• 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

pourdeac said:
Biology underlies most everything psychology/sociology/philosophy/anthropology so if it pertains to those, then it has some sort of biological underpinnings. It has to physiologically. Religion has to mean something about how our brain is organized, how it functions, and how it evolved. If that's true, and IMO it must be, then....why wouldn't biologists (or other scientists like neuroscientists) explore it?

It's rare. The only researcher I've seen study it was a guy from Tennessee who studied the habits of church goers. Interesting talk (in a "Religion and Hallucinogens" symposium).
Click to expand...

Switch Biology and Philosophy and you are on the right track. To claim that religion must have a biological explanation is to assume something that biology cannot prove.

It doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile study. But if you start looking for a biological explanation for Religion that presupposes such an explanation exists your results are going to be inherently biased.
 
WFFaithful said:
Are you saying the reason people put him to death was to shut him up, or that there was no higher calling (ie the satisfaction of God's wrath) in his death?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. Now, I think we can interpret his death in a lot of ways- one of which is a sacrifice for sin. But I doubt the Pharisees were calling for his death so that their sins would be atoned for. He intentionally stirred up the hornets' nest. I don't think it's wrong to see Jesus' self-sacrifice for the Kingdom of God as a metaphor for a Temple sacrifice, but I don't see how the primary meaning/purpose of the crucifixion was sin atonement. I realize this probably goes against a lot of what people think, but there are a whole host of issues with the theology of the cross as understood by mainstream Christianity.
 
I find this amusing.

1. Author claims that Bible is meaningless since its meaning is subjective.
2. Junebug criticizes author for unsophisticated understanding of theology
3. Go round and round for pages.
4. Junebug admits his understanding of meaning of bible is subjective.
 
ChrisL68 said:
I find this amusing.

1. Author claims that Bible is meaningless since its meaning is subjective.
2. Junebug criticizes author for unsophisticated understanding of theology
3. Go round and round for pages.
4. Junebug admits his understanding of meaning of bible is subjective.
Click to expand...

I find this amusing.
 
RevDeac06 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you think about the idea that Jesus' "lost years" may have been spent in India (or that area) and he may have been influenced by regional religions?
 
ChrisL68 said:
I find this amusing.

1. Author claims that Bible is meaningless since its meaning is subjective.
2. Junebug criticizes author for unsophisticated understanding of theology
3. Go round and round for pages.
4. Junebug admits his understanding of meaning of bible is subjective.
Click to expand...

5. Chris totally misunderstands what Junebug means by saying that truth is subjective.
 
RJKarl said:
What do you think about the idea that Jesus' "lost years" may have been spent in India (or that area) and he may have been influenced by regional religions?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Da Vinci Code 2, coming to a screen near you this summer.
 
RJKarl said:
What do you think about the idea that Jesus' "lost years" may have been spent in India (or that area) and he may have been influenced by regional religions?
Click to expand...

Everyone knows Jesus was in England during those years. Why else would Joseph of Arimathea send the Holy Grail there?
 
Junebug said:
5. Chris totally misunderstands what Junebug means by saying that truth is subjective.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't mean truth is subjective then perhaps you should do a better job explaining it.
 
Shorty said:
Ask Biff.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that Doc Brown came and brought a T-Rex for him to ride on Palm Sunday?!?!?!
350x700px-LL-3cf256f2_Jesus2Briding2Ba2Bdinosaur.jpeg
 
ChrisL68 said:
If it doesn't mean truth is subjective then perhaps you should do a better job explaining it.
Click to expand...

Note that I didn't say the bible was subjective. I said truth was subjective. What I'm talking about is the Kierkegaardian concept that you only really know something by relating yourself (i.e., the subject) to it. It's similar to what Nietzche meant when he said "Supposing truth is a woman--what then?" You are talking about truth in the form of some sort of cosmology or systematic philosophy or religious construct. I'm saying that's all well and good, but systematic thought leaves no place for the actual thinker. That's why I think science is a fine pursuit, but only when kept in its proper sphere--i.e., figuring out the mechanisms of the universe without crossing the border into questions like "what is the purpose of it all." That's also why it won't do anyone any good for me to answer Milhouse's question about my conversion. It's ineffable because of its subjectivity. I can only describe to you my relation to God, but that really isn't going to do you any good if you are fixated on truth as a system.

And by the way, my initial objection wasn't that the author was saying truth is subjective. I'm not sure where you got that or even what that would mean in this context. My objection was that he didn't understand that the Pope's statements were not really shocking in light of modern theology. We've taken some detours on this thread since then as others have contributed, but that's what my original post was about.
 
Last edited:
I think we need to ask the 13th Apostle-Rufus about the real meanings of Jesus.
 
so many mental gymnastics required to justify religion. it's kind of amazing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
I fear Junebug has fundamentally misread Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
 
Also I haven't read the thread much but this Pope fucking rocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top