you mean Pi?[/smartarse]

[Earniel]

That said, I've come across a few pies in my life that were pretty much devine...

[The Gaffer]

Sorry, I couldn't resist this:

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=3703786

[Glóin the Dark]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The number pie begins with the number 3 and then the next number is 1. This parallels Christian theology in a very interesting way. God is 3 and he is 1, a Trinity and One Lord, and according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life.

The occurence of "3" and "1" in this manner is not intrinsic to the number pi, but only its representation (one of many) in the base ten number system. In infinitely many other bases (which are no less legitimate than base ten) - not to mention all of the completely different ways in which we can represent numbers - this phenomenon will not occur.

Incidentally, even if there were reason to suspect that the "3" and "1" were theologically significant, it would surely seem rather arbitrary to terminate the interpretation after two digits. How should it continue? Something like "A Trinity and One Lord in Four Gods beside One Deity for Five Supreme Beings within Nine Almighties through Two etc . . ."?

a random number that . . . goes on infinitely and is beyond the technology of humans to find order in

In fact, this property of the number pi (that the digits of its representation in decimal form, or any other base, seem to exhibit no discernible pattern) is often mentioned as though it were a remarkable property of pi, but in fact it is quite the opposite. By any reasonable measure of abundance, most real numbers are like this. It is the numbers whose representations do have discernible patterns which are remarkably thin on the ground.

On the other hand, the suggestion that it is beyond the ability of humans to find order in the number pi needs to be treated carefully. It is legitimate when talking about standard (decimal or other base) representations, but there are other ways of describing pi which do appeal to fairly straightforward patterns.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry, I couldn't resist this:

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=3703786

Unfortunate they sold it on Ebay . Oh well.]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

[smartarse]Do you mean Pi?[/smartarse]

Lol!

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

The occurence of "3" and "1" in this manner is not intrinsic to the number pi, but only its representation (one of many) in the base ten number system. In infinitely many other bases (which are no less legitimate than base ten) - not to mention all of the completely different ways in which we can represent numbers - this phenomenon will not occur.

Actually, it does make a difference. 10, 100 or 1000 are used in scripture as metaphors for eternity. The fact that factoring from 10 is usually most useful and easy for humans in mathematics is also significant.

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

Incidentally, even if there were reason to suspect that the "3" and "1" were theologically significant, it would surely seem rather arbitrary to terminate the interpretation after two digits. How should it continue? Something like "A Trinity and One Lord in Four Gods beside One Deity for Five Supreme Beings within Nine Almighties through Two etc . . ."?

For all I know, there may be significance in the entirety of the number pi (thanks BoP). But the first digits are the first, and that very fact gives them more immediate significance.

If you want to get gritty in arguing about this point, I could even mention that Jesus said of himself, "I am the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega."

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

In fact, this property of the number pi (that the digits of its representation in decimal form, or any other base, seem to exhibit no discernible pattern) is often mentioned as though it were a remarkable property of pi, but in fact it is quite the opposite. By any reasonable measure of abundance, most real numbers are like this. It is the numbers whose representations do have discernible patterns which are remarkably thin on the ground.

True, but this frequency of occurrence doesn't eliminate the symbolism.

Originally Posted by Glóin the Dark

On the other hand, the suggestion that it is beyond the ability of humans to find order in the number pi needs to be treated carefully. It is legitimate when talking about standard (decimal or other base) representations, but there are other ways of describing pi which do appeal to fairly straightforward patterns.

Just as the first numbers are significant because they are first, this appearance in the standard representation of pi is also significant because it is standard, the norm. There are ways of talking about God which also fall out of the "norm" in Christianity, but which are likewise true. That doesn't mean he doesn't reveal himself to us "normally" as 3 in 1, loving, eternal. His "jealousy" is remarked on in scripture too- we could talk about that. His anger is also described in scripture- we could talk about him as an angry or jealous God and be accurate to his character, though these aren't what he reveals of himself as the "norm," or the most important parts of his character for us to understand.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

IThis parallels Christian theology in a very interesting way. God is 3 and he is 1, a Trinity and One Lord, and according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life.

Lief, just as a note, the 3 in 1 symbolism predates Christianity by thousands and thousands of years. In fact it probably goes back well beyond recorded history. Im sure the Christians got it from a long tradition of human triad representation. There are many ancient rocks and caves all over the globe with the triple spiral symbols on them. Any concept of the culture of the humans who left them there has long vanished but clearly even to their Paleolithic sensibilities it was a very important symbol.

You see it all over the place in the pagan celtic religions. Three objects always coming together in one. The most classic example being the triscelian or triad “celtic knot” symbol. The notion of Maiden, mother and crone is a repeated symbol in celtic lore as well.

You see this symbolism among native and aboriginal peoples throughout the world and throughout time. And indeed you see it within religions more than just Christianity. The ancient Chinese. The Mayans. Pagan Greece. Even Hinduism which may have a stronger tradition of the triad then Christianity. The Hindu, after all, have their own trinity (Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu) that comprise all parts of God. Clearly there IS something significant to humans of all stripes about this symbol.

Now, if you ask me its not a mystery that this symbol is significant. We are, after all, creatures of a three dimensional world and Im sure that’s reflected in what we perceive to be important. Time in our universe consists of Past, Present and Future and this may be the original template for all human fixations of the three in one symbolism. Not that this has much to do with Pi but I thought it was a cool tangent to go down…

[Glóin the Dark]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, it does make a difference. 10, 100 or 1000 are used in scripture as metaphors for eternity. The fact that factoring from 10 is usually most useful and easy for humans in mathematics is also significant.

"Factoring from 10" isn't easier for someone working in base thirty-three. I would maintain that base ten has no inherent significance which makes it logically preferable to any other base; it is simply a cultural "accident" that our civilisation has developed the decimal system for denoting numbers.

If you are suggesting that use in the Bible of certain powers of 10 as metaphors for eternity (although I'm wracking my brains to think of what the resemblance might be!) implies that there is a god who has a special penchant for decimal notation, then the connection is has a tiny iota more substance, but is still extremely tenuous. The alleged deity could have made his mark on mathematics more convincingly by arranging the universe so that pi would be precisely 3, yielding a neat depiction of the Trinity-Unity set-up in the simple expression "3 : 1" - the ratio of the length of the circumference of a circle to that of its radius* - thereby avoiding the need for us to get lucky in our choice of base. It would also eliminate the extra digits "415926..." whose role we haven't been able to suss out, and which might just be random junk after all, in which case pi could have been any one of infinitely many numbers (those less than three-and-a-fifth but not three-and-a-tenth) and still achieved the same theological significance.

But the first digits are the first, and that very fact gives them more immediate significance.

Similarly, the first three digits are first, so your assertion awards them more immediate significance. 3, 1, 4. What does this mean? Okay, perhaps theology can't or doesn't feel the need to stretch as far as three digits. Or, on the other hand, perhaps it's just a pure coincidence that the first two digits match up with a pair of numbers regarded as significant in certain aspects of Christian theology. Indeed, a randomly picked number has a one in forty-five chance that the first two digits of its decimal representation will be "1" and "3".

If you want to get gritty in arguing about this point, I could even mention that Jesus said of himself, "I am the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega."

I'd like to know what precisely you mean by this. As grittily as you like!

True, but this frequency of occurrence doesn't eliminate the symbolism.

The symbolism of what? We were talking about pi, not just numbers in general. Say I've got another number called "pizza" which starts "3.17255042638..." and continues forever without discernible pattern. Does it also symbolise the notion that nobody can reach eternity without the assistance of some mindbendingly coalesced trio?

Just as the first numbers are significant because they are first, this appearance in the standard representation of pi is also significant because it is standard, the norm.

The norm to us. But what about the twenty-one fingered inhabitants of a far off planet for whom the normal representation of pi begins "3.2..."? Are their theologians muttering that it's a pity there wasn't a "1" there because that would be nice and symbolic? Or have they modified their outlook to postulate a deity consisting of "Three Persons in Two Gods"?

Edit: *Er, I meant diameter...

[Lief Erikson]

Insidious, I agree with almost all of your post. I definitely agree that Christians aren't the only ones to have seen significance in the number 3. God works to reveal his character to everyone, not just a small set of humanity, so it's natural that there are worldwide religious parallels. I also agree with you that some people may have gained parts of this knowledge from observation of nature. God imprints his character all over nature, and Romans 1 says God's character is so clearly stamped on nature that humans have no excuse for rejecting God. Your comments about time and the number of presently accepted dimensions ties neatly into this, as do countless other aspects of nature I could cite (the sun is one of my personal favorites, as it is so beautiful and so very rich with symbolism).

Nearly the only point where I disagree with your post is when you say Christians probably got the Trinity from paganism. In fact, they got it from the teachings of Jesus that he and the Holy Spirit are God (combined with some reinterpretation of several parts of the Old Testament) Jesus' claims of deity and manner of interpreting scripture really were the origin of belief in the Trinity among Christians.

The only other disagreement I have with your post is that I don't think commonalities in human psychology or environments are sufficient to explain the multitude of religious parallels across history, cultural differences and continents. That's just my personal opinion, though, one opinion against another, so there's not much that could be done to argue this.

I agreed with almost your whole post.



I'll respond to your post when I can, Gloin.