Theology IV

[inked]

EF, you need to decide whether you do or do not believe Jesus existed. Then one could argue the point. However, a doubleminded person is unstable in all their ways and cannot be argued with because they being uncommitted they won't decide.

Now, if you decide "Nope, never existed" we can go the historical proof route.

If you decide, "he existed" then we can go the claims he made route.

But if you can't pick a route to go, just do what Yogi Berra suggests:
"When you come to a fork in the middle of the road, take it."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

Ok Lief, so you're pretty much primarily using the bible as proof of itself. The words of the bible come off as sounding undeniably sincere.

It's because we agree about that that I started using Biblical evidence in a strong way.

Originally Posted by katya

But how much of the events are supposed to be taken symbolically?

For this, it is useful to look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The apostles (we read about this in the Book of Acts and the writings of the Early Church Fathers repeatedly) appointed successors who they commanded to pass on their teaching accurately, never swerving from it. These men knew what the apostles thought about how much of the New Testament was literally accurate, and they wrote repeatedly about the New Testament's events as literal history. They are the best source of evidence we have about it.

The Epistles also confirm the literal truth of the major events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. There isn't any early source saying that the Gospels were intended to be only read symbolically (though I'm not denying that symbolism was seen in the Gospels- they tended to see Gospels as yielding symbolic and literal truths simultaneously).

Originally Posted by katya

How much of it has been altered over time? I think I'm going to need more outside evidence to be convinced.

Read this. It's not very long, and it compares in a very useful way the evidence for the New Testament's reliability with that of all sorts of other ancient history manuscripts that are considered generally reliable by scholars.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

As for evidence outside of the New Testament itself, here are some quotes from contemporary historians referring to Jesus:
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
And this article discusses the interpolations into Josephus' writing about Jesus that have been examined later. Read these two as you choose, depending on how interested you are in the evidence . I think it's worthwhile. But make up your own mind, of course.

Originally Posted by katya

Somewhat. Here's the story as I have heard it. Jesus picked up a few followers. Many people were attracted to the religion (whether or not they believed it) for some of the following reasons: it's cheap (you don't need bulls to slaughter like in Mithraism), women were given a lot of equality so it sounded nice to them and also they weren't killed as frequently so their population grew, you didn't have to be circumcised or follow Jewish law, also you don't have to worry about worshiping a lot of other gods. Overall an attractive religion.

Except that whoever adhered to it was ostracized from Jewish society, and Christianity was one of the very few religions the Roman Empire did not tolerate. The Romans cracked down on them several times, most terrifyingly of all under Diocletian. Many of the Early Church Fathers were killed under persecution- such as ten of the original 12 apostles, and later bishops like Ignatius, Ponthinus, Cyprian, Origen or Polycarp. The persecution of the bishops of Rome was particularly severe, up to the reign of Constantine. It was savage, though at times sporadic, persecution. And one of the key attractions of the faith was that Romans saw how fervently the Christians held to their beliefs.

Here's a pretty good source about it, though there are many more online that have more depth.
http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/ancient...ncenturies.htm

Originally Posted by katya

Then along comes Constantine, I'm sure you know the story of how he made Christianity legal and how it became the official religion. He was looking for a great unifier, and Christianity seemed like something convenient to use. He made it beneficial for people to become Christians.

The idea that Constantine was insincere in his faith and merely used Christianity for political purposes is a modern construction on the past that I personally disagree with.

Originally Posted by katya

The church pretty much starts going downhill and away from Jesus' teachings fast. Churches become political and financial. Arbitrary doctrines are decided upon. Things like the Crusades happen.

Oh gosh . . . The doctrines of Christ taught were essentially the same in the Medieval Church as they were in the Early Church. The Church did have political and financial power- which it often used for very good causes! They never gave up their tradition of giving to the poor. They supported the sciences. They were the center of education, culture and civilization that remained after the barbarian invasions and the fall of the Roman Empire. They elevated the role of women very high above what it had been in the past (ancient empires previously frequently had principally regarded women as sex objects), as a result of the devotion to the Virgin Mary. Because of Catholicism, some of humanity's greatest works of art (the cathedrals and the Hagia Sophia) were built. There is great beauty in much of the Church's role in Western history.

You've received a very one-sided picture.

Originally Posted by katya

Anyway what I'm getting at is, it's not like suddenly everyone is saved and turns to Jesus. The ones who do seem to do so for earthly reasons the same as anything else.

While that's true in some cases, especially after Constantine when economic and political pressure began squeezing them toward Christianity, it's not true in most cases. Most of the Christians genuinely believed their doctrine, even when they didn't follow it faithfully. One can see that in the immense bravery with which many Early Christians accepted martyrdom rather than apostate themselves. It's also very obvious in the Medieval Ages- there's a reason historian William Durant chose to label that time period as "The Age of Faith."

Originally Posted by katya

War and violence are still widespread.

The Christians came to power in the first place through peace- the peaceful conversion of Constantine, and their own evangelism of the Roman Empire.

Throughout the Early and Middle Medieval Ages, when Christians ruled, there were no major rebellions until the High Medieval Ages. There also was no imperialism. There were no genocides. There were atrocities and terrible things that happened, of course, and tortures were sometimes used, especially by secular rulers. There were also wars at times. But the violence of that era appears to have been significantly smaller than it has been in the centuries following, with our colonialism, imperialism, racist slavery, and numerous genocides. Just to set the records a bit straighter about violence and Christianity.

Originally Posted by katya

Not all Christians even believe it or follow Jesus' simple commandments of love, especially as Christianity becomes compulsory. There are instances (many, I'm sure) of good Christians who do really follow Jesus but no more than there are good Muslims and Buddhists and Jews.

There is the important difference I referred to before. Islam and Judaism involve man working his way up to God. Christianity involves God coming down to man and transforming us to make us holy through his power. We cooperate with him rather than trying to make our salvation ourselves through our works alone. We also obtain forgiveness for all our sins, something Islam and Judaism do not offer. There are real opportunities for holiness and salvation for humans that have their completeness in Jesus, but which lack that same level of completeness in Islam or Judaism.

Originally Posted by katya

About the invisible changes: are you saying Jesus died horribly so that we would be forgiven of our sins? Is this the explanation people came up with when Jesus didn't follow through on the rest of what he was supposed to do, as the Messiah?

No, the apostles said Jesus had been predicting it long before it happened. Also, see the Book of Isaiah's prophecies about the Messiah:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 52:13-15, 53

See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Just as there were many who were astonished at him -so marred was his appearance, beyond human semblence, and his form beyond that of mortals- so he shall startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate. Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity; and as one from whom others hide their faces he was despised, and we held him of no account.

Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper. Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Originally Posted by katya

I think it's a very strange thing to believe. First, why should we be born sinful? It's terribly unfair.

Well, unfair or not, we know from personal experience that it's true.

To explain it a little, I'll point out that children tend to inherit their beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions, genetic and social, from their parents. A parent with alcoholism commonly passes down that propensity to the children. parents with anger problems too. Etc. etc. It happens all the time.

Children change some as they get older, but they just do inherit a ton from their parents. Sin is one of those things, for those that don't choose God as their Father. For if God is our Father, we inherit from Him, just as we might otherwise inherit from earthly parents.

Everyone on Earth has the ability to choose eternal life.

Originally Posted by katya

Second, why should Jesus have to suffer for us? That sounds kind of unfair too. It sound like we're suddenly off the hook.

Jesus did not die so we could all go along our normal lives as usual. He died so we could become like him, transformed and completely holy, made spiritually beautiful in this life and perfected in the next.

Originally Posted by katya

Why didn't it just start out that way, that we be saved through faith in the Jewish God?

Well . . . we kind of are being saved through faith in the Jewish God . . . but I suppose you mean, "Why didn't God save us immediately after the first sins?" That's a matter of chronology. Interestingly, immediately after the first sin, Eve gave birth to two brothers whose lives typologically foreshadowed the entire salvation drama. She gave birth to Cain (who represents sinners) and Abel (who represents Christ). Abel was a shepherd, as Jesus claimed to be the good shepherd. Abel offered a lamb as sacrifice to God, and Jesus claimed to be the Lamb of the World. Cain offered a sacrifice that was not acceptable to God (just as the works of man under the Law are not acceptable to God, and Cain came before Abel, as the Law was revealed before Christ), and he was jealous of Abel's being favored in God's sight. So he murdered Abel (Christ's death on the cross). Then Cain had a son, Enoch, who was taken up into Heaven, just as sinners are transformed through Christ and will be resurrected from the dead.

So the entire story of salvation was immediately revealed to humanity, through human prophecy, in the very beginning of the Creation of the world.

But the fullness of that story revealed in the sons of Adam and Eve is the story of the entire human race, beginning to end.

Why Jesus chose to fulfill this master scheme for humanity when he did in history is a bit over my head to know. It is written in the Scripture that he came at exactly the right time, but I don't know precisely why this is so. God knows much more than me, though.

Originally Posted by katya

Third, what about the people who never hear in their life about a guy named Jesus? Are they not saved because they can't believe in him?

Everyone has the opportunity all the time to follow God insofar as they understand him. God is Love. Love is his essential nature, so people who live love to those around them (which isn't exactly the flesh-centered definition of love many people put on the word) act in accordance with God's nature and do his will. People that are truly ignorant of sin are not held guilty of it in God's sight. Likewise, people that are through no fault of their own ignorant of the path to salvation aren't considered guilty. God treats each person fairly, wherever in the world they are born.

Originally Posted by katya

Why would He come along to just one area of the world? It just doesn't feel right to me.

He doesn't come only to one area of the world. His Spirit is experienced all over the world- even in places where Christians have not yet been. I expect that a number of the spiritual experiences people from other religions have truly are from God. He reaches people where they are, and if their ears are open for more, he leads them further into the truth and into his blessings.

Originally Posted by katya

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone either way, I'm mostly just trying to throw ideas out there and play devil's advocate and see if anyone can change my mind about anything.

Okay .

[katya]

Thanks for the reply, Lief. I think I'm going to drop out at this point, because I don't think I can continue debating about a history that I only know the general framework of. I'll think about taking another history class and add some books to my reading list. In the mean time, I suppose there's nothing to do but continue worshiping Love. Same difference right?

In the meantime, one more thing I'd like to hear your thoughts on. Why Earth? Why are humans so special in the wide universe? What the whole universe meant for us? What's your take on human-centricity?

[Lief Erikson]

My view is that the universe, and all that is in it, including humans, are made to bring glory to God, Love. It's not all about man. It's all about God. Humans are made to live love, and animals are made as an expression of God's love, and so are the angels, and all the heavens and Earth. All of this brings glory to Love, and Creation is all about Love, the quick Spirit of God.

Aside from all the sheer beauty of the universe, which reflects God's character on its own, there are many specific parallels visible. Here are a few.

Life on Planet Earth (according to modern scientific theory) began in a deep sea cave, just as Jesus was born in a cave (according to Catholic Tradition), and life on Earth came from the deep sea cave in the waters onto Earth just as Christ came from the dark of his mother's womb and from amniotic fluid into the physical world. Life on Earth started as single celled organisms, just as Jesus did in the womb.

Life on Earth evolved into rational life, just as the child Jesus grew from a simple zygote to an adult. The order of creation represents the fulfillment of all creation, the Incarnation Himself.

Just a few parallels I discovered recently, which interest me . But you can probably see how we might think the universe reveals the glory of God.

The Earth rotates around the Sun as the soul submits itself to the Lord. The Sun brings life to the surface of the world, as God does to the soul. Jesus said, "I am the light of the world," as the sun brings glory to God by symbolizing our Lord. When Jesus came to Earth, he taught people by making examples from his Creation repeatedly. It is very beautiful and intimate, how Creation finds its fulfillment in Incarnate Love. The Catholic Church's history, as it happens, also has walked out up to this point a large portion of Jesus' life as it is reported in the Gospels.

That's my view . Everything, the Church, Creation, all the species, and the entire universe exist to bring glory to God, and they do it splendidly.

[Curufin]

Hmm. I'm considering starting a thread to talk about religions other than Christianity. I've tried to put some stuff into this thread, but it's really become the "Christianity" thread, not the "theology" thread. . .

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Aside from all the sheer beauty of the universe, which reflects God's character on its own, there are many specific parallels visible. Here are a few.

Had the beloved Catholic Church had its way you wouldn't possibly know what outer space and the wider Universe looked like. Ironic!

If your Christian God created the Universe, then who created him..

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Life on Planet Earth (according to modern scientific theory) began in a deep sea cave

We don't know that. You don't know that. There are many theories.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Life on Earth evolved into rational life

Among the billions of species that have existed and exist on Earth, only one possesses a fully rational mind. Your analogy doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Everything, the Church, Creation, all the species, and the entire universe exist to bring glory to God, and they do it splendidly.

Conclusion: We all exist for the pleasure of a God... How fulfilling

[Lief Erikson]

The purpose of your comments and questions, Coffeehouse, appears to me to be neither the expansion of your knowledge of our beliefs, nor thoughtful analysis of whether or not they are true. Rather, your purpose only appears to be to attack, mock and deride. So I don't see much point in taking the effort of making a reply.

On another topic, though, I've been longing for a long time to pray for you privately, but you asked me not to, so I've respected your wishes. Would you please permit me to, though? It nags me and irritates me badly under my skin to choke down prayers that for months my heart has been yearning to release. How can it hurt you, anyway?


Curufin, I think that people just bring what and who they are to any conversation. It's hard to help that. So when you bring up your religious views in conversation with a devout Christian, you're likely to get responses that reflect a Christian worldview. If you brought your views up to a non-Christian, you'd get whatever worldview he/she possesses returning to you.

I don't mean to squelch you at all.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The purpose of your comments and questions, Coffeehouse, appears to me to be neither the expansion of your knowledge of our beliefs, nor thoughtful analysis of whether or not they are true. Rather, your purpose only appears to be to attack, mock and deride. So I don't see much point in taking the effort of making a reply.

On another topic, though, I've been longing for a long time to pray for you privately, but you asked me not to, so I've respected your wishes. Would you please permit me to, though? It nags me and irritates me badly under my skin to choke down prayers that for months my heart has been yearning to release. How can it hurt you, anyway?


Curufin, I think that people just bring what and who they are to any conversation. It's hard to help that. So when you bring up your religious views in conversation with a devout Christian, you're likely to get responses that reflect a Christian worldview. If you brought your views up to a non-Christian, you'd get whatever worldview he/she possesses returning to you.

I don't mean to squelch you at all.

Lief don't be ridiculous. I've written long-winded posts explaining every possible way that I disagree with your faith, and I've provided countless examples of why I believe this, the inconsistencies, the falsehoods, the hypocritical behaviour and so on.

When you write the stuff you write, some very weak (I'm being kind) analogies between evolutionary science which rests on decades of thorough research and some highly opinionated resemblences to a freak birth that has only been documented in your Bible, you should expect some pretty straight-forward, simple answers. Why? Because there's not much to debunk, it's pretty easy to do it!

That said Lief, in a post where you describe me as doing: "attack, mock and deride", I did nothing of the kind. Mate, I gave you four clear points
1. I pointed out how ironic it is that you on one side marvel at the beauty of the Universe (I agree with you!), yet you fail to see that the path which led us to the understanding we now have of it and the technology we use to watch it, are incompatible with what you have previously derided as unfortunate, nay, evil developments due to the Enligthenment, and which furthermore are developments in science that were ridiculed and attempted to purge by your Catholic Church. I find that ironic, but I don't judge you for it.

2. My second point was: Who created your Christian God?

3. The third point was straight-forward: We don't know in fact how life first evolved. There are competing theories, and that doesn't really work for your analogy in my view.

4. The 4th point is educational: You write quite wrongly, or should I say misleadingly, that "Life on Earth evolved into rational life". Of course, nothing of the sort happened. The development of living organisms has led to one species obtaining rational thought, while billions of other species can't be said to have that.

You can spend your time however you want, but frankly I find it just a little creepy that you want to pray for me. All I can say is: Let it be. Release the ignorance. Open your mind. There's hope for you too

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Hmm. I'm considering starting a thread to talk about religions other than Christianity. I've tried to put some stuff into this thread, but it's really become the "Christianity" thread, not the "theology" thread. . .

I'm afraid it'll likely be merged into this one. We've been trying to contain all religious discussion to this thread instead of all over the board like it has been at times in the past.

[Empress_Flynn]

Originally Posted by inked

EF, you need to decide whether you do or do not believe Jesus existed. Then one could argue the point. However, a doubleminded person is unstable in all their ways and cannot be argued with because they being uncommitted they won't decide.

Now, if you decide "Nope, never existed" we can go the historical proof route.

If you decide, "he existed" then we can go the claims he made route.

But if you can't pick a route to go, just do what Yogi Berra suggests:
"When you come to a fork in the middle of the road, take it."

That's possibly the most ridiculous assumption I've ever seen anyone make...

So, let me clarify:

At this point in time, I do not see any reason to believe in the existence of Jesus as the Messiah.

However, I am not about to say that he could never possibly have existed just because there's no evidence that has convinced me yet.

Let's just say I'm of a scientific mind.

And at that, I feel like I need to stop posting in this thread... everything just makes me so angry... why can't some people just accept that others don't have the same beliefs that they do? I stated my opinion and I got shot down for it. I don't need a million Christian scholars telling me why I'm wrong, I need them saying "Oh, that's an interesting opinion, but this is how we view it in terms of my beliefs."

It is only with this kind of open-mindedness that we can ever come to any kind of constructive debate about anything, and quite frankly I haven't seen much of that here in the past few days...

So, I take my leave of this thread, don't bother to reply to this message or any others of mine.

You've made me feel very proud to be an agnostic.

[Ilfirin]

Let me explain a theory.

Like all the theories it has a few assumptions, ie, existence of a Babel Fish. A Babel Fish, let us assume can be anything mind-bogglingly useful throughout this universe.

Now let us say that God exists and argues, "I refuse to prove that I exist, because, proof denies faith and without faith Im nothing."

Now the question is, could a Babel Fish, which is ever so useful, have existed or evolved purely by chance? No right? So its the final proof that God exists.Hence by his own arguments he does not.

This, ladies and gentlemen is the Babel Fish Theory, by Douglas Adams as explained in H2G2. My Norwegian friends must be familiar with this name. It also happens to be the name of a band.

Thats about my opinion. Not that God does not exist, but it hardly matters, unless Im stranded on an island and have got another engineer for company .

Cheers
Ilfirin

Disclaimer: With a pinch of salt my friends. Mighty serious discussions throughout the thread!

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

That's possibly the most ridiculous assumption I've ever seen anyone make...

So, let me clarify:

At this point in time, I do not see any reason to believe in the existence of Jesus as the Messiah.

However, I am not about to say that he could never possibly have existed just because there's no evidence that has convinced me yet.

Let's just say I'm of a scientific mind.

And at that, I feel like I need to stop posting in this thread... everything just makes me so angry... why can't some people just accept that others don't have the same beliefs that they do? I stated my opinion and I got shot down for it. I don't need a million Christian scholars telling me why I'm wrong, I need them saying "Oh, that's an interesting opinion, but this is how we view it in terms of my beliefs."

It is only with this kind of open-mindedness that we can ever come to any kind of constructive debate about anything, and quite frankly I haven't seen much of that here in the past few days...

So, I take my leave of this thread, don't bother to reply to this message or any others of mine.

You've made me feel very proud to be an agnostic.

Oh no. Don't gooooo! *Attempts to bodytackle EF, but misses?*

Don't let the religious intolerance get to you! In any case, I like your way of making your points. It's persuasive I'm sort of tired of the circular logic in this thread too.. go back a few pages (don't do it) and you'll see why!

*Ilfirin, interesting post!, are you Norwegian?*

[inked]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

That's possibly the most ridiculous assumption I've ever seen anyone make...

So, let me clarify:

At this point in time, I do not see any reason to believe in the existence of Jesus as the Messiah.

However, I am not about to say that he could never possibly have existed just because there's no evidence that has convinced me yet.

Let's just say I'm of a scientific mind.

And at that, I feel like I need to stop posting in this thread... everything just makes me so angry... why can't some people just accept that others don't have the same beliefs that they do? I stated my opinion and I got shot down for it. I don't need a million Christian scholars telling me why I'm wrong, I need them saying "Oh, that's an interesting opinion, but this is how we view it in terms of my beliefs."

It is only with this kind of open-mindedness that we can ever come to any kind of constructive debate about anything, and quite frankly I haven't seen much of that here in the past few days...

So, I take my leave of this thread, don't bother to reply to this message or any others of mine.

You've made me feel very proud to be an agnostic.

EF, this is PRECISELY the problem that Harry had with Dumbledore in DEATHLY HALLOWS. If you have not yet read that book, I don't want to deprive you of the pleasure by risking spoilers. So, I will note that Dumbledore tells Harry very early in the series, in Philosopher's Stone precisely, that it is our choices that determine who we are above our abilities and talents and even being the "chosen one". Harry in the final book of the series is struggling with the same willlingness to believe that he had in the first book of the series, but from a mature, adult perspective. This mirrors your struggle.

Keep struggling!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Ummm..inked, Gwai...I know you're usually deeply involved in your own theological niceties, but... a little help with Church history...

Or is it ignorance is cool, if it leads to the right beliefs?

Yah...

No, the Gentile believers did not have to be circumcised. The circumcision was part of the old covenant, which is generally considered to be rendered obsolete by the new covenant, in the Christian mind.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

1. I pointed out how ironic it is that you on one side marvel at the beauty of the Universe (I agree with you!), yet you fail to see that the path which led us to the understanding we now have of it and the technology we use to watch it, are incompatible with what you have previously derided as unfortunate, nay, evil developments due to the Enligthenment, and which furthermore are developments in science that were ridiculed and attempted to purge by your Catholic Church. I find that ironic, but I don't judge you for it.

I here note the irony that Copernicus the first major proponent of heliocentrism, which presumably is what CH is referring to, was in Roman Catholic holy orders.

2. My second point was: Who created your Christian God?

A very silly point indeed, and one which indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of "God". Even the ancient pagans believed in an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause. It's rather silly to not believe in it.

[Lief Erikson]

Empress Flynn, I want to apologize for being so rude in my final post to you. It was hostile and I was wrong to attack you as I did.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

A very silly point indeed, and one which indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of "God". Even the ancient pagans believed in an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause. It's rather silly to not believe in it.

No, it's not silly, at least from a non-religious point of view. Every religion may have myths of the very first gods' birth or the start of the universe. But everything has to start somewhere, everything has to come into being somehow, whether it's in a big bang or a wimpy whisper. I won't argue whether it indicates an misunderstanding on the concept of the Christian God, but that doesn't make it a silly question.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

A very silly point indeed, and one which indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of "God". Even the ancient pagans believed in an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause. It's rather silly to not believe in it.

Was actually going to play the devils advocate on that one myself before I saw this post. An original creator implies just that. That they are the first and beyond the barriers of time. They are the alpha and the omega and the concept of there being existance before their existance does not work. As a non christian I have no problem with this logic. Remember, even if there is no god or creator than what was there before there was anything? Same conundrum. But just chalk it up to us being creatures OF this universe and because of that we must abide by its limitations of time and space. So we cant think outside these linear, time defined, dimensional mathematics and the idea of a being that has always been and will always be does not compute for us.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But everything has to start somewhere, everything has to come into being somehow, whether it's in a big bang or a wimpy whisper.

Not if it's eternal.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I won't argue whether it indicates an misunderstanding on the concept of the Christian God, but that doesn't make it a silly question.

Well, for non-Christians the existential question is a whole lot trickier, because the Big Bang could not have been the first cause. For it to happen, there would have to have been a prior state of materials. But for that prior state of materials to exist, there would have to be an even further back prior state, etc. You have to get into some kind of eternally existing material, whether it's energy or other, for things to exist, because nothing pops out of nothing. Nothing starts out as nothing and remains nothing. It simply doesn't suddenly mutate into something. So you'd have to resort to some kind of eternal state of existence of something that caused what is to exist.

That's the dilemma facing non-religious people. The main way to answer it and maintain a non-religious worldview is to just say, "We don't know yet. Maybe something new will come up."

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Was actually going to play the devils advocate on that one myself before I saw this post. An original creator implies just that. That they are the first and beyond the barriers of time. They are the alpha and the omega and the concept of there being existance before their existance does not work. As a non christian I have no problem with this logic. Remember, even if there is no god or creator than what was there before there was anything? Same conundrum. But just chalk it up to us being creatures OF this universe and because of that we must abide by its limitations of time and space. So we cant think outside these linear, time defined, dimensional mathematics and the idea of a being that has always been and will always be does not compute for us.

I accept 'silly question' as an answer Gwai. If that's how you want to answer it, sure That's your prerogative as a Christian. Doesn't really strengthen your case tho.

The beauty of the question of the origin of the Universe in scientific study is that they are working as always, to figure out the basic building blocks, trying to get as close to an answer as possible. They may not find the ultimate theorized answer, which can be shown to work. Yet there are answers out there, and there are intelligent theories asking questions.
Moreover, astronomers have already moved beyond "linear" and "time defined" mathematics. But why should they move beyond dimensions? You don't move beyond it, you expand on it. In fact there are those who theorize about the possibility of not 3, not 4, but 9 dimensions. It's so mind-boggling that no one yet understands fully how this would work, but there is work on it, there is progress (even if it leads to a dead end!) This is part of many competing sets of theories inside the greater String theory.

One very important catalyst to the evolution of String theory has been the improved undertanding of what a black hole constitutes. Black holes, understood to stand centre-stage in all galaxies that exist, are truly fascinating. They possess properties that truly does appear as being both the alpha and omega.

I'd rather follow the progress of the brilliant minds working on these problems than subscribe to some God being behind it all, which would mean that God is imperfect since Evil thus must have grown out of his existence.. Doesn't really compute with the Christian view of God. An irreconcilable problem I'm glad I don't have to defend! That's my prerogative!