Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

[Junebug]

I fear Junebug has fundamentally misread Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

I disagree with both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in fundamental respects (the latter moreso obviously), and my posts on this thread reflect that disagreement at numerous points. However, when I'm representing what their views are, I'm most certainly not misreading them.

 

[TownieDeac]

Oh right subjective truth, forgot.

 

[Junebug]

so many mental gymnastics required to justify religion. it's kind of amazing.

That's funny; I feel the same way about atheism.

I have no problem accepting a God-driven Big Bang, formation of the universe, existence of life, and ultimately, mankind, but to imagine that all of these things happened without some sort of director and as a total matter of random chance strikes me as more than a little ridiculous.

 

[TWDeac]

That's funny; I feel the same way about atheism.

I have no problem accepting a God-driven Big Bang, formation of the universe, existence of life, and ultimately, mankind, but to imagine that all of these things happened without some sort of director and as a total matter of random chance strikes me as more than a little ridiculous.

 

[RChildress107]

Trying to comprehend the nature of God is somewhat analogous to searching for a Theory of Everything in physics. The best we can do (at least currently) is use imperfect or incomplete models to describe a portion of a theoretical concept.

Calling the concept of the Holy Trinity ridiculous (without presupposing that Christianity as a whole is ridiculous) is akin to completely disregarding the Standard Model because it doesn't perfectly account for all fundamental interactions.

 

[ChrisL68]

That's funny; I feel the same way about atheism.

I have no problem accepting a God-driven Big Bang, formation of the universe, existence of life, and ultimately, mankind, but to imagine that all of these things happened without some sort of director and as a total matter of random chance strikes me as more than a little ridiculous.

What created the director? Or is it just turtles all the way down?

Existence is irrational and any feeble attempt we make to explain it fails from a logical perspective. That's why I find most logical defenses of religion end up in a bunch of circular gobbly-gook. It s faith but it doesn't make any sense.

The creation of existence and matter is the bugaboo. Saying that our existence is somehow too special to be random is just our arrogance.

Some sort of theoretical scientific construct where something came out of nothing probably makes the most logical sense but that is probably wrong too.

 

[Junebug]

I'm not talking about Christianity right now. I'm just talking about a Supreme Being that created everything. Obviously, those are very different concepts.

 

[Junebug]

C

What created the director? Or is it just turtles all the way down?

Existence is irrational and any feeble attempt we make to explain it fails from a logical perspective. That's why I find most logical defenses of religion end up in a bunch of circular gobbly-gook. It s faith but it doesn't make any sense.

The creation of existence and matter is the bugaboo. Saying that our existence is somehow too special to be random is just our arrogance.

Some sort of theoretical scientific construct where something came out of nothing probably makes the most logical sense but that is probably wrong too.

It's not just our existence that is special (although I think it is), it's the existence of anything that is special. It's just that the more complex the existing thing is, the more special it is, at least for purposes of demonstrating that we are part of a creation.

Let's assume, as you propose, that existence is irrational at some level. I think it is much easier to accept the pre-existence of a Supreme Being, who is powerful enough to create the universe, than it is to accept that the universe either (1) is itself pre-existent or (2) ultimately sprang into being out of nothing. Frankly, the latter view seems so silly to me that I don't see how anyone could possibly accept it. The former view has its own problems, like the laws of thermodynamics and the evidence that suggests the universe is apparently expanding from a single point. I suppose it is possible that this could be explained if the universe has undergone an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, but that still begs the question of the preexistence of matter.

Your assumption raises another question--if existence is irrational, and if we know we exist (and I assume you don't doubt that), then why are you so insistent that any Supreme Being must fit within the confines of logical reasoning? In proceeding this way, you've stacked the deck against ever believing in a Supreme Being. In other words, if you are willing to accept that your own existence is irrational, why can't you accept that a Supreme Being beyond your own logical capability created you? At the very least, this should cause you to stop looking for the Supreme Being according to the standard means of deduction.

By the way, 4:35 in the morning? Wow.

 

[WFFaithful]

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.

How does this jive with 1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 4:25, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 2:2, John 10:16-18, Colossians 2:14? It seems like atonement was a pretty big deal.

 

[ChrisL68]

C

It's not just our existence that is special (although I think it is), it's the existence of anything that is special. It's just that the more complex the existing thing is, the more special it is, at least for purposes of demonstrating that we are part of a creation.

Let's assume, as you propose, that existence is irrational at some level. I think it is much easier to accept the pre-existence of a Supreme Being, who is powerful enough to create the universe, than it is to accept that the universe either (1) is itself pre-existent or (2) ultimately sprang into being out of nothing. Frankly, the latter view seems so silly to me that I don't see how anyone could possibly accept it. The former view has its own problems, like the laws of thermodynamics and the evidence that suggests the universe is apparently expanding from a single point. I suppose it is possible that this could be explained if the universe has undergone an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, but that still begs the question of the preexistence of matter.

Your assumption raises another question--if existence is irrational, and if we know we exist (and I assume you don't doubt that), then why are you so insistent that any Supreme Being must fit within the confines of logical reasoning? In proceeding this way, you've stacked the deck against ever believing in a Supreme Being. In other words, if you are willing to accept that your own existence is irrational, why can't you accept that a Supreme Being beyond your own logical capability created you? At the very least, this should cause you to stop looking for the Supreme Being according to the standard means of deduction.

By the way, 4:35 in the morning? Wow.

To your 1st paragraph, I agree. Existence of anything at the moment of the Big Bang is the God moment. Everything after that we have reasonable explanations for.

To your 2nd paragraph, why are any of those conclusions more or less silly than any of the other ones? They all defy the laws of nature as we know them. As far as we know, our universe might have sprung out of multiple plains of existence that we can't comprehend. Of course this brings up the first cause issue, but I don't understand dismissing ideas as silly as being outside our realm of understanding the universe and then embracing an idea that you admit is outside our understanding of the universe.

To your 3rd paragraph, I don't hold it to a different standard. I am an agnostic. I do find issues with the mental gymnastics that people engage in to conclude that a 2,000 year old book should be the main guiding principle in our life even though they dismiss many of the accounts in said book.

One of the things about getting older is that I wlll sometimes wake up at 3 AM and not be able to go back to sleep.

 

[RevDeac06]

How does this jive with 1 Corinthians 15:3, Romans 4:25, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 2:2, John 10:16-18, Colossians 2:14? It seems like atonement was a pretty big deal.

Not saying atonement isn't there, but sometimes later understandings become bigger than the original intention. Think about it- the disciples are thinking Jesus is a really special teacher, maybe they even think he's the Messiah. A Messiah who then dies. They start to think about the Jewish practices of Temple sacrifice (which is now impossible by the time the gospels were written because the Temple was destroyed), and they observe that Jesus' death seemed like the ultimate sacrifice for sin. So you get that great imagery of Jesus as the lamb in Hebrews and the Good Shepherd in John.

And this isn't just them making stuff up- Jesus (at least the way the gospels depict him) intentionally chose Passover as the time to go to Jerusalem and stir up controversy. The symbolism wasn't lost on him.

But if the cross was about the sins of the world, if that was the entire purpose of the Incarnation, then I think we've missed the whole point. 1) What sort of God demands a blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin- and then decides to send a child to die? 2) What does it say about God that God can't forgive sins in any other way? Is God bound by some rule book for gods? 3) A divine suicide mission just makes no sense given the understanding of Israel or the canon of Scripture. 4) There are several places in Scripture where the notion of God demanding sin sacrifices is challenged (Psalm 50, for example). So if the blood of goats doesn't satisfy God (but a contrite and loving heart does), why do we insist that God is angry and demands justice? If you're looking for more, read some of the earliest writings about the Church, especially from the Eastern traditions. The fact that the first followers of Jesus used the fish as their symbol and not the cross should be telling. But the cross can be used to exploit. If we are wretched souls in need of salvation, which is only afforded through Jesus' death and bestowed upon us through Baptism in the Church, then who has the power? Those in charge of the Church. The over-emphasis on sin and substitutionary atonement is about guilt and control, not grace and certainly is no consistent with every other aspect of the Incarnation.

Jesus died because he pissed off the wrong (or right) people. But that doesn't mean that his death doesn't have some larger meanings as well. Think of modern day martyrs- it's the same thing: MLK, Bonhoeffer, Romero, etc. They all died because they pissed people off, and they continued their mission despite the death threats. But yet, their steadfastness to their purpose and God amplified their message even more loudly and allows their deaths to be more than sad stories about murder committed by evil people.

This doesn't diminish the idea of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice, but sin offering does not define what the cross was about. There are many understandings of what happened on Good Friday- and that's the beauty of metaphor and parable (which Jesus himself used all the time, so why shouldn't we say that his death can have a range of meanings as well?).

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Romero was a big boss. It's criminal that he isn't better known.

Same goes for Grande, obviously.

 

[RevDeac06]

Romero was a big boss. It's criminal that he isn't better known.

Same goes for Grande, obviously.

You name two liberation theologians- which speaks to my point about the breadth of meanings of the cross. They see the cross as Jesus'/God's identification with the marginalized. But if we just drill down on sin offering, you miss the beauty of it.

I think of it like this: I have a bunch of crosses on my wall- they all look different. Some are plain, one is a crucifix, one is wood, another ceramic, etc. The meanings of the cross are just as diverse, but that doesn't make only one of them the "right" one, just as all of those crosses on the wall are all legitimate crosses.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

You name two liberation theologians- which speaks to my point about the breadth of meanings of the cross. They see the cross as Jesus'/God's identification with the marginalized. But if we just drill down on sin offering, you miss the beauty of it.

I think of it like this: I have a bunch of crosses on my wall- they all look different. Some are plain, one is a crucifix, one is wood, another ceramic, etc. The meanings of the cross are just as diverse, but that doesn't make only one of them the "right" one, just as all of those crosses on the wall are all legitimate crosses.

Absolutely. Important to remember that the guy arming the Salvadorans during the period was himself a devout Christian.

Reza Aslan had a recent print interview talking about how Islam's pretty similar in terms of the different meanings adherents can take away from the texts and that people's religious views are products of their values as much as a source of values.

 

[RevDeac06]

Absolutely. Important to remember that the guy arming the Salvadorans during the period was himself a devout Christian.

Reza Aslan had a recent print interview talking about how Islam's pretty similar in terms of the different meanings adherents can take away from the texts and that people's religious views are products of their values as much as a source of values.

Yes. What you come away with when you read the Bible says more about you than it does God.

Though- I'm not jumping on the whole religion is purely subjective bandwagon. There is Truth in religion (and Christianity/Bible imo), but how you perceive that Truth is a mirror as much as it is a window.

 

[tiltdeac]

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.

This story was actually one of the first ones that I can remember making me question the whole religion thing (grew up going to Catholic school). It just seems like such a dick move.

 

[Junebug]

Though- I'm not jumping on the whole religion is purely subjective bandwagon. There is Truth in religion (and Christianity/Bible imo), but how you perceive that Truth is a mirror as much as it is a window.

I'm not sure if this is in response to what I've written, but it's not my view that religion is purely subjective. The slogan of "truth is subjectivity" is easily misinterpreted as meaning that religious "truth" is different for each person. That's not at all what it means. Rather, it means that truth is only meaningful insofar as it is lived by the believer. It's essentially a polemic against speculative abstractionism.

 

[Wrangor]

Everyone knows Jesus was in England during those years. Why else would Joseph of Arimathea send the Holy Grail there?

Bingo. :tard:

 

[Wrangor]

This story was actually one of the first ones that I can remember making me question the whole religion thing (grew up going to Catholic school). It just seems like such a dick move.

The only thing worse would be actually killing your own son for the sake of others....oh wait.

 

[RevDeac06]

I'm not sure if this is in response to what I've written, but it's not my view that religion is purely subjective. The slogan of "truth is subjectivity" is easily misinterpreted as meaning that religious "truth" is different for each person. That's not at all what it means. Rather, it means that truth is only meaningful insofar as it is lived by the believer. It's essentially a polemic against speculative abstractionism.

No, wasn't directed at you- just didn't want my comments to be misinterpreted.