[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy117

There has yet to be as religion that pleases everybody so that is why there are many different religions and sects within those religions.

But the moment you say that there may be many different religions, and each is as good as the other, you inherently admit that none is perfect, which undermines your initial precept of a 'flawless religion' (OK, the term you used was a religion that has “a flawless set of rules “, and you will have to tell me if you see any distinction between that and the notion of a “flawless religion”).

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

I would contend that it was. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ. Christ lived in the middle east. His original disciples lived in the middle east. Christ preached to those disciples in the middle east. The teachings of Christ were then taken abroad where others learned of them & the adherents multiplied in number. You can't say that because Paul wasn't born in the middle east, Christianity can't have started there.

I will cop out on this one, and let someone else argue my case for me (I have not read the document to the end, so I cannot say if I agree with everything in it, but it does cover roughly the territory that I believe my answer would cover).

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

quote:
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever.
While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion because events of his life lay the foundation story of Christianity. While a man named Jesus may be the foundation of Christianity, Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time. The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism and converted to what he called Christ. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion.

The other apostles, those who had known Jesus personally, would mostly not have been addressing a non Jewish audience, and would not even have had a good grasp of Latin or Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

quote:
Some argue that he was instrumental in establishing Christianity as a distinct religion, rather than a sect of Judaism, as Christianity was first known.

Due to his body of work and his undoubted influence on the development of Christianity, many modern scholars have considered Paul to be the founder of Christianity, who modified Jesus' teachings and added important new doctrines. However, this view remains controversial. Many Christian scholars say that no teachings were modified, and assert that Paul taught in complete harmony with Jesus. Some Christians, however, particularly those who embrace dispensationalism, believe that Jesus' teachings are for the Jews – especially those teachings found in Matthew – and that Christians necessarily have a different belief system since Christianity, according to this perspective, only arose as a result of the rejection by the Jews of their Messiah.

quote:
About AD 49, after fourteen years of preaching, Paul travelled to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus to meet with the leaders of the Jerusalem church

So will note that his early teachings could have had only indirect influence from any those who knew Jesus personally, although I will accept there is the following reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

quote:
Following this visit to Jerusalem, Paul's own writings and Acts slightly differ on his next activities.

But this is after 14 years of setting up early Christianity.

It should also be noted that Paul, of all the apostles, was the only one who was a Roman citizen, and thus would  be able to address other Romans as equals; and he was the most widely travelled (and thus the most widely heard, within the wider empire) of the apostles.  This would have inevitably given his version of Christ's life a greater audience than any of his contemporaries.

quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

 

quote:
What we can say is that even in his own time, although Jesus was a Jew, he was also a maverick, an outsider (to some, even a terrorist), and as such, one can imagine that he too could find value in applying the notion of damnation in the hereafter to those upon whom he had little control within the here and now. By contrast, Herod could damn those who displeased him within this life, so he had no need to threaten them in the life hereafter.

Indeed. And that backs up my statement that fear of eternal damnation was a part of Christianity right from the start. It was merely a reiteration of the spite and vindictiveness that was attributed to God in the Old Testament.

It allows for the possibility that it was a part of Christ's early teaching, but since we don't really know what his teachings were (we have no direct evidence), we cannot say whether it is true.

On the other hand, the point I was making was at which point it entered Christianity, only that it was something that distinguished Christianity from mainstream Judaism.

It is true that this last point is also fraught with difficulty, because we don't really have too clear an idea of what Judaism was before the diaspora, and it is clear that there was much variety in interpretation (the interpretation of Jesus being one of many less orthodox interpretations).  And ofcourse, just as with Christianity (probably even more so), Judaism has mutated over time.

Thus it is probably very difficult to argue with either Christianity or with Judaism that historically there is any definitive interpretation, but if one looks at the modern teachings of each, it does seem that Christianity does place the greater emphasis upon the life hereafter, and Judaism more so the community in this world (and in particular, the ancestral community and continuity with the past).

[Ian33]

The Model religious Community for the world was Ancient Egypt. Thought of as a Heaven on Earth by it's peoples, Egypt complex and diverse religions stemmed from careful obseservation of all natural phenomena Thus Egyptians in general, were protective of their enviroment and conservative with nature. The decline in Religion occured with the coming of the Nazerine and his following fundemetalists , such as Paul. When the Church formed and dictated it's dogma. The world was in for it....

Cafe Del Mar. Vol Siente

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Ian33

The Model religious Community for the world was Ancient Egypt. Thought of as a Heaven on Earth by it's peoples, Egypt complex and diverse religions stemmed from careful obseservation of all natural phenomena Thus Egyptians in general, were protective of their enviroment and conservative with nature. The decline in Religion occured with the coming of the Nazerine and his following fundemetalists , such as Paul. When the Church formed and dictated it's dogma. The world was in for it....

Cafe Del Mar. Vol Siente

From what I can ascertain, the Egyptian religion was both all pervading, and highly (as you suggest) conservative.

While it probably provided a very strong sense of certainty, and identity, for the Egyptian people, is such extreme conservatism necessarily a desirable thing?  I certainly would not have liked to be an outsider living amongst such people.

Such conservatism must inevitably be contrary to the precepts of science, which by its very nature is questioning and uncertain and looking to change the world.

[DoctorBeaver]

quote:And ofcourse, just as with Christianity (probably even more so), Judaism has mutated over time.

Mutated or evolved? (sorry, I couldn't resist that! [)] )

[Ian33]

Egyptian theologians were scholars, scribes, astronomers and deep thinkers of the origin of the Cosmos. The Creation myths of Amun of Karnak have a rather close description of the Big Bang, of course we know they didn't know how the Universe came into being, but they showed some meaningful thinking in formulating how they thought everything came into being. I'll post up the relevant passage in a min.

Ian

Cafe Del Mar. Vol Siente

[Ian33]

Here is the relevant part of a text from Karnak Temple which details Amun's moment of creation. As I've remarked the theologians showed remakable insights into the origin of the universe, even if they couched it the language of the day, here then, the supreme first God, Amun creates the universe.

" In the beginning there was chaos

Chaos was darkness, the waters of the abyss.

The first God, Amun arose from the waters, using only his own strength to give form to his body.

Amun existed alone.

All was his.

Yesterday and tomorrow were his.

He took his penis in his hand. He made love to his fist. He took his exquisitejoy with his fingers. From the flame of his fiery blast which he kindled with his hand, the universe was formed"

Now, notice that the expression for his climax is termed ' fiery blast' a near perfect description of the big bang, which is now thought was not so much a bang as a super hot expansion of photons, occuring at the speed of 1 second to the power of minus 43. From this, all matter in and energy in the universe was created.


Ian


Cafe Del Mar. Vol Siente

[Soul Surfer]

I have now at last found time to skim through this interesting topic so that I can come in with a few comments.  

Firstly let me state my particular point of view briefly.  

You can find more information on my website but it is a bit in need of updating.

I do not believe in God as a form of super intelligence that organises everything but I do believe in religion as a guide to behaviour and a force of broader social cohesiveness.  I am a regular worshipper and contributor to my local Church of England church.

I feel that when it comes to difficult decisions between right and wrong the model that there is someone else who is compassionate but stern who knows what you are doing and will in future ask you to account for it, is as simple a model to live by that I can think of.  The fundamental christian rules are love god (accept the universe as it is) and love your neighbour as yourself.

When it comes to "written" evidence the book of nature is supreme we live in a "what you see is what you get" universe.  The Bible and many other ancient writings and myths contain much wisdom about human nature and good and bad behaviour but must always be read bearing in mind the context and understanding of those who wrote them.  To treat them totally literally is just plain stupid.

As far as religious rituals images and symbolism are concerned I have very few problems with my chosen church although the way I view them may be rather idiosyncratic but I expect everyone else's approach will be a bit different.

To give a couple of examples.  
Isn't the body and blood of the communion service a wonderful way of expressing the essential recycling expressed in life.
The Holy Trinity, god the father son and holy spirit.  The father is the material from which the universe is made matter, space and time.  The son is life as we know it on the earth formed from the original materials by the action of physical and biological evolution, the spirit, that by the use of simple processes and rules creates complexity from simplicity.

I do not expect any personal afterlife except the knowledge that I will be recycled into something else, but possibly even more special! Actions that I have taken and things that I have said to others may live on as part of our continuing heritage.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[another_someone]

I think that if one looks at Genesis, one can also see a fair amount thought and an inquiring mind.

It is true that most of Genesis was not actually written by the Jew, but was taken from sources in Mesopotamia, but it does indicate that the kind of thought that the Egyptians were engaged in was also prevalent elsewhere in the Middle East.

I accept that most of the stuff that the Jews put into the bible was more historical and legal than it was in any way a development of natural philosophy.

Then it must also be said, that although through the development of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and its consequent adoption of the bible, we have a very judao-centric view of Middle Eastern history; ancient Israel itself was never a major political or intellectual force within the Middle East.

[Ian33]

Certainly, for a small insignificant ancient culture, that Judaism spawned Christianity is almost unbelievable, if it were not for the fact.  We all know the influence a small group of fanatics can have if the climate is right for them.

Well, yes, the Egyptians and the peoples of Mesopotamia, were engaged in the sciences of the day. And it has to be said, the Babylonians were up in there in terms of seeking knowledge, mapping the skies and mathematics.

Cafe Del Mar. Vol:Siente

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Soul Surfer

I do not believe in God as a form of super intelligence that organises everything but I do believe in religion as a guide to behaviour and a force of broader social cohesiveness.  I am a regular worshipper and contributor to my local Church of England church.

I feel that when it comes to difficult decisions between right and wrong the model that there is someone else who is compassionate but stern who knows what you are doing and will in future ask you to account for it, is as simple a model to live by that I can think of.

So, let me see if I can understand this.  You believe that there is a God who is compassionate, is omniscient (if not omnipotent), but is sufficiently omnipotent to guarantee some form of retribution for your wrongs?

quote:
When it comes to "written" evidence the book of nature is supreme we live in a "what you see is what you get" universe.  The Bible and many other ancient writings and myths contain much wisdom about human nature and good and bad behaviour but must always be read bearing in mind the context and understanding of those who wrote them.  To treat them totally literally is just plain stupid.

I have no problem with this interpretation, but the same can be said for a great many philosophical writings pertaining to human nature, from the likes of John Locke, Michel de Montaigne, and many others; as well as numerous other religious texts from other religions (including Buddhism, which does not inherently require a God in its religious model, although I believe some variants of Buddhism do include the notion of some type of God).

[Soul Surfer]

No I do NOT believe that there is a God who keeps things going or interferes with the workings of the universe but the mental model that there is one that could call me to account is I believe simple and useful.

I do not presume any great originality for this idea.  Descartes would probably have agreed with it.

As for there being a lot of other good and useful writings I agree totally but that is not a reason for rejecting the bible as a useful source of ideas.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[Soul Surfer]

No I do NOT believe in any sort of God who meddles with the universe but I do find that the concept of God is a useful and simple mental model to guide behaviour.  Can you come up with a simpler and/or a better one?

I totally agree that there is a great deal of wisdom in other writings but that is not a reason to reject the Bible as one of many sources.



Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[Soul Surfer]

oops two replies for the price ov one !  I had'nt realised it had started another page and thought my first reply had failed  :-)

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[peterclarke]

quote:I do find that the concept of God is a useful and simple mental model to guide behaviour.

But that behaviour is often not 'good', especially when it leaves the personal level and becomes a 'religion'. Just think of all the atrocities that are/have been committed in the name of god/religion.
There is an interesting letter in New Scientist this week about goodness, co-operation and self sacrifice for the good of others being a basic evolutionary necessity. The god concept may seem to be useful but it nearly always becomes corrupted into a religion, so it may not be a successful mental model in the context of the survival of the human species.

Peter

[Soul Surfer]

I agree that a great many atrocities are committed in the name of religion but think that an even greater number are committed in the name of self interest.

The evolutionary theorests are at last getting down to the vital role of cooperation insuccessful species.

Man in isolation is very weak and a family group is still only good for the most basic things to get anywhere near the efficiency of modern life organisation and cooperation on a global scale is essntial.  I feel that without the initial cohesivenes offered by religions the essential stelp from tribe to nation would not have been achieved.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[neilep]

Is religion the antithesis of science ?

If so, I will move this thread to the ' just chat ' section instead of here in General Science.

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[Crazy117 (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by peterclarke

quote:I do find that the concept of God is a useful and simple mental model to guide behaviour.

But that behaviour is often not 'good', especially when it leaves the personal level and becomes a 'religion'. Just think of all the atrocities that are/have been committed in the name of god/religion.
There is an interesting letter in New Scientist this week about goodness, co-operation and self sacrifice for the good of others being a basic evolutionary necessity. The god concept may seem to be useful but it nearly always becomes corrupted into a religion, so it may not be a successful mental model in the context of the survival of the human species.

Peter

YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET THE ****ING POINT SHUT THE **** UP WITH THAT BULL****.
Soul Surfer you are absoulutley right.
What you are saying peter is that they commit the acts of terrorism because of the religion, but if that religion doesn't support the terrorism then they are not following the mandates of that religion.

newbielink:http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/865380242.Me.r.html [nonactive]
This guy can explain why we sneeze when we look at the sun... But can he explain why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by neilep

Is religion the antithesis of science ?

If so, I will move this thread to the ' just chat ' section instead of here in General Science.

I would go with that.

While one could weakly consider a discussion of religion as an aspect of social science; but to do that one would have to be discussing it from a totally from the perspective of the effect of religion on society, without regard to the relative merits of religion.

I don't see this discussion having that level of detached observation (with no disrespect intended to its participants).

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy117

Originally posted by peterclarke
YOU PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET THE ****ING POINT SHUT THE **** UP WITH THAT BULL****.

Crazy117, a word of advice; if you want to get your point across, this kind of language will do little to achieve that.

Maybe others don't understand what you are trying to say – then regard that as your inability to express yourself adequately for the audience in question.  Maybe some people will understand you with the least effort on your part, may with some others it may take a bit more effort.  That may be their fault, it may be yours, but more likely it is neither, it is just two people speaking a slightly different language.

You started this discussion with some comments about maintaining a moral code – where does charity, patience, and respect for others, come within your sense of morality?