Pope Francis Basically Just Admitted There May Not Be a God

[P4nthers11]

I propose that similar to the way "B*delik" is redacted there should be a Tunnels only mechanism where terms like "God", "Jesus", "Allah", etc. are instead replaced with the phrase "The Flying Spaghetti Monster." I think the quality of posting would improve. Reading threads about religion is like watching two sides speaking completely different languages. If your ideas and arguments are that strong then the placeholder used to represent the concept shouldn't affect the content.

 

[RevDeac06]

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.

Does it help that it probably didn't actually happen?

 

[IamThunderbolt]

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.

Understanding the context of the ANE at the time sheds a little light on it. Child sacrifice demanded by a god was a fairly normal thing at that time (see Chemosh, Molech, etc.). So amid the demands of other gods, the demand of a child sacrifice wouldn't have seen uncommon. That Isaac was the child that God had promised to Abraham in his old age and the one through whom he promised to bless the whole world (i.e. the coming restoration of everything) only heightens what Abraham was asked. But the point is how it played out - God didn't ask Abraham to kill his son - he provided an alternative - showing two things about God - he wasn't like the other gods of the time and that through his own provision/faithfulness, He would ensure that his promised restoration would occur (foreshadowing what he would do through Jesus).

 

[RevDeac06]

I propose that similar to the way "B*delik" is redacted there should be a Tunnels only mechanism where terms like "God", "Jesus", "Allah", etc. are instead replaced with the phrase "The Flying Spaghetti Monster." I think the quality of posting would improve. Reading threads about religion is like watching two sides speaking completely different languages. If your ideas and arguments are that strong then the placeholder used to represent the concept shouldn't affect the content.

A rose by any other name...

 

[RevDeac06]

Understanding the context of the ANE at the time sheds a little light on it. Child sacrifice demanded by a god was a fairly normal thing at that time (see Chemosh, Molech, etc.). So amid the demands of other gods, the demand of a child sacrifice wouldn't have seen uncommon. That Isaac was the child that God had promised to Abraham in his old age and the one through whom he promised to bless the whole world (i.e. the coming restoration of everything) only heightens what Abraham was asked. But the point is how it played out - God didn't ask Abraham to kill his son - he provided an alternative - showing two things about God - he wasn't like the other gods of the time and that through his own provision/faithfulness, He would ensure that his promised restoration would occur (foreshadowing what he would do through Jesus).

Heard an awesome sermon on this text that suggested that God was testing Abraham to find out if he was a puppet or if a free-thinker. If you look at the text, the relationship between God and Abraham is never the same after that event, and the sermon suggested it was because God didn't quite trust Abraham in the same way because he was willing to blindly follow commands, regardless of how stupid they were.

 

[TWDeac]

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.

Wait. Did you just equate a model which is inherently testable to a concept that is solely outlined in a 2000 year old book? I originally posted that picture as a joke because Junebug was being Junebug but damn that is a significant stretch.

 

[Junebug]

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.

I appreciate that you took the story seriously. It's a very challenging thing to accept. Most people try to explain it away by saying something like "it was just a trial; God would never had required Abraham to kill Issac because, after all, God is good and the good can't require one person murder another." I think that type of explanation tries to overlay Platonism on Judeo-Christianity, and with disasterous consequences for Judeo-Christianity.

Your reaction confirms what I said earlier; there is nothing warm and fuzzy about the God of the bible. All of these pastel paintings with happy Jesus holding the T-Rex and whatnot are hilarious and all, but they reflect a very shallow understanding of Christianity and what it means to be a Christian.

 

[tiltdeac]

Understanding the context of the ANE at the time sheds a little light on it. Child sacrifice demanded by a god was a fairly normal thing at that time (see Chemosh, Molech, etc.). So amid the demands of other gods, the demand of a child sacrifice wouldn't have seen uncommon. That Isaac was the child that God had promised to Abraham in his old age and the one through whom he promised to bless the whole world (i.e. the coming restoration of everything) only heightens what Abraham was asked. But the point is how it played out - God didn't ask Abraham to kill his son - he provided an alternative - showing two things about God - he wasn't like the other gods of the time and that through his own provision/faithfulness, He would ensure that his promised restoration would occur (foreshadowing what he would do through Jesus).

Heard an awesome sermon on this text that suggested that God was testing Abraham to find out if he was a puppet or if a free-thinker. If you look at the text, the relationship between God and Abraham is never the same after that event, and the sermon suggested it was because God didn't quite trust Abraham in the same way because he was willing to blindly follow commands, regardless of how stupid they were.

Oh I understand that there are many competing theories and scholarship regarding this passage, particularly in the Jewish tradition. But keep in mind this was like 8th/9th grade tiltdeac. We didn't exactly dive deeply into scripture, we went to church every Thursday morning (shorter classes that day!) and sat through a 50 minute class every day where we paid enough attention to fill out worksheets. So when I started to actually listen to what we were being told/assigned (in a critical way, instead of a "need to do my homework" way), it gave me some pause. Sort of a ... "Wait a second, this God brought a bunch of plagues on the world, killed a bunch of first born babies, killed the entire world with a flood, asked some guy to kill his son just to prove his loyalty, etc, etc. WTF! At least Jesus was a pretty nice bro for the most part (though the whole "leave your family to follow me" didn't sit well with me), so it was much easier to be on board.

 

[RChildress107]

Wait. Did you just equate a model which is inherently testable to a concept that is solely outlined in a 2000 year old book? I originally posted that picture as a joke because Junebug was being Junebug but damn that is a significant stretch.

Both are, or at least claim to be, internally consistent systems.

Physics' inherent testability is incredibly strong evidence of the system's internal consistency.

Christianity, or any religion for that matter, lacks such strength of testable evidence but it doesn't mean the model (or at least A model) is not internally consistent.

Christianity, like all religions, struggles with what "version" is 1) internally consistent AND 2) objectively true. Many would argue that answering 2) is not only impossible but also largely irrelevant

For Physics, the scientific method solves both the consistency and objectivity concerns, but almost all physicists overstep by assuming that Objective Truth of Physics (including the parts not theorized or tested yet) is all encompassing.

 

[TownieDeac]

A few of my thoughts as I was able to finally read through this thread, at least to the third page.

The insistence of a literal 7 day creation wasn't really a thing before Darby popularized dispensational theology - which really took off in the 1830s, right before Voyage of the Beagle was published. The timing of the rise of dispensationalism, which insists of 7 "ages" or expressions of God's relation to humanity corresponding to a strict, literal 7 days of creation, and Darwin's work made the discussion between science and faith more contentious that it had been or needs to be.

edited for clarity: There were those who did hold a view of a 7 day creation, but before Darby, it was never considered a cornerstone or essential belief.

I'm not sure Darwin added as much to the contention between science and faith as Rome had been adding for centuries upon centuries, but the rest of this is definitely interesting.

I don't speak for the Pope, but, based on the comments I read, I'd be surprised if he viewed the parting of the Red Sea as a literal event.

Again, the bible doesn't purport to demand that we believe it literally. In fact, I doubt that the dichotomy between literalism and metaphor is something that people in 1500 BC fully appreciated. Related, it strikes me that your demand that the bible be read literally or not at all is a product of the post scientific revolution age in which you live.

Not sure about the study of language circa 1500 BC, but "metaphor" shows up in Aristotle's Poetics iirc, circa 350 BC, around the time of the Hebrew canonization of the Bible. For what it's worth. As for Moses's grasp, I can't speak to that.

Few believe the entire Bible is an allegory. It's one bound book made up of many stories, writings, letter, etc from many writers. There are poems, there are allegorical stories, there are narrative and historical texts, there are proverbs, there are letters. I have a hard time believing anyone reads an extended genealogy and thinks it's meant to be an allegory. Then again, I have a hard time believing anyone reads the entire Bible and assumes something like Song of Solomon or Revelation to be literal, but people do.

INTERVIEWER

Almost without exception writers we've interviewed over the years admit they cannot write under the influence of booze or drugs—or at the least what they've done has to be rewritten in the cool of the day. What's your comment about this?

THOMPSON

They lie. Or maybe you've been interviewing a very narrow spectrum of writers. It's like saying, “Almost without exception women we've interviewed over the years swear that they never indulge in sodomy”—without saying that you did all your interviews in a nunnery. Did you interview Coleridge? Did you interview Poe? Or Scott Fitzgerald? Or Mark Twain? Or Fred Exley? Did Faulkner tell you that what he was drinking all the time was really iced tea, not whiskey? Please. Who the fuck do you think wrote the Book of Revelation? A bunch of stone-sober clerics?

Verses like these are what cause theologians to conclude the resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Note, however, that Paul does not say "if Christ has not been raised *in a literal sense,* then our preaching is in vain." Just as it is anachronistic to think the authors of the Genesis story were doing "science," modern theologians think it is anachronistic to assume Paul was thinking in concepts like literalism vs metaphor.

It's fine with me if Paul hadn't read Aristotle, but it's a challenge for me to grasp whether or not he thought he was being truthful then, if not literal/metaphorical.

From a cognitive standpoint, I can only talk about my own experience, but that experience has been that the only time I've been in internal dissonance was when I was an atheist.

I've only had cognitive dissonance with a priest telling me evolution was a lie, followed by spending the rest of my Sunday as a 13 year old stuffing pipettes in my dad's lab, watching evolution occur in a petri dish beside me. It was around then that I started form my epistemology around an empirical framework. Later, I'd add in some healthy skepticism, acknowledging the limitations of my own perceptions and understandings of those perceptions. Still haven't been able to add God to the mix though.

 

[Junebug]

A few of my thoughts as I was able to finally read through this thread, at least to the third page.



I'm not sure Darwin added as much to the contention between science and faith as Rome had been adding for centuries upon centuries, but the rest of this is definitely interesting.



Not sure about the study of language circa 1500 BC, but "metaphor" shows up in Aristotle's Poetics iirc, circa 350 BC, around the time of the Hebrew canonization of the Bible. For what it's worth. As for Moses's grasp, I can't speak to that.



INTERVIEWER

Almost without exception writers we've interviewed over the years admit they cannot write under the influence of booze or drugs—or at the least what they've done has to be rewritten in the cool of the day. What's your comment about this?

THOMPSON

They lie. Or maybe you've been interviewing a very narrow spectrum of writers. It's like saying, “Almost without exception women we've interviewed over the years swear that they never indulge in sodomy”—without saying that you did all your interviews in a nunnery. Did you interview Coleridge? Did you interview Poe? Or Scott Fitzgerald? Or Mark Twain? Or Fred Exley? Did Faulkner tell you that what he was drinking all the time was really iced tea, not whiskey? Please. Who the fuck do you think wrote the Book of Revelation? A bunch of stone-sober clerics?



It's fine with me if Paul hadn't read Aristotle, but it's a challenge for me to grasp whether or not he thought he was being truthful then, if not literal/metaphorical.



I've only had cognitive dissonance with a priest telling me evolution was a lie, followed by spending the rest of my Sunday as a 13 year old stuffing pipettes in my dad's lab, watching evolution occur in a petri dish beside me. It was around then that I started form my epistemology around an empirical framework. Later, I'd add in some healthy skepticism, acknowledging the limitations of my own perceptions and understandings of those perceptions. Still haven't been able to add God to the mix though.

I'll say more when I have more time, but you should at least be heartened that even the Pope now thinks your priest was wrong, at least insofar as to the perceived conflict between Christianity and evolution.

 

[IamThunderbolt]

A few of my thoughts as I was able to finally read through this thread, at least to the third page.



I'm not sure Darwin added as much to the contention between science and faith as Rome had been adding for centuries upon centuries, but the rest of this is definitely interesting.

Didn't mean to imply that Darwin himself fueled the divide, just that the Beagle arrived on the scene pretty close to the exact moment when a significant portion of Protestant theology was shifting the nature/chronology of creation Toward a primary/essential doctrine rather than a secondary discussion.

 

[pourdeac]

Seems to me that the "biological" explanation would be that there's something we have that makes us seek answers to fill a void of knowledge. I'm sure it does have some biological underpinning though. What if the answer is "humans have allowed religion to evolve because they are scared of the unknown?" We can't get half the population to believe in evolution why would we expect them to honor this logic? I agree it would be interesting but I don't know how practical it would be.

I think the answer will be far more deeper than that and gets to very core of how our brain functions...not just why religions appeared. Our brains label everything. We can't look at an object and not assign a value and meaning to it. Try it yourself. People seem think it's a weakness to "get scared" but fear of the unknown might be due to not being able to assign a value or meaning to something. If our brain HAS to assign a meaning in order to function, then it is forced to label the unknown to explain it....whether religious or scientific theory...or whatever. That's part of why I think religions evolved. Some view it as a crutch, and in one regard it is if needed to function, but I think we'll find that the replacement (alternative belief system) is no different.

It doesn't matter to me if people want to have a religious conviction that doesn't impinge on the lives of others. I've never understood why so many get worked up about it. This evolution/creationism thing has become mostly politics.

 

[Junebug]

Heard an awesome sermon on this text that suggested that God was testing Abraham to find out if he was a puppet or if a free-thinker. If you look at the text, the relationship between God and Abraham is never the same after that event, and the sermon suggested it was because God didn't quite trust Abraham in the same way because he was willing to blindly follow commands, regardless of how stupid they were.

Ho boy. Rev, you didn't buy that, did you? How do you square that with God's prohibition on eating from the tree of knowledge? To me, that sermon sounds like exactly what I am talking about – Platonism has so overtaken Christianity that God is no longer the God of the Bible but, instead, has become "the good."

 

[RevDeac06]

For one, I don't think there was a garden or apple...

 

[RevDeac06]

But yea, I don't believe in the God of the Bible, because God isn't bound by our writing (even if divinely inspired) about God.

 

[Junebug]

For one, I don't think there was a garden or apple...

Well, yeah, me either, but don't you think the story contains kernels of truth in the husk of the story?

 

[RevDeac06]

Well, yeah, me either, but don't you think the story contains kernels of truth in the husk of the story?

Of course, but not sure I'm following you.

 

[Junebug]

Of course, but not sure I'm following you.

What I'm saying is that the interpretation of God in that sermon you heard on Abraham strikes me as fundamentally inconsistent with the picture of God painted in the Bible. Rather, the interpretation in the sermon strikes me as more akin to the concept of the good in Plato. I take the point that God can reveal himself in whatever way he chooses, but, assuming these the biblical narrative and Plato are contradictory at some level (and if you don't think they are contradictory, then I'm sure we can come up with some that are), don't you have to give some sort of priority to the revelation in the Bible? If not, how do you judge between competing and contradictory views?

 

[Wrangor]

But yea, I don't believe in the God of the Bible, because God isn't bound by our writing (even if divinely inspired) about God.

And that should do it for anyone that imagines RevDeac as a representative of Christianity.