Theological Opinions , PART II

[inked]

possibly a premature intellectation, Elfhelm, but not necessarily an immaculate preconception if birth control were in *ahem* play!

[Elfhelm]

Or if I were taken bodily into heaven while taking apart the chariot, I would be deconstructing my own assumption!

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Atheism on the Rocks- http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...ollAtheism.php
Regis Nicoll
No endorsement implied.

Is God Dead - or Is Godlessness?

"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream." (Robert Jastrow, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute)

That's one scientist's opinion; as the article itself notes, it's one shared by very few of his colleagues (though cosmologists do tend to towards the mystic).

It has been less than forty years since Time magazine asked the question, "Is God Dead?" Now the question some are asking is, "Is atheism dying?"

While atheism enjoys wide acceptance in secular Europe and the scientific community at large (including 93 percent of the National Academy of Science membership), theism is embraced by almost 90 percent of Americans and is making sustained gains in the developing world.

Not only Western Europe, but also Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel (!), Japan, South Korea and Taiwan- in short, every developed economy except two- Singapore and the US.
Singapore I have my suspicions about- despite being chummy with China, the government is very conservative and wary of home-grown communism/socialism/liberalism/atheism/homsexuality, which it tends to regard as much of a muchness- I think the reported numbers of believers are exaggerated.

The US is the big outlier, but the reports of religious trends there are interesting. While the number of atheists is growing, there is a very large increase in the number who are simply "none of the above".

The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. But, until recently, affiliation with Christianity had been at a high level -- about 87% -- and stable in the U.S
Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:
bullet 81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
bullet 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.

Some of these people are New Age types, but I'd guess a lot are people who would say "Naw, I don't go for Church or religion or that stuff, but I believe there's Something Spiritual- God or Whatever you want to call it..." (and what would Uncle Screwtape do with them?)

And with birthrates in the world's theistic communities outpacing those in secular ones, it appears that atheism is destined to become a victim of its own doctrine of natural selection.
........
By all appearances, atheism seems poised for extinction in the "survival of the fittest." But how did it come to this?

Unsurprisingly, the authors seem to know little of the theory of natural selection.

The number of non-believers has been growing at phenomenal rates in the advanced economies since WWII, and there is no indication of this slowing, so without even considering the rest of the world, the absolute number of atheists is almost certain to increase at least over the next few decades (barring the Second Coming ) until saturation point has been reached.
So how can a rapidly-increasing population be deemed to be headed for extinction? If an environmental change causes a large increase in the zebra population while causing an even larger increase in the antelope population, does that mean the zebras are headed for extinction?

Aha, but the countries that are atheistic also have low reproduction rates, so they are eventually doomed to be overwhelmed by the faster breeding Hindus, Chistians and Muslims of the developing world.

That would be a problem if the only way to get more atheists is by breeding them, but obviously conversion is very important, too. Will the grandchildren of those Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims etc who immgrate to the advanced economies be more like their contemporaries or more like their ancestors?

The one thing that seems to be true is that the more developed a country becomes, the less religious, even in the USA (think about it- aren't the Fundies constantly decrying the secularisation of America?)

So it would appear that as countries become wealthier and more educated, the less force religion has. Question- do you think the scientists in countries like India, Pakistan, Iran, Brazil and Kenya are less religious than the general population, or more so? Do they more closely match the opinions of their counterparts in the developed nations?

So, the conclusion is that non-believers are growing in terms of absolute numbers, while declining as a percentage of the world's population, as there is still a large and growing bulge in the ranks of the poor and uneducated.

[Elfhelm]

And I'll add that you have to mix in with the number who "identify themselves" as something with the number who attend church or the number who believe it, because even some of those who attend church are really only practicing ancestor veneration. Plus the definition of the word "Christian" isn't even agreed on by Christians, so how can the census bureau know for sure? I think when you do those calculations: .75 x .4 = .3 or really only 30% of the US regularly attends a Christian church, which includes Christian Scientists... wait... here are the figures... and 10% didn't even supply an affiliation, which to me means they really don't even know... more ancestor veneration...

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/images/image001.gif

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That certainly doesn't mean they don't know, Elfhelm. A lot of Protestants don't like to identify themselves at all beyond "just Christian", or sometimes beyond "Protestant".

[Elfhelm]

I guess I'll go into it. We could use a good discussion topic. And I doubt anyone else would start this topic.

Basically, the Bahá’Ã* believe that God sends prophets at important junctures in human development. Moses arrived when he was needed. Jesus was right for his time and place, and the era that followed saw advancements in the way people treated each other. Mohammed, too, was needed. After the Enlightenment, after humanity re-discovered the actual correct shape of the planet, the nature of gravity, the need for gender equality, the need for racial equality, evolution, etc., God sent a new prophet. His name was Abdul Bahá. He made whole again that which was sundered, science and religion. He taught that science was a way to know God.

I basically agree with all but two points. They don't let gays marry, and they require monogamy. I understand the latter, as they formed in a society that used polygamy to repress women, and they established monogamy as a path to gender equality. As to their ruling on gay marriage, well they elect a council that makes these decisions and to be a Bahá’Ã* you must agree to abide by the decisions of the council, and if you want to change the decision, you have to get it on the council's agenda and convince enough people. Their structure is a democracy. They endorse capitalism, but they expect their capitalists to be benevolent.

There is a lot to learn about them, and if you care to look, google them. (I gotta respect the rule not to post ads so I don't think I can put their URL here.) The first hit on Google is obviously their website.

Has anyone else checked out this group?

Do you know that they are being persecuted in Egypt and Iran?

When you check them out, if you know me, you'll see why I say I am almost Bahá’Ã*. "We" read ALL the scriptures from ALL the human cultures.

Also, it is forbidden for a Bahá’Ã* to proseltize (spelling), so I'll honor that, too.

[Beren3000]

I read a newspaper article about them and how they're being prosecuted by Isalmic radicalists in Egypt. I think the Muslim radicals regard them as a schism or a heresy of their own religion.
Also IIRC, the article said they regarded Abdul Baha' as another incarnation of God.

[Earniel]

The threads 'Ancient Greek Religion question' and 'The Bahá’Ã* Faith' have been merged with 'Theological Opinions' as they have similar topics.

[Elfhelm]

My experience concurs with yours, Gwai. But also, in my experience, there are a lot of people who identify themselves in a questionaire as something, but if you ask them what they actually believe, it's not the doctrine of their identity. So that's just religion-as-apparel, in my book. And also, from what I've gotten in discussions, most people believe in a life after death because their mother died and they think she can still see them and that they can still send her their love and that she will put in a good word for them with God. Which is, in fact, ancestor veneration. They don't really think Jesus could walk on water, but they do think their dead ancestors can influence the world through God. Ancestor veneration, in fact. Right? But if asked to identify their religion... protestant, non-denominational... because they went to some protestant church when they were growing up, and their ancestors are watching over their shoulder as they are filling out the form, so they put in the answer which will get them the influence with God, etc. I guess I sound pretty cynical. To me, to be a Christian means you believe that there is only one way into heaven, and that is to say that Jesus was the Christ, the one and only Christ there ever was, and that by his torturous pains and cruel slow death, your sins were forgiven.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The threads 'Ancient Greek Religion question' and 'The Bahá’Ã* Faith' have been merged with 'Theological Opinions' as they have similar topics.

OK, you're the mod. Not that I like it. The Bahá’Ã* Faith will be swallowed up and ignored by the Atheist vs. Christianity topic. I was not going to express a theological opinion. I wanted to give people a chance to consider something different. But true, when has anyone ever considered something different on this topic. Bahá’Ã* is not theology. It's a religion. Monotheism is theology, and the nature of God is theology. Bahá’Ã* hold that God is non-gendered. They are perhaps the first religion to say that. And they say that evolution is probably a correct theory. Yet they do not think this detracts one iota from God. Their statements are very intriguing. But nobody will look into it because it got merged with the argument between the atheists and the Christians. I'll have to just get over it, I guess.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

...the article said they regarded Abdul Baha' as another incarnation of God.

They don't regard him that way. They call him a prophet, meaning he is inspired - meaning what he says comes from God - like a medium. All priests are mediums, from my lips to God's ear, so to speak, but a prophet works in the other direction, from God's lips to your ear.

[Rían]

Elfhelm, inked - ROFL!! *applause*

(preconceptions and assumptions, etc.) Very funny!

[GreyMouser]

Sorry, my bad for not providing links:

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/facu...n/atheism.html
Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel1.htm
RELIGIOUS MAKEUP OF THE UNITED STATES

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
Religious identification in the U.S.

[GreyMouser]

And here's some scientists who seem to be still having good dreams.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: From the Universe to the Laboratory
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll...ab05/img0.html


Take a look- it's a wonderful click-through guide to the latest ideas on the frontier of cosmology; simple and with great illustrations

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

OK, you're the mod. Not that I like it. The Bahá’Ã* Faith will be swallowed up and ignored by the Atheist vs. Christianity topic. I was not going to express a theological opinion. I wanted to give people a chance to consider something different. But true, when has anyone ever considered something different on this topic. Bahá’Ã* is not theology. It's a religion. Monotheism is theology, and the nature of God is theology. Bahá’Ã* hold that God is non-gendered. They are perhaps the first religion to say that. And they say that evolution is probably a correct theory. Yet they do not think this detracts one iota from God. Their statements are very intriguing. But nobody will look into it because it got merged with the argument between the atheists and the Christians. I'll have to just get over it, I guess.

I have a very good friend- Canadian of Iranian descent- who is a Bahai, and has established a flourishing little community here in Taiwan.

They're persecuted by Muslims because Islam believes Mohammed was the last Prophet who revealed the perfect Truth in the Koran; anyone who comes after him is a False Prophet promoting heresy. Sort of the way orthodox Christians looked at Joseph Smith .

Personally, I can't get into a religion whose major prophet is called Bob.


(alright, alright, Bab)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's another word from the same God. (Ezekiel 18:4) "For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die."

The fact that the scripture says that the soul will die makes it manifest that this refers to eternal death, id est, damnation.

Then later on in the same chapter, God describes a list of sins (verses 11-13) and concludes by saying, "Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head." The whole chapter lays out the death penalty very effectively as a just punishment for sin. Verse 26: "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. In verse 29, the Lord says that this way, his way, is just.

The proximity in thought and position of these verses leads me to the conclusion that they are speaking about the same thing as above, eternal damnation.

Even if they do refer to physical death, it doesn't mean that it is actually the death penalty. Does not God say, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay"?

Ezekiel 18 should prove for Christians that the death penalty is a just penalty for sin.

I'm okay with that, if God is the executioner.

God also says in the chapter a similar thing to what he said in the passage you referenced from the New Testament. Verses 31-32 of Ezekiel 18 say: "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!"

In the same way, Jesus held the just death penalty at bay, giving the woman a chance to repent.

There is no correlation. In Ezekiel, God promises life conditionally, to follow upon repentance. Also, again, he is talking about pending destruction of the Hebrew nation, and subjugation of their people, not about a death penalty imposed by men.

Our Lord, however, indicated that if a person does some ill which is deserving of execution, they may be executed, by a sinless person. This draws me to the conclusion that only God may lawfully take life. "The LORD giveth, and the LORD hath taken away".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The fact that the scripture says that the soul will die makes it manifest that this refers to eternal death, id est, damnation.

My NIV text note for the word "soul" says that this translation of the word means the same thing as "life" or "person." The scholars who assembled the NIV say that the word soul, "is not used here to distinguish spirit from body."

Thus there is no reason to think this is talking about the afterlife.

Furthermore, the passage that says, "his blood be on his own head," makes it clear that God is talking about physical rather than spiritual death. Spirits don't have blood.

Also, at the end of the chapter, God refers to the death of Israel. That judgment was a historical physical judgment carried out through King Nebuchadnezzar, not a spiritual judgment. Thus, the context indicates that this was a physical death that was described in the earlier parts of the chapter as well.

Let us also consider the rest of the content of Ezekiel. Such an abrupt departure into afterlife description would be also a wierd detour, considering the message of the rest of the book. The first 24 chapters of Ezekiel are about the physical destruction and judgment of Israel, and chapters 25-32 are about the physical destructions of the other nations. Chapter 18 fits in neatly with the rest of the message by describing how God's judgment on men works, and it justifies and explains God's use of the death penalty, part of the judgment he was about to inflict on them.


For all these reasons, we can make the reasonable conclusion that in this chapter, God says the death penalty is a deserved judgment for some earthly sins.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Even if they do refer to physical death, it doesn't mean that it is actually the death penalty. Does not God say, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay"?

This means that we don't have the right to seek revenge. Revenge sought by an individual and justice required by a society are two different things.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm okay with that, if God is the executioner.

Well then, you're not okay with God's own instructions to his people. Numbers 35:16
"'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. THe avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.'"

Verse 30-31:
"'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

"'Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.'"

If God established this law, this system of witnesses and judgment by the assembly, and said that the death penalty was good, then it was good, just and holy. The death penalty is just and God also does not demand exclusive right to use it, but rather commanded his own nation's law officials to use it in the court of law.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There is no correlation. In Ezekiel, God promises life conditionally, to follow upon repentance. Also, again, he is talking about pending destruction of the Hebrew nation, and subjugation of their people, not about a death penalty imposed by men.

Our Lord, however, indicated that if a person does some ill which is deserving of execution, they may be executed, by a sinless person. This draws me to the conclusion that only God may lawfully take life. "The LORD giveth, and the LORD hath taken away".

Jesus also said that he did not come to do away with the Law, and Paul said that the Law was not abolished. Jesus fulfilled the Law rather than abolishing it. How did he fulfill it? When people are completely good, they by nature fulfill the spiritual commands of the Law. Thus the righteous judgments of the Law were not eradicated but fulfilled, and Christians need not suffer under them any more, as we too fulfill the Law in ourselves by nature.

I see the New Covenant revealed in that passage you brought up. Jesus came to have mercy on us, not to exact justice on us. Even so, he said in the scripture, "I do not come to condemn the world but to save it." In the same way, even though this woman he had before him deserved to die, he had mercy on her and saved her. Just as he saves us all, only done here for this woman in the flesh. What I think this incident reveals to us is first of all, a symbol for God's saving us all. And second of all, it reveals to us that as we are all guilty of sin, we should show mercy as well as justice and should bond our justice system with mercy, just as Jesus did.


Now, I do not think that this passage reveals that the death penalty should be abolished. This woman had sinned. If she didn't deserve death at our hands, she certainly deserved some penalty. Jesus didn't give her any penalty. Now if this is to be applied strictly to our justice system, you'd have to say that we should give no penalty at all for people's crimes! After all, we have all sinned! So which of us should demand that someone else pay a penalty for sinning?

I think that Jesus' message wasn't this, but rather was simply that justice and mercy should be wedded together.

[GreyMouser]

Ezekiel 18: 13
" He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head."

I would like to draw this to the attention of the people who issued my credit card....

[Lief Erikson]

The one thing you may want to note there, as you do that, is that the scripture here says, "because he has done ALL these detestable things." In other words, it's not the death penalty for each of those individual crimes, as far as I can make out. Rather, it's for the whole batch, or a whole bunch of the forementioned, anyway.

[Jonathan]

Gwai also brought up Verse 26: "If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die." Too me it seems a single crime justifies the death penalty. Not just the whole batch.