Back in 2002, I embarked on the perpetual mid-life crisis, which started with an examination around what I did and did not know about religion. This manifested as a list of questions that at the time I could not answer. I first posted the answers in June this year under the heading 'Religious Identity?' and having just had a couple of reviews for this, which included the criticism that the answers were not suitably explained, decided it was about time I did them again. This is in part a companion to the Morals and Morality essays I have been constructing over the last month which expands on these themes in much more detail, the second part of which is almost ready. A bibliography, for anyone interested will be attached to the final part of the morality essays.
Hope this raises questions of your own and imparts enough information for you to desire answering them.
Questions and Answers
Q:Do you think the Adam and Eve story happened? Why?
No. The Adam and Eve story is a myth or legend that entered into Jewish lore between 3000 and 3500 years ago. It was only written down about 2500 years ago in the Jewish Tanakh having been handed down mostly through oral tradition prior to this.
Q:What do Adam and eve represent? Why?
3000 years ago man had no concept of evolution, so faced with the undeniable beauty of nature and of the complexity of living things assumed we and nature must have been created, so they created stories around how they thought this must have happened. The Adam and Eve stories demonstrated that god must exist because he created us. Our human instincts to do the forbidden never tallied with something that was created by a supreme supernatural being; not having any concept for evolution our human instincts were explained away as sin.
Q:Did Jesus exist? What makes you so sure either way?
Jesus, almost certainly existed because a number of independent sources state that he did, although as far as I recall, outside of the New Testament there are only about three references to him and his followers and very brief at that.
Q:Could Jesus perform miracles? How? Why?
No. Miracles are only performed by supernatural beings. Miraculous events are those that occur within the boundaries of human endeavor. Jesus was not supernatural, Christians state he was but they base this entirely on the premise he was the messiah of the prophecy in the Jewish Tanakh; unfortunately the Jewish Tanakh stated that the messiah would be a mighty warrior that would banish the oppressive forces from their land, and not a criminal crucified. Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah because he simply was not. It was only when the followers of Jesus took their assertions outside of Ancient Israel: Palestine, did the numbers of Christians swell, mostly converted pagans. This does not however, change that Jesus was not the messiah and therefore had no supernatural power an did no miracles. It was popular in a time of many prophets for their followers to claim they performed miracles. Jesus was by far not the only one.
Q:Did Jesus raise from the dead? Yes or No? Why do you think this?
No. Resurrection would have to be a miracle and for the reason stated above, there was no supernatural being to raise Jesus: Yahweh being the Jewish god and as mentioned Jesus not being the messiah, so the miracle never occurred. In the four centuries that followed the death of Jesus there were many pockets of Jesus followers. Some believe it was his teaching that were special and he died mortal, some believed he was a lost spirit that ascended when he died on the cross and others believed he was resurrected as the Jewish messiah. It just happens that the followers who believed in the resurrection were adopted by Rome and then proceeded to erase all evidence of the others. It is only in these last 100 years that we are starting to discover the writings of these 'lost christianities', which have given us new gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas which seems to contain a number of original Jesus sayings, before they were elaborated and woven into the stories of the four gospels we have in the New Testament. This last it should be noted is much debated; the gospel of Thomas is freely available as a research element on the web and very worth reading. The literal translation of Gospel by the way is simply 'good news'.
Q:Do I have a soul, what is it?
No. Your have a mind which is a consequence of your brain, human instincts and the cumulation of your life experiences.
Q:When I die what will happen to that soul, why?
When you die, your physical being will cease to work, importantly your brain and therefore your mind. There may be people that mourn and you will continue to live on in their memories.
Q:Does Christianity teach us the morals of life? Why?
No. Christianity gives us a bunch of moral teachings around their concepts of right and wrong, Unfortunately, most of these are based on the Jewish ten commandments which were originally devised some 3000-3500 years ago and therefore fall somewhat short of defining right and wrong in our modern societies. Morals are for people that need to be told what is right and wrong, and/or were brainwashed from an early age by religious teachings and therefore unable to see truth through their origin. We are derived from animals and the sooner we start accepting these instincts as natural and make conscious decisions based on context and then right and wrong, the better. Would you not steal if your children were without food and you had no other means of providing? Of course your going to covet yours neighbours wife if they have a plunging neckline framed beneath a pretty smile. Don't deny this, embrace what you are and then decide what is right and wrong within context.
Q:If not are we immoral?
No. See the above, morals and morality have no sway over mankind because mankind constantly evolves. There is only right and wrong within the context of now.
Q:Do you believe in heaven and hell? Why?
Of course not. Heaven and Hell are a construct of Christianity, which is, as explained above a construct itself. Heaven is religions answer to immortality and Hell is designed to scare you into leading a good life. As Jean Paul Sartre said, it is not in god you need to convince a man to repent, but in the fear of hell.
Q:Do you believe in god? What is his role?
No. I do not believe in god as a supernatural being. Studying history over the last 6000 years there is absolutely no evidence of a god. History and science do show us that we are very likely to have evolved through nature. I do believe there is more to the human brain and mind than we know and consider there is some aspect of the psyche that is in part humanity and not of the individual, that man has been mistaking for god. For instance, despite convincing evidence to show mankind has evolved, we still do not know how the collective evolutionary process actually functions, which is very interesting when you consider events such as decreasing fertility in societies of high population and low death rates.
Q:If I don't have a soul what am I?
Human; specifically Homo Sapien with a conscious mind.
Q:Do you believe in evolution? Why?
The evidence that is currently available indicates evolution as the most likely reason for our being. To this day I am stunned by the intricacy of the human body and of nature in general, but as stated above there is no evidence of god and religions are easy to deconstruct in this age of the modern mind.
Q:Is everything around us, our very being a consequence of nature and not god?
Yes, as mentioned, available evidence does point to evolution.
Q:Do you think we are here for a purpose, what is it?
As evolved descendent's of nature we are mortal life forms that are designed to contribute to the ongoing species through procreation. The modern mind means we can also contribute to society and live comfortable lives and even enjoy ourselves on occasion.
Q:So what makes man so special
The frontal cortex apparently, gives us our ability to reason and make intellectual decisions. It is uncertain when this developed within man or how it came to be, at least from what I have so far been able to discern. Apart from that we are quite big in relation to the rest of natures animals and have for a long time invented cunning means with which to kill anything we so desire.
Q:Is the bible the word of god?
Not at all. The bible was written by men that believed god existed because they had no other viable explanation and it was a hard, complicated world they lived in. When man discovered mankind's need for hope and in some part salvation this was expanded and changed to make controlling mankind easier. Along the way these men, being human consumed the power of control and began to view themselves as godlike.
|
Written by Fledermaus (3238 comments posted) 22nd December 2006 | This one is much better than the other two, as you elaborate a lot more on the answers.
The funny thing about Jeus and his miracles is that he isn't the only one in the bible who can do supernatural things. Appearantly his competitor simon Magus was pretty good at levitating too.
I think the whole deal of the 'magic' is indeed to show that Jezus was a god. But I doubt if it is a deliberate lie. People just attribute great deeds to great people. Lao Ze is said to have become immortal, Buddha used a cobra as an umbrella, Muhammed climbed a ladder to heaven. It doesn't matter... It's not the myths around them which count (however lovely they are), but rather their messages.
Whether these messages are 'the word of God'? Well, they're certainly written down by mortal humans, but then, they offer a lot of support and guidelines to many people.
What often surprises me is that especially atheists somehow seem to be so concerned about God. If they consider him a fairy-tale creature, then why do they bother so much about him? |
Written by Snodlander (501 comments posted) 22nd December 2006 | A couple of points:
Don't confuse fact with opinion. "the fact that Jesus was not the messiah" is an opinion, shared by many, it's true, but as you later rely on science, it is not a provable fact one way or the other.
And you've fallen into the trap of using science versus religion. Science and religion are totally unrelated. They answer different types of questions. Science can no more prove or disprove religious faith than religion can invalidate scientific theory. They are neither contradictory nor complementary.
In any case, Science proves nothing, not even scientific 'facts'. That is not its job. Science is about disproving theories. Someone thinks 'I think the world works like this'. Then scientists try and show that it doesn't. If they can show that it doesn't, then we have to think up a new explanation. If they can't disprove it, it becomes a theory. That is the ultimate 'fact' in science: We can't prove it's wrong. So it is irrelevant to religion as religion is to science.
Otherwise a well reasoned argument. If I can find it, I'll see if I can post a rebuttal. I had a similar piece, but from a different angle, that covers much of your post. No-one on the newsgroup I posted it on could come up with as strong a rebuttal as this piece.
But I'm right and you're wrong  | Snodders
Written by johniebg (538 comments posted) 22nd December 2006 | Removed 'fact', however if you read the Old Testament (Tanakh) which is the Judaism word of god, it clearly defines what the messiah would be and Jesus in no way whatsover meets any of the criteria other than being Jewish.
I have not fallen into any trap. Religion, in this case Christianity exists purely on the strength of the New Testament, analysis of what we know to be the origins of the New Testament and its reliance on the Tanakh show it to be a collection of stories built around mans need for a faith that was not Judaism, in a hard world they could not understand.
Your aligning religion with a supernatural force. Christian theology, a great mechanism of the human mind, which I assume you are alluding to, is purely built on the message provided by the New Testament, if we deconstruct the origin of the message in this as the work of mans mind, which it is easy to do, then Christian theology has no where to go.
I mention history and science in the same breath and not as origins of fact but simply mechanisms for which we can collect data and come to conclusions. I would very much like to hear your definition of 'religion'? It being a construct of mans mind is not sufficient.
Top comment BTW, but I am more likely to be right based on the data available  |
Written by Phil (6645 comments posted) 22nd December 2006 | Actually, both of you are probably wrong. Johnie argues his case factually, time will probably prove the some of the facts he bases his theories on to be inaccurate, that's the nature of science. It wasn't that long ago we all thought the world was flat. The big but is, I can only see new understanding firming up most of his arguments.
In essence, this gets to the hub of what I'm writing about in The Arrogance of Truth. I don't want to give too much away (like everyone is waiting with baited breath) but Johnie's arguments are based on observable and sensible facts as we understand them now. I think believers base their faith on emotional constructs. This makes their belief personal (of course) and difficult to challenge without seeming to attack the person. This does not make for healthy debate.
Good piece Johnie. At the moment, I agree with most of what you have written, but not all.
Phil. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
