Overthinking Christianity

@indonesia-phil said
We don't 'have' to take anything on faith, it's a choice we make, and for some of us unthinking faith isn't enough. Proclamations are made here regarding the 'truth' and 'reality', which don't stand up to even the mildest moral, ethical, scientific or intellectual analysis or questioning. I don't think anyone here would deny anyone else the right to believe whatever th ...[text shortened]... resented as anything other than belief or faith that people have the right to ask for justification.

You take how you think life begins on faith don’t you, believing that a mindless process could start and improve life over time?

@kellyjay said
You take how you think life begins on faith don’t you, believing that a mindless process could start and improve life over time?

It doesn't matter what I 'think' about the beginning of life, it isn't a matter of faith. Neither you or I nor anyone else can know for certain how life began, all we know is that life is here, and for it to be theoretically possible (which it is) for life to have begun by natural process has allowed me to clear my head of superstitious beliefs. From there onwards we have geological and biological evidence for gradually more complex life having evolved, from a few billion years of (nothing but) single - celled life to the gradually more complex life forms which evolved from there, over timescales which are unimaginable to us. We measure our lives in decades, and our religious beliefs (if we have them) in thousands of years, which barely register in terms of geological time. One does not have to 'believe' the evidence for evolution, nor does one have to ascribe any of it to conscious thought. The fact that you do because of your inherited faith is your right, but some of us remain open to other somewhat more evidential explanations. There is for example no 'checking' system which seems to form a large part of your argument for a mindful process of genetic inheritance; if there was, as I have said before, there would not be 'mistakes' in copying, which are a part of the evolutionary process, and which you attribute to your god, who you say deliberately fiddles around with genetically inherited characteristics in order to make sick children. Praise the lord.

@indonesia-phil said
It doesn't matter what I 'think' about the beginning of life, it isn't a matter of faith. Neither you or I nor anyone else can know for certain how life began, all we know is that life is here, and for it to be theoretically possible (which it is) for life to have begun by natural process has allowed me to clear my head of superstitious beliefs. From there onwards we h ...[text shortened]... s around with genetically inherited characteristics in order to make sick children. Praise the lord.

Suggesting the beginning of life doesn't matter also carries an element of faith;
that is claiming certainty, without knowing, faith is inescapable. Knowing for certain
is not a bar we hold for almost anything, but what is beyond a reasonable doubt.
So all of nature, if the whole thing is mindless from start to finish, do you think
giving a mindless process credit for life and all of the complexity we see around us
is reasonable? Denying something out of definition without having a good reason
isn't very wise, if you ignore that you call the supernatural in the face of no
acceptable reasonable natural causes, you got nothing, and I believe we can
agree nothing isn't going to get credit for everything.

@kellyjay said
Suggesting the beginning of life doesn't matter also carries an element of faith;
that is claiming certainty, without knowing, faith is inescapable.

I deduce that the only thing that genuinely "matters" to you about "the beginning of life" is that all of us must fill this gap in human knowledge with the same particular theology that you just so happen to subscribe to.

@kellyjay said
So all of nature, if the whole thing is mindless from start to finish, do you think
giving a mindless process credit for life and all of the complexity we see around usis reasonable? Denying something out of definition without having a good reasonisn't very wise, if you ignore that you call the supernatural in the face of noacceptable reasonable natural causes, you got nothing, and I believe we can
agree nothing isn't going to get credit for everything.

So all of nature, if the whole thing is mindless from start to finish, do you think giving a mindless process credit for life and all of the complexity we see around us is reasonable?

Indonesia Phil: Neither you or I nor anyone else can know for certain how life began

Denying something out of definition without having a good reason isn't very wise, if you ignore that you call the supernatural in the face of no acceptable reasonable natural causes, you got nothing, and I believe we can agree nothing isn't going to get credit for everything.

Indonesia Phil: Neither you or I nor anyone else can know for certain how life began

@kellyjay said
Do you think an organization was required if God was in the beginning?

You have misconstrued my question, how Christianity survived the first three centuries after Jesus's death. In those first three centuries, there was no Bible as you know it today. Specifically, the NT was not canonized until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. That means that early Christian communities were not sustained by Scripture, not the NT anyway; moreover, early Christian communities could not have been sustained only by the OT, otherwise, they would have been Jewish communities not Christian ones.

Paul's letters are evidence that early Christian churches were drifting away from Jesus's teachings (or, at any rate, what Paul took to have been Jesus's teachings) and admonishes them to correct their teachings (according to Paul's interpretation of them).

In fact, Christianity came first -- the NT came later. The NT was not written for the laity; it was written by and for the clergy, to clarify and make consistent what had become an inconsistent mish-mash (as evidenced by Paul's admonitions to various churches which had drifted).

Do take the trouble to find out how the NT came to be, as a historical document; it did not appear fully formed a few days or weeks after Jesus was crucified, you know.

Oh, and BTW, the oldest complete version we have of the Tanakh, the Leningrad Codex of the Masoretic Text, dates from the 11th c. That is rather a long gap back to the alleged source.

@moonbus said
You have misconstrued my question, how Christianity survived the first three centuries after Jesus's death. In those first three centuries, there was no Bible as you know it today. Specifically, the NT was not canonized until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. That means that early Christian communities were not sustained by Scripture, not the NT anyway; moreover, early Christia ...[text shortened]... Masoretic Text, dates from the 11th c. That is rather a long gap back to the alleged source.

No, it means the early church had scriptures; they were just not "canonized" when
the scriptures were brought together; they were done with massive copies from
various places and languages. The text was always available as the Spirit of God
was too, so it wasn't like those who belonged to God were adrift in a sea of
nothing. The Council of Nicea didn't create the books of the Bible; they simply
took what was already there and put it into one book after a thorough examination.

@kellyjay said
No, it means the early church had scriptures; they were just not "canonized" when
the scriptures were brought together; they were done with massive copies from
various places and languages.

Have you examined the dozens and dozens of Gospels that were excluded by corporate Christianity?

@fmf said
Have you examined the dozens and dozens of Gospels that were excluded by corporate Christianity?

What does that have to do with anything?

@fmf said
Have you examined the dozens and dozens of Gospels that were excluded by corporate Christianity?

Christianity isn't a corporation; those sanctified by God are the Church; it isn't a man
made organization.

@kellyjay said
What does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with how early Christianity survived three hundred years before canonization.

@moonbus said
It has everything to do with how early Christianity survived three hundred years before canonization.

Hmmm. Gods choice, will and direction, Breath of God, spiritually connected, other earthly ways?. I wasn’t there neither was he or you??

@moonbus said
It has everything to do with how early Christianity survived three hundred years before canonization.

There is God; you really shouldn't leave Him out of the equation on why the church
was birthed and survived.

@fmf said
I deduce that the only thing that genuinely "matters" to you about "the beginning of life" is that all of us must fill this gap in human knowledge with the same particular theology that you just so happen to subscribe to.

We can examine any natural explanation; if you don't have any, then you have
nothing, and if you have nothing and we know nothing is not the cause for
everything, then something that transcends the natural is the cause!

You deny what is supernatural simply because you don't like the idea when nothing
else will do is denial without cause; it is denial without evidence or logic supporting
your denial. If you disagree, give me another choice; at least be able to produce
something so we have a binary discussion of what is the most likely.

If the only real reason is you don't like the idea, then no matter what, whatever is
presented will never be enough; you will always want more.

@kellyjay said
Suggesting the beginning of life doesn't matter also carries an element of faith;
that is claiming certainty, without knowing, faith is inescapable. Knowing for certain
is not a bar we hold for almost anything, but what is beyond a reasonable doubt.
So all of nature, if the whole thing is mindless from start to finish, do you think
giving a mindless process credit for li ...[text shortened]... uses, you got nothing, and I believe we can
agree nothing isn't going to get credit for everything.

You twist my words, something which you are very good at. I didn't say the beginning of life doesn't matter, nor did I suggest it; the beginning of life is the singular most important thing which has ever happened. What I said was that what I think about the beginning of life doesn't matter, and that is an important literal and intellectual distinction. This is either inaccuracy on your part or intellectual dishonestly, so let's get that straight, shall we?

So are you now saying that your belief in your god is merely 'beyond reasonable doubt'? That a talking snake is 'beyond reasonable doubt?' Are you really saying this???

I think you fundamentally misunderstand my position. I'm not giving nature 'credit' for anything, since nature asks for no credit. We now understand the highly complex nature of genetics and genetic inheritance, (something which was not understood during biblical times) and we can even manipulate it to improve crops yields and so on; there is no longer any mystery to it, and we may marvel at its' complexity, or react to it in our very human way, but actually it's just naturally occurring mechanics, which requires no reason.

By 'denying something', I assume you mean that I deny the existence of any supernatural influence? You begin all thought in this regard with an assumption that there is a god, and fit everything around that assumption. I begin all thought in this regard with no such assumption; I begin from a neutral position, one might say, which is the only reasonable and intellectually honest position from which to start. Therefore for me there is nothing to 'deny'.

You say there is a god, I don't, and any attempt to elicit any answers from you regarding the difficult ethical, moral or intellectual questions pertaining to your belief in a god you completely ignore, so there is really no point in continuing the conversation. Nature is not 'nothing', nature is nature, which doesn't need a god to make it happen.