• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

Junebug said:
Nihilism has always been the path of least resistance. The millennials haven't come up with anything new there. It's great; you don't ever have to be bound to anything or anyone and you can never fail because there is nothing external by which you can be judged. The only problem is that you never actually learn to live.
Click to expand...

What relevance does this have to whether it is the truth or not?
 
Milhouse said:
what made you change your mind?
Click to expand...

It's hard to explain, particulaly on a message board, and it's probabaly too personal to be of any value to anyone. The best I can do is say that it wasn't some intellectual realization as much as it was an existential one.
 
magic-hat-photo22.jpg
 
Junebug said:
I don't think I disagree with you. But the fact that they wouldn't have had categories to understand non-literal events doesn't mean either that they were wrong or that the events literally happened. It's the exact same thing with the authors of Genesis. Or are you going to argue that Genesis shouldn't be understood literally but the Gospels should? If so, how do you account for things like biblical accounts of miracles performed by those outside of the Christian community? Did people back then have more powers than we do now? Isn't it more reasonable to think that all of the stories of miracles, etc., are the product of a pre-scientific mind rather than saying some miracles = true and some miracles = false?
Click to expand...

Common grace (God's creation, the preservation of life, the blessings found in this life) extend to all to a certain extent.
 
ChrisL68 said:
What relevance does this have to whether it is the truth or not?
Click to expand...

"Supposing truth is a woman--what then?"

We're far afield from discussing the Pope's comments, but consider the possibility that looking for truth in the form of some intellectual precept or systematic view of the world is totally misguided. Rather, consider that truth may be found in the way we live our lives.
 
So it basically makes you feel better to have a divine father figure to provide you moral structure and guidance, so that's what you are gong with?
 
IamThunderbolt said:
A) define "literally" when discussing the text, especially Genesis. In the classic sense of literal - the understanding with which the author intended - yes, I would say so - we should treat each within the narratival structure of all Scripture. There are differences in how those two books are written, in respects to structure, purpose, and worldview of the intended audience among others and so when investigating them, one must do so differently, but not as two independent and unconnected pieces.

B) if you are going to ascribe the resurrection to a pre-scientific mind, you both discredit the intellectual capacity of those in the 1st century and fail to account for what we observe happening in the aftermath of the event. Was it delusion? It would be a pretty unprecedented delusion considering most Hebraic thought at the time would assume that the messiah wouldn't die, and even if he did, their understanding of resurrection was at the end of time, not within it.

As for miracles outside of followers of Jesus - Jesus addresses that in Mark - that miracles done in concert with Kingdom of God are good, regardless if they are "inside" the faith or "outside." Some of the conflict falls away when you understand the mission of God as restoring the world to the way it should be rather than simply gathering followers.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a very basic Jewish belief that there would be a "second coming". It is held that when the Messiah comes nothing else is necessary.
 
i love culture and the arts. what are you talking about?
 
RJKarl said:
Isn't it a very basic Jewish belief that there would be a "second coming". It is held that when the Messiah comes nothing else is necessary.
Click to expand...

No. The idea of a Second Coming is a relatively new one. Even the idea of an afterlife is a very late idea in Judaism (doesn't really evolve until the Maccabean revolt). And the idea of a Messiah in the Old Testament is that of a liberator- so Cyrus of Persia was considered a messiah.
 
ChrisL68 said:
So it basically makes you feel better to have a divine father figure to provide you moral structure and guidance, so that's what you are gong with?
Click to expand...

Abraham, the father of Jewish and Christian faith, was called by God to kill his son, the very son that God had promised him would make his descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. To show his devotion, Abraham had to be willing to do it. The God of the bible is not a feel good divine father figure who sits on a throne and gives us presents at Christmas. You are thinking of the God of Plato/Aristotle, with a little Christianity thrown in to keep it honest.
 
Junebug said:
Abraham, the father of Jewish and Christian faith, was called by God to kill his son, the very son that God had promised him would make his descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. To show his devotion, Abraham had to be willing to do it. The God of the bible is not a feel good divine father figure who sits on a throne and gives us presents at Christmas. You are thinking of the God of Plato/Aristotle, with a little Christianity thrown in to keep it honest.
Click to expand...

Isn't that just metaphor that you don't have to believe anyway?
 
I'm a bit late to this thread- so a few quick thoughts.

No one (unless I missed it) is discussing the definition of a miracle, which is key. I'd lean towards "everything is a miracle, just depends on your perspective."

The central message of Christianity is not (or at least, shouldn't be) Jesus died for your sins. Salvation has traditionally been seen as corporate, not individual. Furthermore, Jesus (as recorded in the NT) speaks very little about sin, but a lot of the Kingdom of God. And the early followers of Jesus were called "The Way." That, imo, is the "point" of Christianity. About following Jesus, who is the fullest revelation of God, into the the present Kingdom of God. Forgiveness of sins is a part of that, but shouldn't be the focus. There's a whole bunch of church history that gets into why we became preoccupied with sin, but it wasn't the original focus.

The Resurrection need not be bodily, and in fact, any one that reads the Bible closely wouldn't think it was intended to be literal/bodily. Bodies that are raised from the dead are resuscitated, not resurrected. Resuscitated bodies don't walk through walls or become unrecognizable to friends. Resurrection is different though, and it makes no sense to even say "bodily Resurrection." It's an oxymoron. I guess if you believe that heaven is an actual/physical place somewhere in the cosmos, then maybe, but that's a whole other problem if you think that. And St. Paul certainly got this, as his experience of the Resurrected of Jesus clearly says that Jesus appeared to him from heaven- if he was there in bodily form, why would the narrative mention that Jesus appeared from heaven? When you read through the Gospels (start with Mark) you can see that no one cared about the body- that wasn't the point. Only later (Luke/Matthew) did people wonder "what about the body?" So stories about guards at the tomb, etc. are added in to clarify. The early Church struggled to understand what the Resurrection meant, and so do we. The need to define it as physical/bodily speaks to our desire to control theology instead living with mystery.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Call me crazy, but the central tenet of faith in Christianity is that JC, divine son of God, died for your sins and was resurrected on 3rd day.

And you are missing the point on evolution. He isn't saying that God chose evolution as form of creation. He is saying that God isn't magician with magic wand. IOW, God's power has limits. That is a remarkable statement.
Click to expand...
OK...but that doesn't mean the entire bible is literal and historical evidence has suggested that some of the original Christians did not even believe in Jesus resurrecting. God = a magician isn't stated either. I'm pretty agnostic about it too...but it really seems like you are taking a conservative view and the applying it to all Christians.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Isn't that just metaphor that you don't have to believe anyway?
Click to expand...

The form of the metaphor in the bible is the physical events depicted--creation, Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still, Jonah in the belly of the whale, etc. The truth behind the metaphor is the experience of God. My post about Abraham regards the latter.
 
RacerDeac said:
I don't think that's a concept of the Bible at all. It's quite the opposite. The entire story of the Bible is one of constant working towards renewal in all of creation.
Click to expand...

Right, humanity/creation working towards that renewal because of God's hand's-off approach, and not him simply snapping his fingers and making everyone perfect.
 
Junebug said:
The form of the metaphor in the bible is the physical events depicted--creation, Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still, Jonah in the belly of the whale, etc. The truth behind the metaphor is the experience of God. My post about Abraham regards the latter.
Click to expand...

Sounds subjective.
 
Junebug said:
"Supposing truth is a woman--what then?"

We're far afield from discussing the Pope's comments, but consider the possibility that looking for truth in the form of some intellectual precept or systematic view of the world is totally misguided. Rather, consider that truth may be found in the way we live our lives.
Click to expand...

This doesn't answer the question.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Right, humanity/creation working towards that renewal because of God's hand's-off approach, and not him simply snapping his fingers and making everyone perfect.
Click to expand...
But he could make everyone "perfect" if he wanted to like a magician, yes? That's the distinction I think Francis was intending to make.
 
I've always struggle with what passes for 2014 Christianity versus the general tenets of Christianity as they seem to exist in the Bible. For instance are you really a "Christian" if you think good deeds can get you into heaven without a belief that Jesus was the son of God? I've had a lot of conversations with people who claim to be Christians but don't believe Jesus is the lone way to heaven. I've said this before but I think the actual tenets and doctrine of Christianity are actually far more radical than we generally treat it in 2014. Seems as if the religion has been watered down a little to make it more palatable to a widespread audience. I would love to hear more thoughts on this from people who know more about the history of Christianity and the bible than I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top