Faith

[Gav]

Noting that I need to broaded my horizons somewhat (at least over the usual fare of playing the Xbox or watching Wrestling/Action films), I gave this a watch. I found it very interesting and engaging throughout - and gave me something to think about. I'm having a tough time with the whole issue of 'faith' at the moment and the programme certainly provided food for thought. Thanks for bringing it to our attention Martin.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Moving along at a nice pace through my (English interpretation of the) Qur'an. About two thirds of the way through now. Only a fraction of the length of the Bible, so not too daunting a read. I can see even in the English version that it must be quite poetic / aesthetically pleasing to hear recited in the original language, and it has a lot of valid observations to make on the older monotheistic religions, with which Islam has a tremendous amount in common. (The Qur'an was inspired primarily to bring the Arabs out of idol-worship, with pointing out flaws in Judaism and Christianity more of an add-on resulting from subsequent circumstances.)

For example, I knew Jesus Christ was recognised as a prophet in Islam (perhaps second only to Muhammad) but I didn't know that Muslims also believe he was born of a virgin. It was surprising to me to learn that they retain that belief while yet insisting that he was a normal man and objecting to him being referred to as the son of God/Allah.

One problem with all old religious texts is that they attempt to relate things about divine beings in words normally used to describe human leaders. God is addressed as 'Lord and Master', the same words that might be used to address a human ruler, when of course the relationship is totally different. Jesus taught his disciples to call God 'Our Father', when of course He's not our father in the normal sense of the word. We Christians call Jesus the son of God - but what _is_ a son of God? Surely not a son in the human sense. It's not defined anywhere! No wonder it leads to such confusion and debate.

Reading the Qur'an, I get the impression that what Muhammad objected to was the idea that Allah decided two thousand years ago to get Mary pregnant, like the Greek and Roman gods did from time to time, and hence Jesus came into being. This is considered a wrong belief because everything is Allah's creation, and there no other gods beside Allah. However, I think this is a misunderstanding of the Christian belief, which is that there is indeed only one God, but in three aspects, and that the Christ aspect always existed ("through Him all things were made") and only came down to live on Earth as a man by way of Mary. But it is all so confusing, because of the words that are used which mean different things when applied to humans to their meaning when applied to God (the latter uses often not defined properly).

It's a shame Muhammad was a military leader, since it results in much of the Qur'an being centred on war - the wars of Muhammad's time, of course, not the wars of the 21st Century, though they are inevitably now applied to such. It's very Old Testament, with much about how disbelievers are destined for the fire, and not all that many references to love - quite a bit on justice and forgiveness, but not much love overall* - so I think I'll stick with the more peaceful teachings of Jesus Christ and the Dalai Lama to guide my life. Nevertheless, like the Bible, Confucius, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, it's a mixed bag and contains some gold nuggets of perceptive wisdom, and is well worth a read, if only to actually have an informed opinion on Islam - which is impossible to get from the news media alone.

*Edit: That's probably related to the Jesus not being divine thing. I get the impression that in Islam God must always be portrayed as majestic and out of our league, whereas Christianity believes that His love was so great that He humbled himself by becoming and suffering as a man for a while. The Muslim God would never show meekness and humility. So it probably is a pretty fundamental difference of attitude there. Again, I prefer the God who shows He is capable of displaying all the virtues humans are called on to display - including humility and sacrifice. It makes me more disposed to worship one who willingly went through everything that the most unfortunate of us go through - which He can't do if He remains 'up there' all the time, only speaking and laying down the law through prophets. On the other hand, if I'd had different experiences in my life I might well be more disposed to Islam than to Christianity.

Martin

[dyrl]

God is addressed as 'Lord and Master', the same words that might be used to address a human ruler, when of course the relationship is totally different.

The relationship is totally different from a Christian point of view. Christianity presumes that God is the true Lord and Master, while a human ruler is just that, a human ruler - lower in the hierarchy. Subsequently, Christianity teaches that civil rule has less authority than divine rule; and therefore that divine law should govern civil law - and that since no human is "Lord and Master" therefore no human can ever claim that the enforcement of his will over others is the same as the enforcement of the will of God. In other words, in Christianity you have the roots of the seperation of Church and state, the seperation of religion from politics - something that is done on account of the Christian view of God as the true "Lord and Master" and the government as merely a transient, flawed institution run by human beings - none of whom can be Lord and Master.

In Islam things are the other way around, as signified by this point you're making about the Qu'aran. God is Lord and Master just like human rulers are Lords and Masters. So - if a human ruler is a Lord and Master just like God, then some humans are chosen by God to be Lord and Master while others are lower.

Islam therefore doesn't seem to ordain political equality and the result is visible in practice: look how many Islamic nations are either theocracies outright, or at best tense combinations of theocracies mingled with some modern democratic elements...

Reading the Qur'an, I get the impression that what Muhammad objected to was the idea that Allah decided two thousand years ago to get Mary pregnant, like the Greek and Roman gods did from time to time, and hence Jesus came into being. This is considered a wrong belief because everything is Allah's creation, and there no other gods beside Allah. However, I think this is a misunderstanding of the Christian belief, which is that there is indeed only one God, but in three aspects,

Agreed.

The key to debunking Christianity is debunking Aquainus' rational behind the holy trinity. I am not familiar with any religious text that manages to even come close to doing this without at the same time debunking God.

In other words - the most successful arguments against the Trinity happen to also end up having to argue that there is no God - or resort to mere faith and throw away reason.

I have yet to see a successful refutation of the Trinity that at the same time preserves the existence of God in its' proofs.

It's a shame Muhammad was a military leader, since it results in much of the Qur'an being centred on war - the wars of Muhammad's time, of course, not the wars of the 21st Century, though they are inevitably now applied to such. It's very Old Testament, with much about how disbelievers are destined for the fire, and not all that many references to love - quite a bit on justice and forgiveness, but not much love overall*

That is because Agape (Christian Love) is a unique creation - something that comes about above and beyond the Greek loves (eros, philios) and again - needs it's own refutation (Nietzsche does a number on Agape that is quite good) - but Ive never seen it effectively refuted from a religious-yet-non-Christian point of view.

Justice and even forgiveness are concepts that are not unique to Christianity- they can be found in philosophy and in other religions.

Christian love is totally unique - turning the other cheek even when an injustice has been done to you, or loving even when you are not forgiven, or forgiving even if you are not forgiven.

Islam and Judaism could never really wrap their heads around that concept - ergo look how Israel and the Muslim world continue to fight eachother while Europeans managed to overcome their diferences even though, not that long ago, they too were all at eachothers throughts. (yes - I am over-generalizing, but sometimes there's some truth in that...)

if I'd had different experiences in my life I might well be more disposed to Islam than to Christianity.

Well... tolerance is one thing. Obviously I tolerate al religions, and I think it's bad taste to start debating faith with someone who does not want to; who simply wants to worship in peace as they choose.

However, on all occasions when I have experienced a debate; be it with a person or a book, Islam has always appeared lacking as a religion in my mind.

And while I have my doubts about Christianity, I have more doubts about all other religions because they fail not only where Christianity fails, but in many other areas as well.

Still - be interested to hear more of your impressions since you are reading the Qu'ran.

So keep posting

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 7, 2009 20:19:34 GMT dyrl said:

In other words, in Christianity you have the roots of the seperation of Church and state

Yes, when asked for his views on taxation, Jesus pointed at the Emperor's image on the coin and said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's."

In Islam things are the other way around, as signified by this point you're making about the Qu'aran. God is Lord and Master just like human rulers are Lords and Masters. So - if a human ruler is a Lord and Master just like God, then some humans are chosen by God to be Lord and Master while others are lower.

That wasn't quite the point I was making. I was saying that it was unfortunate that all religions, including Christianity, use human words to refer to the divine, which leads people of all faiths to think of God in human terms - since that is the only reference we have to go on. The Qur'an does actually keep repeating that Muhammad is just a man, like everyone else. I think the Prophet struggled against his followers' tendency to venerate him when he just wanted them to venerate Allah. When he died, many refused to accept such a thing was possible, until someone pointed to the passage in the Qur'an that Muhammad had put in for that very purpose, which says, "Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers the like of whom have passed away before him," which brought them to their senses. I have yet to come to a part of the Qur'an that praises obedience to human leaders. But like Christianity, people have done things in the name of Islam that were counter to the original teaching.

Islam therefore doesn't seem to ordain political equality and the result is visible in practice: look how many Islamic nations are either theocracies outright, or at best tense combinations of theocracies mingled with some modern democratic elements...

Perhaps, but Muhammad didn't preach enforced religion. The Qur'an tells Muslims to let disbelievers alone, if they don't wish to accept monotheism, and they will get their punishment in the next life. He fought wars, but not to become an emperor. His rules were instructions on how to behave in order to reach Heaven - rules which people could take or leave at their peril. They would be enforced later by God, and didn't need to be enforced by regimes.

Justice and even forgiveness are concepts that are not unique to Christianity- they can be found in philosophy and in other religions.

Christian love is totally unique - turning the other cheek even when an injustice has been done to you, or loving even when you are not forgiven, or forgiving even if you are not forgiven.

That's not true. Socrates preached all those things.

Islam and Judaism could never really wrap their heads around that concept - ergo look how Israel and the Muslim world continue to fight eachother while Europeans managed to overcome their diferences even though, not that long ago, they too were all at eachothers throughts. (yes - I am over-generalizing, but sometimes there's some truth in that...)

Again, I don't think that's true. So-called Christianity has spent far more time fighting religious wars than Judaism. The Crusades lasted centuries and were between so-called Christianity and Islam. And in Northern Ireland so-called Christian sects are still struggling to live peacefully with each other. (I say 'so-called' because all Christian violence is contrary to the example and teaching of Christ.)

However, on all occasions when I have experienced a debate; be it with a person or a book, Islam has always appeared lacking as a religion in my mind.

Islam was originally preached not as a new religion but as a reminder that should never have been necessary if people had only stuck to the teachings of earlier prophets and surrendered to the one God. Muhammad didn't see himself as the final piece of God's plan of prophets, but someone reminding people of what they had been told by God before, but which they had lapsed from - most particularly the idolators, and to a lesser extent Jews and Christians who he felt weren't sufficiently commited and had introduced some improper ideas. But the majority of it was not new. The thing that makes Islam distinctive as a religion is the strength of belief, which is impressive compared to the less fervent faith of most Jews and Christians such as myself.

Still - be interested to hear more of your impressions since you are reading the Qu'ran.

Found a few lines I particularly liked in Surah 31:

"And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted... Your creation and your raising (from the dead) are only as (the creation and the raising of) a single soul."

I like that first part because it implies that no one book can hold a monopoly on God's truth.

Martin

[dyrl]

Yes, when asked for his views on taxation, Jesus pointed at the Emperor's image on the coin and said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's."

Ironically, despite my extrapolation of the tradition of the division of Church and State from the Christian view of the relationship of Man and God, this quote is chiselled into the wall at my local tax office....

In Poland, which is 99.9% Catholic, particularly rural Poland where I live, the government apparently thinks it needs to remind the peasants that paying taxes is ordained by God.

Of course, this is an unacceptable practice, since - abstracting for now from whether there is ANY justification for paying taxes - it is at least widely accepted in the modern democratic world that the state ought not collect taxes under the auspicies of religious fiat.

All of this kind of goes to prove your point that religions keep getting perverted...

I always interpretted the "render unto" verse to mean "resist the state by way of non-violence." For what is Caeser's? Nothing. Yet Caeser keeps making demands. What is God's? Everything. And God demands only love.

But if by rendering unto God, you basically have to render love, then you need to love Caeser as well. So - protest Caeser passively. Pay his taxes and abide by his tyranny - but never like it; never give him your heart, never believe in him, and always do only as much as does not cross the boundaries that God set up: in otherwords: it was a call to suffer righteously.

That's not true. Socrates preached all those things.

I disagree with this.

In my view, Socrates never preached agapic love - and in fact prior to Jesus, this type of Love was either unkown or unthinkable. I understand the tendency to equate general Platonism with Christian theology - certainly it helps to do so if your aim is to attack both of them, because Platonism makes Christianity sound reasonable while Christianity lends Platonism a tad of its' authority.

This is why Nietzsche always loved to equate the two; because together they make a wonderful target.

But if you have a close look at all of the Dialogues and really compare Socrates' esoteric and exoteric teachings with the gospels and what Jesus said and did, I think the difference is stark.

In short - it all goes back to the Trinity: Socrates never claimed to be God, nor the Son of God, nor did he claim to perform miracles that were super natural, nor did he set bushes on fire.

Socratic love had no faith in it; it was a very rational love which understood itself as being natural to man and an avenue towards happiness.

Jesus Christ's love was contrary to human nature, which was fallen and did not deserve love or forgiveness or sacrifice and was destined for unhappiness and therefore needed to be saved.

Those are some very different types of love.

The really interesting question is this:

Socrates fought wars. Socrates in many ways "preached" or at least taught, similar things to Jesus and Mohammed - yet never in history have any people gone off to war in the name of Socrates, nor have mass slaughters, ethnic cleansing, slavery or any other small or big crime, sin or wrong doing ever been done with the explicit justification being "Socrates said."

Of course, Socrates is always there - hiding in the background. But no one dares shout his name in reverence like they do with Jesus and Mohamed or even the Jewish God.

Kind of makes you wonder...

"And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted... Your creation and your raising (from the dead) are only as (the creation and the raising of) a single soul."

I like that first part because it implies that no one book can hold a monopoly on God's truth.

I like it because the last line reminds me of End of Evangelion the Movie!

Looking forward to more of your thoughts on the Qu'aran. Personally, I could never get very far into religious books - not because I am an athiest or because I hate religion - but honest to gosh I have never read - well...no...sorry...tried to read - something as boring, flat, monotone and yaaaaaaaaaaawn-ishly long as the Bible.

I think I kind of liked the Old Testament, but in general - I always fell alseep to it

Prefer more modern Christian literature like C.S. Lewis.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

OK, "preached" was a poor choice of words, but Socrates (as recounted by Plato) was the first famous person to say that we should never knowingly do harm to anyone, whereas conventional morality had required you to do good to your friends and harm to your enemies.

classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

It's true, he based his views on reason rather than love, but he certainly pre-dated Jesus in turning the other cheek. He didn't bear the Athenians a grudge for sentencing him to death, anyway. Here's a nice short article contrasting Jesus and Socrates.

Edit: Mind you, Socrates was old and was given a painless poison. Jesus was approx. 30 and died one of the most unpleasant deaths ever devised.

I haven't read the whole of the Bible. I hope to one day, but it is truly immense, and has some really boring parts. The Qur'an is very short by comparison.

But I have read a lot of Christian poetry - Milton's 'Paradise Lost', Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress', Dante's 'Divine Comedy'. Of these, 'Paradise Lost' is sublimely beautiful and an awesome parable about human pride, for believers and non-believers.

Also read large volumes of Greek, Roman, Near Eastern and Indian religious myths.

Martin

[dyrl]

but Socrates (as recounted by Plato) was the first famous person to say that we should never knowingly do harm to anyone, whereas conventional morality had required you to do good to your friends and harm to your enemies.

Yes, but the reason why Socrates taught that we should never knowingly do harm to anyone was because by doing so, we would inadvertantely always be harming our own selves, since to do good is to be happy and to do wrong is to be unhappy.

Socrates never really taught the type of empathy and suffering love that Jesus taught. Jesus didn't just say "hey - don't harm others because it will do you harm" - Jesus said basically: "harm yourself for others and for God."

I don't mean to sound like I'm nit-picking, but I generally tend to disagree with the majority view (surprise, surprise) that we should lump Plato and Christian Platonism into one bag.

In my opinion, this majority view springs mainly from a reading of Nietzsche, not a reading of the Bible and of Plato by themselves.

It's true, he based his views on reason rather than love, but he certainly pre-dated Jesus in turning the other cheek. He didn't bear the Athenians a grudge for sentencing him to death, anyway.

Yes, but he didn't proclaim that he was dying to absolve them of their sins. Big difference.

Also - it is often forgotten that there are two Apologies of Socrates, and again the majority just eats up Plato's view and forgets the other Apology, which is very different.

Xenophon, who was Socrates' less well known student, and who is mistakenly not considered very much of a philosopher, except by people like Machiavelli (who, surprise surprise is also not considered a philosopher by the majority view), also wrote his own "Apology of Socrates" where he suggested that Socrates was motivated by a desire to commit suicide.

I am not saying Xenophon is right and Plato is wrong. However, everyone keeps thinking about Socrates as Plato saw him because that's what's popular.

But this is wrong. Xenophon was also a contemporary and saw and heard the same things - only he saw and heard them differently. His Dialogues reflect a radically different Socrates than Plato's. One who is less of a boob and more of a gentleman.

In any event - rather then dwell on Socrates, I'm just interested in hearing your thoughts on the Qu'aran - since I have never read that book.

Pete

[Hero]

Had a good evening out at the FGB (Full Gospell Businessmen) Association. Our guest speaker was bald Simon Pegg lookandsoundalike who gave an interesting talk about how we must'nt let go of the adventure. The speaker who was also called Simon gave his testamony about toughing it out in Hong Kong and taking the rough with the smooth in his walk of faith.

I'm working the last evening of the year for TGI:Kids Club this Friday with my troop of young Year 6 Christ Troopers moving up to the bigger league. My lot have been a troublesome but fun bunch and I'll miss them.

===KEN

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 8, 2009 22:21:04 GMT dyrl said:

In any event - rather then dwell on Socrates, I'm just interested in hearing your thoughts on the Qu'aran - since I have never read that book.

Well, these thoughts aren't Qur'an-specific, but have been in my mind while reading it... thoughts about time... and life "after" death.

I am conscious of the fact that some religions, including Islam and some Christian traditions, imply that whether you go to Heaven or Hell after you die depends on your state at the end of your life - if you sincerely convert to the true faith the day before you die, and repent of your sins, you'll be OK, whereas if you are a true believer all your life and then become an unrepentant disbeliever the day before you die, you're in trouble. In short, the tail end of your life is the important bit, that determines what happens to your soul "afterwards".

Now, here's my problem. I believe in God, and I believe He knows everything. He knows everything past, present and future, and more than that, He knows everything that would be or could be. Humans, on the other hand, have very imperfect knowledge, and perceive past, present and future differently. We use our memories and written/verbal evidence to define the past, we use our senses to define the present, and we use our imaginations and probability-based speculation to define the future. Because of the limits to our knowledge, we perceive a qualitative difference between past, present and future, and are therefore subject to what some refer to as the illusion of the arrow of time.

But suppose we had perfect, crystal-clear knowledge of all time, space and possibility, as God is supposed to. Doesn't the arrow of time then disappear? Surely, when a being with perfect, complete knowledge, considers a soul, he doesn't give particular attention to the state of that soul at one moment in time - He can see the whole of that soul's existence, from birth to death, with equal clearness - and He can also see all the parallel lives that that sould could and would lead if it had different experiences and options thrust upon it. I imagine that God, in considering me, sees my whole life, perhaps fading into non-existence in the womb, and fading a bit at the other end if old age has a chance to take its toll on my mind - and then all the parallel lives, showing what that soul is capable of.

So, God has perfect knowledge of not only what lives we lead, but what lives we would lead if we were raised as Muslims, or Hindus, or members of an extra-terrestrial species. Those of us who die suddenly, He can see what we would have done had we lived. Those of us who undergo mental traumas that result in us losing our faith - or gaining our faith - He can see what lives we would have led if we had not been subject to those traumas. Those of us who don't suffer tragedies or moments of enlightenment - He can see with crystal clarity what our lives would be like if we did.

Based on quantum theory, some scientists consider that all the possible parallel universes do actually exist alongside this one.

So when an omniscient God considers an individual soul's merits, would He not base any judgement on the entirety of what good and evil He knows that soul to be capable of, rather than what beliefs that soul holds at one (possibly confused) end of one particular life story?

Suppose there are two people who sincerely believe in God, but one of them has a stronger faith, less prone to being shaken. However, the one with the stronger faith has traumatic experiences which challenge and overthrow that faith, and he dies a disbeliever. The other doesn't undergo such experiences and dies a believer. Would God, who has perfect knowledge of those souls and what lives they are capable of living in a range of circumstances, send the former to Hell for his disbelief and the latter to Heaven for his belief? If God is (a) omniscient, and (b) good, it seems to me that the only way He can judge a soul is on the basis of His complete knowledge of that soul's potential.

So, back to life "after" death - it's one of those unfortunate instances of applying words we are familiar with to concepts they were not designed for, because time is just one dimension of _this_ world. Just as it is inaccurate to say that God "created" the world - because He creates all of it equally, not just one end of it (which we call the distant past), it is inaccurate to talk about our soul going somewhere "after" we die - because any existence that our soul has outside this world would also be outside time - neither before nor after. And why should that existence outside this world depend on our soul's state at one end (the "death" end) of one of its possible lives, rather than a product of all the lives the soul would live in different circumstances?

Try that one on your line manager the next time you arrive late to work.

Martin

[dyrl]

I'm going to go about addressing your points kind of backwards...

So when an omniscient God considers an individual soul's merits,

The individual soul has no merit to be considered, but the Christian God loves it anyways.

That is why Christianity is so radical.

Suppose there are two people who sincerely believe in God, but one of them has a stronger faith, less prone to being shaken. However, the one with the stronger faith has traumatic experiences which challenge and overthrow that faith, and he dies a disbeliever. The other doesn't undergo such experiences and dies a believer. Would God, who has perfect knowledge of those souls and what lives they are capable of living in a range of circumstances, send the former to Hell for his disbelief and the latter to Heaven for his belief? If God is (a) omniscient, and (b) good, it seems to me that the only way He can judge a soul is on the basis of His complete knowledge of that soul's potential.

Well - here's another problem: if God created each soul, and some souls are more capable of greater faith than others - who's fault is that?

If God is to judge souls based on their potential - then who was the one that gave them that particular potential in the first place?

This image you conjure is basically of God as a toy maker. He presses some moulds and judges some molds as being worthy of going to China to get mass produced and mass marketed (heaven), while other moulds go to the trash bin (hell).

I can't see God judging people along such exceedingly rationalistic lines, and your thinking demonstrates - in my view - the limited ability of human reason to grasp Christianity.

This is not to say that therefore, since reason cannot grasp Christianity, then Christianity is correct - I don't want to be Kantian here because I never liked that about Kant...

But certainly if we're going this route - then problems arise.

The solution to the problems?

The Christian virtue of agapic love. It's unreasonable; not irrational, but certainly unreasonable. But it's the only thing that "solves" for these problems.

Based on quantum theory, some scientists consider that all the possible parallel universes do actually exist alongside this one.

If that's true, then that must mean a universe exists where there is no God - which is a logical impossibility, since technically God made everything - and the "universe" just means "everything." If the word "universe" means "one of many multiple parallel universes" then God/everything is that which envelops them all.

But if Quantum theory suggest that there is an ad infinitum "all" that paralells all other "alls" - then where is God?

I think that again this goes to demonstrate the limits of rationality in coming to grips with Christianity.

Here I think C.S. Lewis is absolutely right: either Christ is 100% correct or he's completely insane.

There's no middle ground.

Either you accept an ultimately mystical explanation for the universe, or you reject mysticism in favor of rationality.

This doesn't mean that rationality and faith are hostile to one another - but rather, that in the end - a person either takes the "leap" or keeps deliberating.

There is no middle ground - no possibility of being "luke warm."

And once you chose, you basically either chose love (faith) or you chose despair (rationality).

Now - despair might mean you come up with some interesting ideas once in a while - but ultimately you go to bed in despair and unsure.

Faith means you go to bed happy even though you are not sure.

But suppose we had perfect, crystal-clear knowledge of all time, space and possibility, as God is supposed to

We don't need to "suppose" it.

We see this scenario played out in the life of Jesus Christ, who claimed to be God, and therefore had a perfect, crystal clear knowledge of all time, space and possibility while also being "we" - one of us.

This is why Christ despairs on the Cross. This is why he asks why he has been foresaken? Because he recognizes the paradox of being what he has created.

Let me try to put this another way:

Can a perfect being create an imperfect thing?

If God is perfect, and yet he created all of us - who are imperfect - then how can God be perfect?

Can an eternal straight line ever turn slightly left or right?

NO.

This is why Christ was born into the World - because Divine perfection demanded it. It was the only logical course of events. The timeless had to enter time.

If God did not become a human and perfect humanity by dying for human sins - God would not be perfect.

If God is not perfect, God does not exist.

I am conscious of the fact that some religions, including Islam and some Christian traditions, imply that whether you go to Heaven or Hell after you die depends on your state at the end of your life

I don't know about Islam, but with Christianity you have to be careful here.

Some people die in their sleep, some people who have great faith suddenly develop mental illnesses, alzheimers etc - and renounce their faith or stop practicing it and continue to live.

I think you were more correct when you implied that the soul must be seen as a whole.

But remember - looking at the soul as a whole means looking at it before and after it came to Earth.

I guess this concept of Heaven and Hell - well...actually this concept of Heaven - is the one I am most uncomfortable with in Christianity.

It makes no sense. If going to heaven means eternal happines, why couldn't we just have never been sent to Earth?

If Heaven is a perfect place, then why did God give us bodies and send us into the Garden of Eden, which was clearly flawed?

I think the answer to these questions is troublesome for Christians, especially if you consider carefully the Genesis.

God and Satan both tell Adam and Eve the exact same thing:

God says "don't eat of the tree of knowledge of God and Evil because you will be like God."

Satan says "eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and you will be like God."

God is warning Mankind NOT to become like HIM!

Satan is tempting mankind to become like God.

Christ is the fulfillment of Satan's temptation - Christ is God calling Satan's bluff and showing that Man can be God.

God created Man because a Perfect being must love, but cannot be alone, yet by implication Perfection must always be alone, because if there was an Other, then this other would logically have to be imperfect since perfection is by implication unitary. And yet in its' unitary state, Perfection is imperfect precisely because it IS unitary, since part of perfection is perfect love (and love requires an Other).

This is why God creates Man, but logically, Man is imperfect. The struggle between God and Satan is the struggle over whether or not God exists - in order for God to exist, He must necessarily love an Other and this other, being imperfect, needs to be perfected.

The perfection of the other takes place via Christ who is the embodyment of God (aka the effective result of taking Satan's wager) and who demonstrates that it is posibble to be both Perfect and Imperfect and that this is true Perfection.

Something Satan - who NEVER becomes a Man - cannot do.

Pete

[blueshift]

Why can't a perfect being create imperfect beings?

Why must God be perfect? I imagine it is nice for humanity to believe we were created by one, but is it necessary for God to be perfect?

[karla]

who the hell said god is perfect? She's just different thats all.

God is seen as perfect as thats the way lifestyle acts, are norse gods perfect? what about straight lines?

I wouldn't like to have a perfect God, I bet he forgets about us sometimes

[dyrl]

Why must God be perfect? I imagine it is nice for humanity to believe we were created by one, but is it necessary for God to be perfect?

Well, that depends on how we define God, or on what God we are talking about. My treatment was written specifically about the Christian God (or at least how I understand the Christian God).

If we define God as, amongst other things, perfect, then yes - he must be perfect. If we define him as something else - then no, he needn't be.

who the hell said god is perfect? She's just different thats all.

Well, again - depends on what God we're talking about. To my mind, the Bible holds that Satan rebelled against God for creating men, who were lower than angels, and loving them and giving them more attention than he gave to the angels...

As for the "she" part - good point -but:

To my mind, the use of the word "He" when referring to God is actually gender-neutral, while the concept of "God the Father" is merely an illustration of the notion of God's supremacy using an anthorpomorphic social model that, admitedly, is now very out-dated.

But I don't think it's sensible to get caught up in the semantics and the question of gender in language. Every serious theological thinker recognizes that God is gender neutral and that "God the Father" is a figure of speech, not a statement of biological reality, nor political or social right.

are norse gods perfect? what about straight lines?

Straight lines are perfect - yes.

But this of course means that there are no straight lines in existence in the physical world.

But that is because NOTHING exists in the physical world.

Only ideas (like the idea of a straight line) really exist.

Everything in the physical world is and is not - in other words, everything in the physical world can be called "becoming" - the physical world is in motion headings away from and towards existence.

Things either participate in the ideas that exist, or those ideas are inherent in physical objects when they possess the qualities of those ideas

(for example a wooden chair is only a wooden chair when it is functional and built in accordance with the nature of chairs. Hack off its' legs and burn it to a crisp - and it is no longer a chair - it is ash)

I myself am not sure whether Plato or Aristotle's view of being are necessarily the best; and this is why I state both positions.

But God (at least the monotheistic Christian God) isn't "becoming" (except when he is Christ), he simply IS. The paradox in this sentence is solved by the crucifixion (if you have faith) or is not solved and just goes to show how absurd the religion of Christianity is (if you don't have faith).

I wouldn't like to have a perfect God, I bet he forgets about us sometimes

Nope. If God is perfect, he never forgets about us. Not logically possible for a perfect being to forget anything. In fact, He doesn't even 'remember' things (since remembering means to recall to mind, and recalling implies that you forgot and need to remember).

God doesn't forget and he doesn't remember, he doesn't even "know" - he IS knowledge as such.

Unless we don't believe in a monotheistic, Christian God.

Pete

[Gav]

*reads thread*

*head explodes*

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 9, 2009 8:56:40 GMT dyrl said:

Well - here's another problem: if God created each soul, and some souls are more capable of greater faith than others - who's fault is that?

Who is to say it's a fault? We don't know the ultimate purpose of reality, after all. But I can well believe there are good reasons to have imperfection in the world, because only with room for improvement can a being strive to do better. Jesus urged people to repay evil with good, because there's no credit in simply repaying good with good. Can't do that in the absence of evil. Can't forgive when there's nothing to forgive.

I can't see God judging people along such exceedingly rationalistic lines, and your thinking demonstrates - in my view - the limited ability of human reason to grasp Christianity.

Good. That's kind of what I was aiming to demonstrate.

If that's true, then that must mean a universe exists where there is no God

No, you misunderstand me there. By a universe I just mean a four-dimensional section through space-time. Quantim theory doesn't imply that all conceivable universes exist, or that they all have equal probability associated with them. (I could get into equations and waveforms and so on but don't really want to.) But it does imply non-deterministic physics, where there are infinitely many universes spreading forward and backward in time from every moment, all with different probabilities associated with them.

But God would be outside all this (and everywhere within it), since all of physics, including quantum physics and any parallel universes that it generates, would be part of his one big plan for creation.

It's wonderful to try and fail to get your head around it. If God exists, he is responsible for maintaining the physical laws that govern every atom in every galaxy in every universe in the multiverse. He watches every species on every planet in every timeline evolve and die - over hundreds of millions of years, for us, but all viewed simultaneuously to one who is omniscient.

I think that again this goes to demonstrate the limits of rationality in coming to grips with Christianity.

And the limits of rationality in coming to terms with God's physics, which he has made far too difficult for our brains to really comprehend.

Here I think C.S. Lewis is absolutely right: either Christ is 100% correct or he's completely insane.

Hmmm, but either way, you'd still agree with him on a lot of the things he said, wouldn't you?

Can an eternal straight line ever turn slightly left or right?

NO.

Yes it can, because space is actually curved. But that's general relativity, which is something else again besides quantum physics.

Some people die in their sleep, some people who have great faith suddenly develop mental illnesses, alzheimers etc - and renounce their faith or stop practicing it and continue to live.

I agree, but some Christians - perhaps not so much those in eastern Europe - still believe it's the state of your soul at death that counts.

I think you were more correct when you implied that the soul must be seen as a whole.

Yes, that's how I view it, but not how everyone views it.

But remember - looking at the soul as a whole means looking at it before and after it came to Earth.

Ah, you're falling into the old trap of using the words 'before' and 'after' again. In this world, our soul exists between birth and death, but the arrow of time is part of the physical world that God creates. If the soul has an existence outside of this life, there is no more reason to consider it as being 'before' or 'after' where we are now, than to consider it being 'up', 'down', 'left' or 'right' from where we are now.

It makes no sense. If going to heaven means eternal happines, why couldn't we just have never been sent to Earth?

Dunno. Because you can't experience happiness without having known sadness?

Following up on your points about Satan, you may be interested to know that the Qur'an suggests Satan may be a jinn rather than an angel, angels being incapable of rebelling against God, while jinns apparently have free will like humans.

Hmmm, except when they're imprisoned in lamps, rings and suchlike, I suppose.

Martin

[dyrl]

Can an eternal straight line ever turn slightly left or right?

NO.


Yes it can, because space is actually curved. But that's general relativity, which is something else again besides quantum physics.

That's an excellent point - but for a different reason than the one you're making.

Space is actually curved, but straight lines don't exist in space. Ideas do not exist in space, which is generally the physical realm. Ideas exist as such (the greeks used the term "Kath Alto" - meaning kind of "by themselves" - without dimmension, time, intermediaries -in short without things to be relative to. Axioms, absolutes - Being as such - call it what you will.

So - the point stands that a straight line can never be curved.

Your example of straight lines being curved because space is curved is faulty because it presumes that the line would be straight if space were not curved.

But that's not so. The reason why there are no straight lines in physical existence is basically because a straight line needs to be perfectly straight to exist - to be called a "straight" line. The slightest variation from its' axis means that it is no longer straight.

Human beings and the physical world are incapable of generating such things in "real time" (becoming) precisely because we are imperfect.

And you don't need to know quantum physics to deduct that straight lines don't exist in space because space is "curved" - what modern quantum physics called "curved," the ancient physics called "becoming" and the Christian physicists called "imperfect."

However, what is - in my view - the truly problematic element in this is not what arises out of quantum physics altering "deterministic physics" (since teleology is not inherent in physics as such anyways, but rather is given its' own category as metaphysics, and quantum physics simply poses another challenge of many to the notion that metaphysics is possible) is the element of language and meaning.

What really causes an otherwise perfectly straight line to become curved is the fact that we start talking about it.

When you try to wrap you head around these concepts, you cannot but use words to do so. But words do not posess the qualities of the topics that they attempt to signify. "Circle" is not round, for example.

As much as we try to get to the real meaning of things, we find ourselves buried in words which grasp at that meaning and the closer we get - the more precise our language becomes - and with more precise language the more dogmatic and rigorous the proofs become and ultimately we do not have real truth in our hands, but rather a fancy pantsy construct stretching for hundreds of pages that can just as easily be disproved by a whitty one liner.

Following up on your points about Satan, you may be interested to know that the Qur'an suggests Satan may be a jinn rather than an angel, angels being incapable of rebelling against God, while jinns apparently have free will like humans.

Hmmm, except when they're imprisoned in lamps, rings and suchlike, I suppose.

This is strange and interesting. I did not know this.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

You're right, definitions are crucial. (As I said, religion uses all kinds of words to talk about God which are only well-defined with respect to mortals.)

By a straight line, I meant the shortest path between two points in terms of distance. So a straight line with respect to the surface of a sphere would be an arc of a great circle. Go straight in any direction and you come back to where you started. As far as the surface is concerned, the line is straight - it doesn't go left or right. And yet straight lines that are parallel to begin with end up meeting, because there is another dimension perpendicular to the sphere. Someone looking from the outside sees one line curving left and the other curving right and meeting - but within the surface, they don't curve.

Light travels in a straight line, i.e. the shortest path between two points in terms of distance. But because massive objects warp space, the shortest distance between the opposite side of the sun to an observer curves - gravitational lensing, predicted by Einstein and then observed.

I love all this stuff. Faith in physics - we can't see all these other dimensions perpendicular to the familiar three dimensions of space and one of time, but we can imagine them, just as we can imagine all those parallel universes. And we need to put them into our theories of physics for the equations to work. But can we guess what six or seven-dimensional beings are out there looking at us and pitying us for not perceiving them, just as ants don't perceive us? Well, yes, we can guess. And then who created all these dimensions (including time), and why? Maybe our soul has a larger existence outside this life confined to four dimensions, and knows all the answers. Within this life, we just don't know. But we can have faith.

Martin

[dyrl]

As far as the surface is concerned, the line is straight - it doesn't go left or right.

Aaaah - but see - this is the cool part and just shows how wonderfully wiser Socrates was compared to modern scientists...

Because actually as far as the surface is concerned the light DOES go left or right - even if by a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a centimeter.

Even if you used the "straightest" or rulers to draw the "straightest" of lines - then independent of the fact that it travels along an arc (as you correctly point out) you will never be physically able to make the line perfectly straight.

And yet in practice, particulary in construction, we not only talk about straight lines, but architects and builders actually even "make" them and "measure" them when putting up buildings and houses.

Socrates was the nerd who came along and said "well actually it's not straight."

And it's true - when you build a house, the thingy-magigal that you use to test whether the panels or boards or beams you're putting up are straight has this liquid in it, and you basically set it against the beam or board you are testing and check whether the liquid balances out on both sides. And of course, there's some rule that if it's two ticks this way or that it's not "straight."

But this is just an arbitrary measurement - one that is good for practical purposes. SOmething we can call a reasonable error - that is the type of error that is no catastrophic.

All machines and human constructs function within this margin of error.

But from a purely idealistic standpoint - no line in the physical world is straight - arc or no arc.

Light travels in a straight line, i.e. the shortest path between two points in terms of distance. But because massive objects warp space, the shortest distance between the opposite side of the sun to an observer curves - gravitational lensing, predicted by Einstein and then observed.

Well, then it doesn't ravel in a straight line.

But this is an even more exciting thing you've brought up, because of course IF light travels the shortest distance between two points, and the universe is measured in LIGHT YEARS...

Then we come to a wonderful problem:

Namely - light traveling from Earth theoretically reaches the end of the universe in the shortest distance of time, that is to say it crosses thirteen million light years (which if I remember correctly is the estimated measurement of the universe) in a time span that is - for light at least - relatively SHORTER than thirteen million light years is for us.

But this means that light effectively shrinks the universe or folds it.

Thus the universe is small and big relative to the speed of the thing traversing it...

But since Light isn't actually this fellow who just runs fast and "stops" at the "end of the road" - it has to be constantly expanding the universe as it reaches the ends of the universe?

I pose this as a question because this kind of stuff I'm not good at.

I basically think that the only solution to this problem is offered by Gurren Lagann, which posits that the universe is actually a giant super robot that we all live in - spiraling outwards into infinity.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 9, 2009 21:52:52 GMT dyrl said:

Namely - light traveling from Earth theoretically reaches the end of the universe in the shortest distance of time, that is to say it crosses thirteen million light years (which if I remember correctly is the estimated measurement of the universe) in a time span that is - for light at least - relatively SHORTER than thirteen million light years is for us.

Hang on a sec... trying to make sense of your sentence... I think I know what you mean. It's thirteen billion light years (thirteen thousand million light years) not thirteen million light years.

Anyway, yes, time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and distances contract. If one twin shoots off into space at great speed and return years later, the one who travelled will have aged less than the one who stayed at home, and his clock will appear slow. This is a consequence of special relativity.

Although nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, you can in theory travel anywhere in the universe before dying of old age, because as you approach the speed of light, to an outside observer you go into slow motion and age more slowly. But when you put on the brakes you will find that millions of years have passed. Mind you, in practice, I think the acceleration and deceleration to near-lightspeed would pose a health problem. (We accelerate particles to near-lightspeed in particle accelerators, but we can't accelerate human beings in the same way!)

As for the size of the universe, if the universe is estimated to be thirteen billion years (based on its measured speed of expansion), then the _visible_ universe is thirteen billion years in radius, because no light from further than thirteen billion light years away has had time to reach us. That doesn't mean the universe is actually finite in size, it just means we can't see anything beyond thirteen billion light years, and the light we receive from thirteen billion light years away began its journey at the time of the Big Bang. This is the cosmic background radiation. Hence the further we look, the further back in time we see the universe. We can see stars living that have since gone supernova, but we won't know they've gone supernova until the light from the supernova has had time to reach us.

What a cool universe we turn out to live in. A few thousand years ago nothing living on Earth knew any better than to think the stars were little dots of light on a big shell surrounding our planet. Now we know how big and old everything really is.

But what really blows my mind is how most people living today take it for granted and can't be bothered to learn about this stuff. People still get excited by sport, etc., just as they did back in ancient times, but scientific revelations about the origins of life, the births and deaths of galaxies and the nature of space and time? A niche interest. What's wrong with people?

Martin

[dyrl]

Thanks Martin for clearing that up. Now I understand how to think about it. Nobody ever explained the physics of it as clearly as you just did - so I'm really happy to have finally understood that.

But what really blows my mind is how most people living today take it for granted and can't be bothered to learn about this stuff. People still get excited by sport, etc., just as they did back in ancient times, but scientific revelations about the origins of life, the births and deaths of galaxies and the nature of space and time? A niche interest. What's wrong with people?

Well, just remember that most monkeys also decided not to stop living on trees and walk on two legs.

Humanity is a niche interest.

Pete

[grahamthomson]

(I have been reading this thread with great interest this week, by the way.)

[karla]

Jul 10, 2009 7:48:06 GMT dyrl said:

Well, just remember that most monkeys also decided not to stop living on trees and walk on two legs.

Pete

you make it sound like they made the stupid desicion lol

if we all knew when we were going to die would people act differently? I don't think they would, some would probably sit around until a few days before and then complain and blame everyone else for not making them do something before their time.

do you need to be self aware to have a soul?

[dyrl]

do you need to be self aware to have a soul?

No.

Plants have souls, but they are not, to my mind, self-aware.

"soul" just means "animated principle" - something which moves, gives life... it's kind of like a "spark" if you will, and it's not always composed of the same elements.

Finally, there are different levels of self-awareness. Feeling pain, hunger, the urge to pee - that is one level. Most animals have this.

Feeling depressed, not knowing what to do with your life, wondering about God and the universe - these are higher functions of the mind that not all souls possess.

Soul just means "makes it go" -

Now, what that 'it' is - that is the tricky question.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Hey, anyone want to move the discussion on to embrace reincarnation?

Martin

[dyrl]

Sure; but only if we discuss reincarnation as Tomino presents it in Space Runaway Ideon

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Hmmm, maybe we'll let that one go, then.

From Surah 40: "Assuredly the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of mankind; but most of mankind know not."

Also: "Verily We sent messengers before thee, among them those of whom We have told thee, and some of whom We have not told thee." That's good - an inclusive rather than an exclusive message.

I keep noticing how respectfully the Qur'an speaks of the Torah and the Gospel. But I suppose when Muhammad refers to the Gospel, he doesn't necessarily mean the four Gospels that the Council of Rome of 382 AD judged fit to include in Biblical canon, but may be referring to other accounts of Jesus's life and sayings which don't give him divine status. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that the Qur'an describes Islam as merely a reminder - in Arabic - of the original message of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity.

Islam as conveyed by the Qur'an should in principle be compatible with any monotheistic religion. It's just the bits encouraging justified warfare when provoked that turn me off. And the focus more on hellfire than on God's love for His creation.

Here's a question for everyone reading this thread:

Suppose we were all convinced that there is a God, an omniscient, omnipotent being who is responsible for everything: space, time, other dimensions, the interaction of every sub-atomic particle and electromagnetic wave with every other, every supernova, every galaxy, and chemistry capable of bringing forth life on Earth and elsewhere, and also who gave us our souls, consciousness and free will. Suppose that whether or not you worship Him has no bearing whatsoever on what will happen to your soul "after" death. Would you devote any of your time to worshipping, loving, thanking or even merely contemplating Him?

The reason I ask is that many proponents of religion maintain that you should worship God because only those who do will prosper in the hereafter. (Also, we get things like this in Surah 51 of the Qur'an: "I created the jinn and humankind only that they might worship Me." I wouldn't be surprised if it said similar somewhere in the Bible.)

(Aside: Likewise this is sometimes put forward as a reason to do good in this world rather than evil. And I think this attitude is (I think rightly) scorned by atheists, who (I think rightly) point out that it's not much a reflection on you if you only do good for selfish reasons - i.e. to get to Heaven - whereas when atheists do good they simply do it because they consider it right. Clearly, for it to be true altruism, good must be done selflessly, without thought of reward. We can't fool God as to our motives, and He'll know who does good for selfish reasons and who for selfless reasons. But I digress.)

So is it not self-serving to worship God if you are only doing it out of fear, in order to prosper in the hereafter? Also, if God really is good, and deserving of worship, can He really be so petty as to save and condemn souls based on how much they suck up to Him? Isn't it more likely that traditions which say God is jealous and demands worship are simply humans projecting onto Him the characteristics of typical human rulers?

I would think that the being who is responsible for space, time, every sub-atomic interaction, every galaxy, the laws of physics, deviations from the laws of physics, and consciousness, would have higher motives. His mind is of course beyond my comprehension, but I can't convince myself that He is jealous and really cares about outward ceremonies, rules governing how to pray, and so on. I don't think humans are the be all and end all of His plan, either. But I love and pray to Him, and give Him an hour in church most Sunday mornings, because I think His creation is good* and think He deserves it.

*Maybe those on the less pleasant end of fortune would feel differently towards Him, I dunno - though by way of parallel universes or reincarnation our souls could all end up with an equal share of hardship in the grand scheme. Difficult to judge when we only have knowledge of this life. But when I look at both the beauty of nature and the good that is in humans, I wouldn't sign a bargain to eliminate suffering if it meant they also ceased to exist. And that being the case, I must consider creation overall to be good. Of course, the overall purpose and Grand Plan are also beyond our comprehension too, but I have faith that they too are good.

From Surah 57:

"Know that the life of the world is only play, and idle talk, and pageantry, and boasting among you, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children; as the likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the husband-man, but afterward it drieth up and thou seest it turning yellow, then it becometh straw. And in the Hereafter there is grievous punishment, and (also) forgiveness from Allah and His good pleasure, whereas the life of the world is but matter of illusion."

And, referring to Christianity's focus on compassion and mercy, while implying some Christians will be saved and some not:

We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers.

Martin

[dyrl]

So...

I had thought of creating a new thread for this, but then we have a Faith thread and surely it is not limited to JUST Christianity (even though it seems the majority of people who post in this thread are Christians), or Islam or any one religion, but - if I understand it - it is a thread about faith/religion in general?

In that case: here is something I've been thinking about :

I am seriously considering converting to Haruhism. Now... before you laugh and shake your head, give me a chance to explain how I see this, and also please give me your views on the matter.

Naturally, Haruhism is a relatively new religion, and some would argue it's not a religion at all, as much as a parody. Then again, I haven't actively been seeking any "real" Haruhists, nor have I ever encountered any "serious" practitioners. I don't think being a fan of Haruhi Suzumiya necessarily qualifies as being a bona fida Haruhist, and many people express their love of this anime by emulating a quasi-religious belief in Haruhi Suzumiya as being God. I would for a moment like to try and seperate "Religious Haruhism as a Sign of Dedicated Fandom" from an attempt at seriously considering what it might mean to actually be a practicing, believing Haruhist independent of simply being a fan of the anime or the ideas behind it.

To do this, the first thing that is necessary is to confront the most obvious "roadblock" to the legitimacy of Haruhism as a religion - namely the fact that Haruhism is irefutably rooted in ABSOLUTE FICTION.

Now, many arguments are had as to whether or not the Bible and other religious texts should be "literally interpreted" and whether they can be taken as "fact" and "history" or not. There have been numerous arguments about 'the historical Jesus' and there have been numerous attempts in most serious religions to produce treatises which expound upon the given religion in terms of logic and theology rather than simply taking "at face value" the "historical truth" of the accounts of sacred texts.

To the extent that the Bible or the Koran or other religious texts are NOT "completely true" (as in historically factual), one could therefore posit that all religions (serious, large and old religions) rely as much on philosophical argument and proofs as they do on a belief in the Scripture/Sacred books of the religion.

In other words, there is precedent in large, traditional religions, for treating the holy books of each religion as parables, stories, "half-truths," "accounts from a certain point of view" and for in fact NOT ALLOWING THE QUESTION OF THE ABSOLUTE FACTUAL NATURE OF THE TEXT to get in the way of the absolute truth of the Religion itself.

In other words - the validity of, say, Christianity, does not totally depend on whether Peter or Mark's account of Jesus are the "correct" account, although one could argue that it does someone depend on whether the Koran's or the Bible's accounts are the "correct account" (since Christianity without the resurrection is not possible).

But in the final analysis - we do not know whether these historical stories are "true factual history" or whether they are simply stories and the "truth" is not known fully to us.

This is a central theme in Haruhism - or at least in the (fictional) account of Haruhi Suzumiya. Namely - the principle teaching of the anime seems to be that the nature of "fact" and "fiction" is impossible to distinguish between; that it is ultimately a mystery - to what extent are we figments in the imagination of God and to what extent we are actual existing and therfore "factual" beings.

If we are merely figmants in the imagination of God - which is actually one way to look at it and not necessarily an un-Christian way - then the question arises as to whether this means we do in fact "exist" as such - or is our existence predicated on God willing it?

And can't God at any point decide to un-will it, to destroy the "factual existing world" and create a new one?

In Haruhi Suzumiya; Haruhi (God) does this three years prior to the inception of the story, when she concludes that she is not special, but one in an ocean of mundane and boring humanity, and subsequently (unconsciously or subconsciously) destroys the universe and creates it anew.

This is not an unknown phenomena in Christianity and Judaism - God decided to destroy the world by flooding it and kept Noah and some animals around, after all.

Now - Haruhi (God) destroys the world because she had a bad day at a baseball game. Yahweh (God) destroys the world because he is annoyed at everyone except Noah.

In the end - who is to say that the first case is laughable, mundane and arbitrary while the second case is "serious" and deserving of reverence?

Furthermore, can anyone seriously argue that the first case is "merely fiction" while the second case is "possibly true" - simply because it "happened" or is alleged to have happened so long ago that it is impossible to check?

In other words - can it be that the only reason Haruhism is implausible is because the books and anime are relatively new, and we know exactly who wrote them and probably can guess that the people who wrote them don't necessarily believe in the Divinity of the fictional girl they created?

But this leads us to a very interesting question:

-> Is something true or untrue because it is old or new?

I content that of course it is not. Truth or untruth do not and cannot logically depend on whether or not the thing in question is new or not new.

Now consider alongside this argument the following argument: if, according to Christianity and Judaism, God "created the world in six days" - then this implies that prior to the Creation of the world - there was nothing but God (hence creatio ex nihilo).

This in turn leads to the question: was there ever - could there have possibly ever been a world PRIOR to this one that God created before this one? Or is this the first "world" or "being/existing" that God created?

I think there is absolutely no way to argue logically that this is the first being/world that God created, since even in the Bible we see attempts by God to destroy this world. Sure, he never went so far as to literally whipe out all of Being/existence - he merely flooded the planet to get rid of pesky and sinful humans - but is it not possible that He could have done more than that with the previous universe/being/existence to this one? The Biblical accounts of the end times and Armagedon certainly suggest that it is a possibility.

In this sense, I contend that there is no plasuible way to argue against the contention that the anime fiction universe of Haruhi Suzumiya is actually a story told BY GOD (Haruhi) about herself, through the writers who are (probably unwittingly/unconsciously) divinely inspired to write the anime and animate it.

This would even be consistent with the fact that, in the actual anime, Haruhi is NOT COGNIZANT of the fact that she is God.

So too the writers are not cognizant that God, through them, is telling the story of his "previous life" or a "parrallel universe" that she once created wherein she was embodyed in the form of Haruhi Suzumiya.

Perhaps the characters did not look exactly as they do in the anime - but can anyone seriously argue that Jesus or the Angels looked "exactly as they do on Church frescos?" Of course not.

Therefore, I submit that there is no contradiction in believing in God and believing that Haruhi Suzumiya is God.

Furthermore, to hold this belief is tantamount to admiting the power of faith and the futility - the ultimate futility of the modern notion of "facts" as opposed to "values" which pressuposes that people can actually "know" things in a strict sence as opposed to having to constantly cope with the question of existence/being.

There is more to be written on this subject - by no means have I exhausted it - and I do admit that my limited knowledge of traditional religions also limits my perspective here, as is attested by the fact that I keep making comparissons to Judaism and Christianity (of which I know something, as opposed to other religions of which I know nothing at all).

But - what do people think?

Pete

Given this

[Benn]

Belief in facts, or belief in values, is that right?

It's like the people who consider themselves followers of the Jedi faith/code. They place a belief in values over a need to follow an ancient text. (I'm talking RW people, here, not the characters in the films, who are just as flawed and dogmatic any other religion at times)
Values of truth, honesty, consideration for others and selflessnes, but because the values come from a work of 'fictional entertainment' they are derided, despite being worthwhile values that eveyone, no matter what belief system they subscribe to, might well be better off following.

What do Haruhists believe in? It's all very well expunging the right to believe in a character as a representation (unknowing or not) of God, but what values does this religion place upon you? Let God win else she'll destroy you?

I have no problem letting people believe whatever they find comfort in. As long as I am not forced into something uncomfortable because of it, believe in what you want.
You can believe in the divine spirit as Haruhi Suzumiya, Kirika Yuumura, a small piece of cheese, or Matthew Kelly, as long as it makes sense, hmm?

Or am I taking this too seriously, and you were just using it as a mirror, to hold up to Christianity?

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I haven't a clue what this thing is you're talking about, Pete - I'm not an anime fan, I haven't heard of the series in question, or any of the characters in it. Some disjointed thoughts:

I would say that whether or not they believe in the literal historical truth of the texts, all followers of the main world faiths do believe that the key religious texts are at least in part divinely inspired and contain real messages from God to people on Earth (perhaps open to interpretation, and perhaps mixed in with bits added by man alone). Do you believe this of your source material?

I would personally be quite disturbed and upset if anyone interpreted any fiction I wrote as divinely inspired, or a message from God, and made a religion out of it. I wonder how the creators of this anime of yours would view the matter?

It is worth noting that some of the greatest works of undisputed fiction in world literature are religious stories. I've mentioned some of these in this thread already. John Milton's 'Paradise Lost' expands on and fleshes out the story of the fall of Satan and the garden of Eden. Dante's 'Divine Comedy' tells of the writer's tour through Hell, Purgatory and Heaven guided by the spirit of the long-dead poet Virgil. John Bunyan's 'The Pilgrim's Progress' tells of a man's (and then his family's) path to righteousness described as a literal journey. The Chronicles of Narnia suggest that Jesus Christ exists in other worlds in the form of a lion rather than a man, and goes by the name of Aslan. None of these works have ever been put forward, by their authors or anyone else to my knowledge, as anything other than works of fiction - though they are inspred by the authors' religious and political beliefs. They provide the fuel for metaphysical and philosophical debate without anyone treating them as divine texts.

Then again, there are some stories which nearly everyone agrees were originally intended to be taken as works of fiction but which at some point turned into legends and were believed for a time by certain people - I'm thinking of the legends of the Holy Grail, for example. Perhaps that is the closest comparison to what you're proposing - taking what was intended to be read as fiction and deliberately reading more truth into it than the author intended when he let his imagination run loose.

Do you think anyone will look back on this anime series as a religious source material a thousand years from now? Does it matter to you if not?

As for the actual beliefs you describe, they don't appeal to me because I don't consider God as a person who does one thing and then does another thing and then a bit later does something else. It only seems that He does things in chronological sequence because we are moving in one direction through time. So it seems to us (and the Bible is written from a human viewpoint in this way) that Man does something, God gets annoyed, God smites Man, God relents, God gives Man another chance and waits to see if he'll learn his lesson, and so on. But science now views time as just another dimension, like the three spatial dimensions, and other dimensions that our senses can't see - and all these dimensions are part of the universe that God, if He exists, is the architect of. I won't say "the universe God created", since that involves using the past tense. If the universe is God's work, then He creates all times, not just the 'beginning'. If He is omniscient, when He creates the universe (including time and space) He can see all of time and space. From His perspective, He might have created the bit after the Flood before the bit before the Flood, if you see what I mean! If you make God subject to time, i.e. He is moving along in time experiencing it at the same pace as us, moving in one direction only through time, i.e. forwards, then you are making Him subject to the laws of the universe He is the creator of - which is (a) belittling God, and (b) something of a paradox.

The question is, do you want to choose to believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient, creator and master of everything _including time_, who can see and be present at all times and places at once, or do you make him a character more capable of comprehension by humans, who humans can identify with, and who moves through time in one direction with us, having thoughts and doing things in chronological sequence? If the latter, who created the concept of time and the rules of cause and effect by which this god is bound? Some higher god?

Just some thoughts for you to ponder.

Martin

[Kingoji]

I always looked at the concept of time as nothing more than an incredibly handy guideline or calculation with which to live by. But the very concept of time is created by man, and is therefore artificial. It's an idea which has become as much a belief as any religion.
Yes, we have done things before. So we view it as being in the past. We plan to do things. So we view them as being in the future. But these things, along with aging and the very cycles of the solar system by which we judge time, are always happening in this moment. This moment exists eternally, it's what we do within it that changes. Or you could look upon the moments in the past, but the past is not a place and those moments only exist because we remember them in this moment.

I'm not very good at theological discussions.

But about the Haruhist idea that God may be playing proxy to tell His story in a contemporary medium... The flaw in that logic to me is simply that it can be applied to ANY work of fiction. Just because this particular one tackles religion directy shouldn't make it a more valid candidate for the possibility than, say, The Jedi Order (since it was brought up). Hell, Super Hero books are completely about values and moral decency. Maybe Stan Lee was chosen by God's serendipity.

Ultimately, I have no interest in religion. I am a good person, I know wrong from right and do my best to live decently. I don't need the concept of God to keep me from doing Evil, I just need belief in myself.

Any God which would not accept me into the potencial promised land just because I left out the worship part is not a God I'd want to believe in anyway.