All Comments (356)

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/eagles/album/long-road-out-of-eden-cd1-/a130712/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/eagles/album/long-road-out-of-eden-cd1-/a130712/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/eagles/album/long-road-out-of-eden-cd1-/a130712/

Ice Queen, There is only 1 god. Not a billion. God is a loving and carring God. He has never sined and he never will. We are the sinners. Judas did betray Jesus but as we all know but God does for give us no matter what we do. Some people say that you can only be forgiven once for the same sin. That is not true. Once you have an open heart he will forgive you. Judas didn't swore allegiance to Jesus. Jesus asked him to follow him in his ministry, to lead people to God and his everlasting Kingdom, whiched he promised to Abraham. The prophesy had to be fufilled.

Hi all, i gone to all of your above posts.In some post i find some preciouse thought.But only in one words i would say Isalam is not a religion Islaam is religion of devils.So girls n guys please don't share the beleief of Muslims what do they say or not
Thanks

Dante, I think, makes Judas the worst sinner and Giudecca the deepest point of Hell. He interprets Judas' sin as Treachery to his Lord, thinking of this as the kind of act which would shake the feudal order at every point of its fabric. Once you have sworn allegiance, you are not permitted any change of mind. If you attempt to switch allegiance your new supposed friends have no reason to trust you, neither has anyone else. This may not have been exactly how the writers of the Gospels would have seen things.

uqkyna zcnmwuad aqpefly pjmvhif dctsbye qzuompkfn zoxwnjgd

m846k

Dr. Pagels,

I am a pastor in the United Methodist Church and I offer two points of historical interest. First, however, let me associate myself with the excellent comments of the Lutheran pastor LABECH (posted April 26, 2007 9:04 PM). I too see no reason why Judas' should be singled out as "unforgiveable" and I applaud LABECH's judicious observation that none of the ancient creeds do so. Since the canonical gospels are not indisputably clear on this point, we are in the realm not of ecclesiastical doctrine but of exegetical opinion – whether it be Origen or Dante.

(1) Now, for my first point: Although it is commonly asserted that Origen taught the salvation of Satan, it is far from certain that he actually did so. His Latin translator Rufinus (345-410), who knew Origen's writings better than anyone, vigorously denied it. Jerome's attack upon Rufinus' position is based not on Origen's writings, but on a transcript of a debate that Origen had with a Valentinian teacher and there are good reasons to doubt the accuracy of the transcription. On this question, see Henri Crouzel, ORIGEN: THE LIFE AND THOUGHT OF THE FIRST GREAT THEOLOGIAN, trans. by A. S. Worrall(San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), pp. 20-1, which I first read at Princeton Seminary in Dr. McVey's class on Origen.

Apparently, in this debate, Origen stood up against Valentinian determinism for the proposition that God could redeem Satan if Satan wanted to be redeemed. Origen sided with free-will in this hypothetical, but that is a far cry from saying that Satan would even want to be redeemed and ultimately would be saved. Origen's experimental theology "On the First Principles" -- in a portion extant only in Rufinus’ translation -- states that the last enemy to be reconciled at the restoration of all things is "Death"; not Satan. It seems to me, that the burden of proof lies with those who would say that Rufinus doctored this section in defense of Origen.

Finally, although I know of nowhere that he explicitly says so, it is likely that Origen did believe Judas would be included in the final restoration. But, this is because he interprets John 13:27 to mean that Judas had become a deluded pawn of Satan and so had not knowingly and decisively exercised his free-will against God -- this, of course, could not be said of a fallen angel like Satan. The posthumous condemnation of Origen's writings as heretical was based less on what Origen actually taught than what subsequent heterodox groups claimed that he taught. His theology was so rich and suggestive that both heretic and orthodox could take as their point of departure the letter of his teachings, even if the spirit of them was trampled upon in the process. In a polemical age, such ambiguities were not to be tolerated and it finally was deemed expedient to condemn Origen. I do not approve of this injustice, but in the context of the times, I do understand it.

(2) Now, my second, briefer point. You say, "Only one famous Christian teacher (i.e Origen), so far as we know, suggested that Judas could be redeemed and forgiven." I know that the word "famous" is a relative one, but I would think that it is may be justly applied to the great Methodist biblical scholar Adam Clarke (c. 1760-1832) whose commentary on the whole Bible was published in 1826 and is still in print. It is hard to overstate the impact that Clarke had upon the formation of Methodist scholarship and through Methodism upon the whole of the Christian world.

Growing up in a Wesleyan context, I heard preachers frequently cite Clarke on this very point and indeed I have done so myself. Clarke examined the whole question of Judas' forgiveness quite thoroughly in his commentary in an extended note at the end of Acts 1 and, on the basis of the Biblical evidence, he reached this conclusion:

"Judas was indisputably a bad man; but he might have been worse: we may plainly see that there were depths of wickedness to which he might have proceeded, and which were prevented by his repentance. Thus things appear to stand previously to his end. But is there any room for hope in his death? In answer to this it must be understood,
1. That there is presumptive evidence that he did not destroy himself; and,
2. That his repentance was sincere.
If so, was it not possible for the mercy of God to extend even to his case? It did so to the murderers of the Son of God; and they were certainly worse men (strange as this assertion may appear) than Judas."

This note may be found in full at http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeact1.htm

Somebody or other summarized Mason Myatt's post above this way: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. No one is entitled to his own facts."

However, some of our discussion participants seem to think their opinions are the facts, with no background for judgment other than their "firm beliefs."

That might pass in a theological discussion, but it doesn't cut it when the discussion is founded on physical documents, especially our Christian documents. In the early 200s, Origen wrote, "Nowadays as is evident, there is a great diversity between the various manuscripts either through the negligence of certain copyists, or the perverse audacity shown by some in correcting the text, or through the fault of those who playing the part of correctors lengthen or shorten it as they please."

In the late 2nd century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth wrote, “As the brethren desired me to write epistles (letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with changes, exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these.”

One has to wonder if some of these personal opinions disguised as facts could be read as "adding" to scripture.

Not that it will matter to speed or her other detractors, but I have had several opportunities to talk to Pagels. As a matter of fact, she is a believer. She is Christian in terms of her ethics and background. Many of her earlier doubts about God were clarified when, in one year, she lost her son to a horrific illness and her husband, physicist Heinz Pagels, in a mountaineering accident.

The referencs to her work and the charges against her schoilarship here reflect a lot more about her detractors than about her work. Yes, she does write some of her books for the educated lay person in hopes that it will raise the level of understanding of early Christianity among non-specialists. She also has a large body of technical, scholarly writing reflecting her position as one of the premminent scholars in her field.

She has no more to do with the fiction works of Dan Brown than she does with Star Wars. He wrote a work of pure fiction which the Catholic Church and the Religious Right catapulted into the mainstream with their absurd attempts to challenge the "authenticity" of his work. Jesus! It was fiction not theology and not history.

Pagels is sometimes a popularizer of difficult topics for a public who cannot possibly do the work themselves unless they read coptic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic---as she does. Unless Speed and others here can read the Nag Hamadi texts, I wonder what the source of their contrary interpretation of the gnostics is. No doubt there may be errors in her work. She states no claim to inerrancy. But, after reading and noting the quality of the attacks against her it is more than clear that few of her challengers have the wherewithal to read, let alone critique, her work. It is also clear that the charges against her for the most part are borrowed from some other source that was critical of her. People who cannot produce a coherent argument---or sentence in some cases--are not equipped to take her on even when she may be in error.

We are all ignorant regarding any number of topics we have not studied. There is no shame in that unless we hold out as authorities on that topic. What is shameful is the tendancy of the most generally ignorant among us to fake their own expertise. It is sad because in their benighted state, they fail to understand that they are totally transparent and the rest of us are made to feel uncomfortable as we watch them inadvertently proclaim their inadequacy.

You do the same!

Good talking to you!

Hey Gaby: I agree that many believers/non-believers may not be honest with themselves about what they really believe. It is far easier to call someone else "WRONG" than to find out if if your own belief system has any merit.

I think many people are insecure. That is why there is so little dialogue and so much offense taken and given on a site like this. Sometimes, I just don't get it. For instance, why would I take offense to your feelings about who God is? You don't claim to be a Christian or believe in the God of the bible, so why should I be personally offended if your "truth" doesn't line up with mine? In fact, if my God, is God, does He really need me to win a debate against anyone on this site to prove He exists?

The Mormons I know are some of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of meeting. I read the book of Mormon once and did some research on the religion. Let's just say it was interesting.

Hey, make sure you enjoy some time outside today.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Psalm 19:1

-GB

If people are truthful with themselves, both believers and non-believers, should say that they don't know. Because that is a fact. They don't know.

Personally, in my heart I feel there is a God. At the same time I can not believe in the God major religions ascribe to.

When I was younger I was looking for answers from other people. I looked into eastern religious cultures, liked some of what I saw rejected other things. For a while I studied with Jehovah's Witnesses. Hahahha! Now there is an intersting sect. Between them and the Mormons I don't know wich is stranger.

Then one georgeous afternoon, I my younger daughter and I were sitting in the yard and we looked at the clouds and told each other which shapes we saw in them. It was such a beautiful and peaceful moment in my life. After she left with friends, I continued to sit there absorbing the beauty of the day. The birds were singing, the sound of the waterfall at my pond, the slight rustling of the leaves in the Aspens, the bright blue sky with the big billowy clouds, and suddenly I knew I could stop searching.

I bet it would have been fun being in class with you. From the little bit of teaching I've done here or there, I always liked the students who asked more questions the best.

Besides the whole arc and creation thing, I wasn't as curious about the questions you raised. I figured that if Jesus was God and could rise from the dead, there was pretty much nothing He couldn't do. People don't just rise from the dead after 3 days you know. Of course, not everyone believes this and if one doesn't, I think it makes it pretty hard to put much stock in anything else. Don't you?

On another note, I wonder how many true agnostics there are these days. I wonder because people often say they "don't know" while in the same breath say that they are convinced that there is no God.

Oh, Ghostbuster, I questioned everything. The Virgin Birth, The Trinity, Walking on Water, the Bread and Fish story, Noah's Ark, where in Heaven God resides, etc. You name it.

He used to get quite furious and accused me of being a disruptive influence in class and creating doubt in other students. He almost refused to let me go to confirmation. My parents prevailed, however. Not necessarily because they were religious, but it was the "thing to do".

My father was agnostic. He used to always say "believing is not knowing".

Hey Gaby, It's kind of funny. I'm imagining your old pastor pulling his hair out right now. So I gather you must have gone to some kind of a christian school?

If I were a teacher, I'd rather have students ask me a bunch of questions than just see them sitting there there nodding there heads while not learning anything.

It's cool you know the difference btw being raised a christian and actually being one. I had a few friends who I grew up with in church who didn't actually become christians until many years later. I think they had unanswered questions too.

What were the questions that annoyed your pastor?

Pleasure chatting with you.

Ghostbuster,

No, I guess I never really was a Christian. When I was in school, I used to argue with my pastor about almost everything he tried to teach. I guess they tried to make me a Christian, but failed miserably.

Owlyone:

Sorry, that post about becoming not a Christian was by someone else. Forgive me, it's Monday.

Owlyone:

Welcome to the OnFaith threads.......tread lightly. :D

Also, I liked your post about how you came to not be a Christian anymore.

Can forgiveness of any hurt really happen by humans? Even when the person who hurt us doesn't "ask"? Maybe they killed or abused our child. Beat our sister to death right in front of us. Drove their car into our wife while street racing. Speculation on these issues is useless- I think you have to go to the people who have actually experienced the ultimate hurts and ask them. Were you able to forgive? Was there always restoration with the one who hurt you? The writings of people who have been there and succeeded in forgiving say the same thing- it wasn't in them to forgive. Corrie ten Boom put it well "I agreed I should (forgive) but I could not. I agreed I would (forgive) but I could not. Then, His power flowed into and down through me and my hand stretched out-- not by my power, I could not, but by His. Read the people who have experienced this ability to forgive the unforgiveable. It is always a process, we know it is better for us than bitterness and vengefulness but it is also beyond us to achieve.
Soja - I have appreciated your posts.
Dyedinthewoolskeptic- I used to be one and I understand your lack of understanding. MAYBE if there is one little area of your life where you would like some answers or to be able to forgive someone I could challenge you to ASK if God is and if He has any better answers than what you've found so far. You might be surprised. Genies grant wishes - God listens to prayers.
Speed123- You are pretty much equally rude to everybody aren't you?

Hello to "ALL" Peace of Christ.

Judas was not forgiven, because he didn't ask to be forgiven?...simple!! lots of people blame Jesus....Nope! If Judas could have gone and said what Peter said?...I am sorry my Lord, Judas could have been forgiven too.....but!! his fear, or guilt or...God knows what was that stoped Judas from doing it...Just like Pharo with Moses he didn't softed his heart...but!!! I do not know..God said...I will have mercy on whom ever I want.....

God Bless.............Brother James

Gaby: You said you were raised as a Christian. But, were you a Christian? If so, what did you believe?

Believer: I agree, this thread is dying out. I like to hang out on threads like these sometimes.

...thread, not threat

Believer,

I did not mean to attack or offend your or others' beliefs. I just stated my point of view.

I don't belief in the bible altogether because I do not think it is divinely inspired. It's a bunch of scriptures written by men for men, mostly to keep the masses in line. Again, that is only my opinion!

However, I also understand that there are many people who choose to belief in it, and that is their privilege.

A few posts above is an essay by Pamela from a different threat that pretty much lays out what I belief in in case you are interested.

Regards

Ghostbuster,

That is precisely why I quoted Pamela. After I read her essay, I knew that I would have a hard time describing my own set of beliefs, but she really hit the nail on the head.

I think that my god is both supernatural and natural, or I could also say both abstract and real. It is a universal conscience that exists in everything. It surrounds us like an invisible cloak. It doesn't have a physical body and never had. It is all spirit. It sees without eyes, hears without ears, moves without legs, thinks without a brain, yet knows and feels and sees all.

I wouldn't say I am 100% set in my believes, but to me it makes a lot more sense and gives me greater comfort that all the "religions" in the world. I am open minded to all kinds of stuff as long as people don't try cram their religions down my throat.

I was raised Christian, but never was able to reconcile that belief system with me. That does not mean that I do not respect everyone’s right to belief as they wish. It's when they say the "know" that the bible is the true word of god, or that they "know" that Islam is the one true religion and then try to push that faith on me, that I get a little testy. Worse yet, when they say that I'll be damned to everlasting hell for all eternity because I don't belief as they do.

Happy hunting in your quest for truth!

"Christ was created even if as an extension of the father."

Gaby, you can, of course, believe anything you want to. But it's neither fair nor reasonable for you to devise your own, personal understanding of Christ that's different from that of mainstream Christianity (i.e., that Christ and Satan are both equivalent, created beings), and then attack it as a way of discrediting Christian thought. Your line of reasoning is closer to Gnosticism than mainstream Christianity (and the line of attack you suggested is one reason that I don't find Gnosticism very convincing as a theology).

The concept of the Trinity is worth an entirely separate discussion (and this blog is getting pretty run down, anyway). But I would suggest that you're confusing being and person. As humans, we never have true unity between two persons, no matter how close they may be. That's why the analogies you suggest sound so silly - for humans, persons are always entirely separate, and if there is true unity, then of necessity only one person is involved. The New Testament view, though, is that there is true unity between the Father and the Son.

Challenging? Yes. Weirder than particle physics? Probably not.

Thanks for the answer.

It was pretty in depth. Maybe I'll meet this "Pamela" sometime. Time-Space-Dimensions, free will, physical vs conscience; do you believe in anything Supernatural or is everything Natural?

It would take me a few days to summarize my own beliefs into a write-up so comprehensive. Or a few lines maybe, who knows? I'm still learning. Are you 100% set in what you believe, or are you still open minded to some stuff?

Sometimes I try to figure out what I would believe (or not believe) if I didn’t believe what I believe in. Is that clear as mud? Anyways, when I see something posted that is a little different I want to know how the person got there.

Regards

Sorry, I copies Pamela's post inadvertently twice.

Ghostbuster,

I plagiarized a post from another thread by a commentor named Pamela. She expressed my vision of god with such eloquence that I would never be able to muster.

"PAMELA :
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!
PAMELA :
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!"

Some One here said, "Science/Aetheism" similar conjecture(s). So, lets get something straight Cyber Friend(s).

Correction of a great misunderstanding that is almost Sinful like!

WE are about "SCIENCE/E.c.l.a.t.i. O.n."

NOT: Religious/Science and not "Science/Atheism"

Please; You have ZERO-G-d if you are willing to kill or die [blindly & invain or naught] for ANY of your ancient religions or religious hokum Pokus of a scoence coming from the terrible or Holocausts from the "PISCES-AGE" of PRE=Apocalyptic Epechs, ages, and lores back-up by superstitious fights and more SATANIC Behavior's.

Ya Ya. So go smoke that and roll it or put it in your pipe.

Best of all, USE YOUR HUERISTICS MON!

WE are now experiencing a NEW-SONG in the AQUARIUS-AGE that will last or have a 27,000 Year Epoch to go. So enjoy your Photon Finite Essence Mist NOW.

Note: Our Grandma- Sun will die in 8 Billion Years from now.

Yet OUR Sun/Earth "Star System" Rotates and make ONE-REVOLUTION that takes us, on Earth, 225,000 Years to come full circle.

All, this reality [TRANSFINITY in TEMPERATURE a/k/a TIME not clock] happens from the outer spur of our Great Grandpa-Milk man Galaxy .

Note: Scientists are saying that in 3.5 Billion Years from now, because of the "GREAT ATTRACTOR" that, in Fact, WE-WILL and are on our way to Colliding with our nearest neighbor and Cousin Galaxy ANDROMEDIA. This is Not Star Wars, Star track or such fantasy.

ECLATi-Ons see this real "clear headed" with ALL Pre-Apocalyptic Smoke Screen or un reality removed from our Photolytic Heuristic mist of a System via our QUANTUM-ENTANGLEMENTS!

Sholom and watch where you are getting beamed to. Hint: Your rear view mirror, so to speak, is your HISTORY. And Thus OUR Genuine JURY. Ya Ya.

So, From; PISCES-AGE to: "AQUARIUS-AGE" and your APOCALYPSE NOW!

So Humates today are slowly but evidently surely are becoming ECLATi-Ons via their current Mentally morphing experience [Conscience or not knowing now or ever] From" Caterpillar To: Butterfly & beyond. So from Magmatriculation (Star Stuff, not Moses, Jesus, Mohammad et al, story's stuff) and US going towards towards and will be going into the ITSELF again via your PLASMAtriculation at the non gravity Interface of the Entropy Miracle of your Photonic Transfinity. Wow! This is from my, and amny other ASPERINTS disciples of such “Cosmic [Religious] Feeling(s).

Our “Great-Prophet” and Father of Eclati-Unity, knows now, not then about his encounters with that “SPOOKY-STUFF” that WE today are trying to make your real Heuristics see, the Light/Photon, in you and in ALL things as Miracle via thee ECLATi and your mis understood or misaligned Heuristics Zero Man-Made diversions of a superstitious belief system.

Think PHOTONS. Because light/Photons. Is in fact LIFE. So there is life in your Photonic Life of a mist now that was never CREATED nor will you ever be DESTROYED! Just think clear, be clear & do and “try” to be good today! IT's (God) or ITSELF (g-d) is that simple but not too complicated like some of your INFIXUS BOOKS of ancient Lores and Man made Epochs not G-d, Zero YAWAH et al! ONLY the ECLATi in you and in ALL creatures and things known & unknown.

:The MAGMA MADE US. And To PLASMATIC LIGHT we go, in a loop like and Caterpillar to Butterfly experience. So Believe in YOURSELF, not someone else's, AS-IF-G-D, with a “Comic-Pen” had actually and literally wrote the TEN-COMMANDMENTS Himself [Not Women]. Wow!

ECLATi was given each of us in a unique Photon frequency range or string spectrum, and is from OUR great Father/Mother NEBULAE [OUR un-sinful and Just and Loving creator] for ALL HUMATES on this Miraculous Space-Ship Momma/Poppa Earth of O.U.R.S. & YES, for those Be yonder Creatures, known or unknown or never known too.

Vote for O.U.R.S. Via the U.N. {One-Universal-Religion-System}.

Sholom. Ya Ya Mon. : + )/

If I had a God, my God would look like Carmen Electra, and she'd do whatever I wanted.

Oh yea........now there's a heavenly relationship.

Ghostbuster,

You stated, more eloquently, what I was thinking too. Speed and I are far more in agreement than not.

Gaby: Can you tell me a little bit about your God?

Speed & Danny B.: I think you both have been indirectly making the same point about our argumentitive culture for the past week. Speed has been annoyed with the automatic discredit and of anything remotely Christian, Danny B points out the auto discrediting of anything remotely related to Islam. Does that sum it up pretty well? If so, it is good to see you both come to terms.

I don't think dialogue is IMPOSSIBLE with a stranger who thinks, or KNOWS that you or your belief system is ridiculous. It is just a bit more difficult to bridge the gap when speaking with a person like that I guess. One way to bridge the gap is with this weeks topic, forgiveness.

Sorry for straying off topic (yet again)

I know who was crucified that day!

Speed123,

Hard as I try, I am still capable of jumping to conclusions.

Your statement: "How can you have a discussion with a person if you reject their reasoning or ideas as foolish or evil? It inherently degrades that person and what they have decided to stand for whether it is faith or faith in science/atheism.

These conditions make dialogue untenable before you even begin that converstation that you say you are interested in.

You can keep your core beliefs and still have meaningful connection to those with different ideas - this is done through compromise and highlighting the value and common groud between the two sides."

I agree. Good point! Sorry about the Candide comment earlier.

"So Judas had free will, but God knew beforehand what choice he would make."

If God knows the outcome of EVERYTHING before it happens, then what is the point of putting His minions through the motions of life? Life itself becomes a charade - the inevitable conclusion to this particular point of view.

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly lacking in basic logic skills you God lovers are. The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Mr. Mark, that was tight. So what should we call you now Marky Mark or M&M?

My teaching has always portrayed Judas to be a weak person. He was originally one of Christ's strongest supporters but later he grew disenchanted. He was led astray and revealed Jesus's location and identity to the Roman guards. Then Judas felt great remorse for what he did and committed suicide. Because Judas committed suicide, we know that he realized the mistake he had made, and therefore it is possible that he asked for and received forgiveness from God for the error. Whether he received forgiveness for the suicide is also unclear.

One problem many people have is that if it was prophecized that Judas would betray Jesus, then did Judas have free will? This was explained to me this way: if God knows you will select the chocolate pudding before you slide your tray in front of the dessert section in the cafeteria, that does not interfere with your decision to select chocolate or banana. So Judas had free will, but God knew beforehand what choice he would make.

Speed123

I assure you that I was not set up. I'm simplistic in my Christian faith. I'm always open to new ideas though, but I don't imagine something is closer to the truth simply because it sounds very complicated. You'd be surprised to know that the most complex things in the world can be explained in a very simple way, even in science.

I am open to the wisdom in all religions and atheism for that matter, and still remain a Christian by conviction at the same time. I look for what is good and true and beautiful in thought and values, no matter where I find it. That works as a good discernment tool for me.

As to DyedInTheWoolSkeptic, I "met" him (I presume he is male, but maybe I am wrong) before in Sam Harris' threads, "Selfless Consciousness without Faith" and "God's Hostages." He has an unusual communication style. I got used to it.

What does Professor JD Crossan, a On Faith panelist, think actually happened during those last days of Jesus' life?

"My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the "Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. I have no doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset_ And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. And those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

bottom line: Judas if he existed at all probably did not have anything to do with the capture of Jesus. All the NT passages regarding Judas' role lack proper attestation and time sequencing. See Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus for specific details.

DyedInTheWoolSkeptic

On 26 April 2007 8:21 PM you wrote: “Fascinating fairy tale. But what is even more fascinating is that you actually believe this is an accurate representation of reality. Sheer idiocy. Staggering lack of common sense Soja. Simply staggering. Have you no shame?”

I reserve the right to believe what seems reasonable to me DyedInTheWoolSkeptic. I was born in the world’s largest democracy (after it gained independence) and live in a Western democracy you know. As to whether my belief constitutes staggering lack of common sense - your definition of common sense means nothing to me. Have I no shame? Why should I, by your definition of shame? I might ask you the same question, “Have you no shame to imagine that you know it all, that all others who think differently from you are idiots, and you may impose your idea of common sense on everyone?”

In Battle, a soldier learns that the greater sin -thus requiring the greater forgiveness - is not in the pulling of the trigger, but is firmly on the head of the person who placed the weapon in the hands of the shooter.
Thus we see a rainbow-of-variants in the degree of FORGIVENESS.

The Judas gospel did not make the final cut when the New Testament was put together.
Either did the Gospel of Mary Magdeline. According to that one we can only sin against ourselves. We mar our own soul and make it "less". Judas did as he was told. His "sin" was not trusting that God would forgive him because he could not forgive himself.

“I believe the Bible is nspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.”

Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

God as Creator of the universe is beyond good and evil. Evil is both the absence and destruction of good. Denying and destroying good is an act of created beings, both in the spiritual and human world, beings who have been given the gift of the free will. Jesus made references to the prince of darkness who has access to this world (and has no entry to heaven?). There is reference to powers and prinicipalies in the Bible, referring to the presence of evil also at a spiritual level. Buddhism also makes references to evil spirits.

As human beings we live in the world of duality, where there is good and evil, and we have the burden to choose our path. Those who have had deep spiritual experiences (through meditation for instance) experience a level of consciousness that is beyond good and evil because they experience union with God. But they speak foolishly and cause terrible moral confusion when they come out of that deep experience and explain that there is no duality (good and evil) at the human level of existence.

Thanks for your thoughts Labech. All Christians would do well to read the gnostic gospels and understand why they are not included in the canon. This is the only way they will be able to refute the slanted commentary of Ms. Pagels and other Jesus Seminar academics who question why the clerics at Nicea kept the best, most revealing stuff out of the Bible. Sorry, but if we only take basic literary quality as the standard, the gnostic texts don't measure up to the gospels included in the canon. (Google "gnostic gospels" and read them for yourselves.) More importantly they lack the lineage of authorship of the big four. Academics cherish the gnostic texts because today they are ancient writings--almost the contemporaries of the canonical gospels. To the people seeking to agree on canon in 325 AD, they just didn't measure up. In particular, gnostic texts lacked the carefully preserved history of authorship that demonstrated the canonical gospels were authoritative accounts by eyewitnesses or close contemporaries of Jesus Christ.

What am I missing, Ms. Pagels?

The hardest act of Contrition is the one you make to the God within "yourself". When you have - and only then - walked and talked with THAT God; all will be revealed to you.

I don’t believe your imaginary friend would approve of your tone there speed. Suggest you get down on your knees for a rousing session of wishful thinking (otherwise known as “prayer”).

REPENT!!!!

Ms. Pagels,

Thank you for an intriguing question. I am a Lutheran pastor and I, too, have wondered why Judas was ever singled out as someone who had done the "unforgiveable." Since when was Judas' misdeed any worse than Peter's who swore on oath that he never knew Jesus? When I read the passion stories, I get the sense that Jesus is abandoned in one way or another by everybody. No disciple or follower "stands up" for him. Had I lived then, I would probably that run and away and hid, too, when Jesus just gave himself up. I take it as a statement of the human condition.

If we believe the synoptics, Judas betrayed his master with a kiss. That is, Judas lead the high priests' soldiers to Jesus where Jesus could be arrested privately. The presumption was so the crowds in Jerusalem who supported him would not be upset. Judas identified Jesus out of a group of poor (maybe, ragged, too) Galilean Jews by greeting him with a kiss so the soldiers wouldn't get the wrong man in case Jesus and his disciples got up and ran. When Judas did that, he had to know it would certainly lead to Jesus' death. You have to admit, on a human scale, that's cold. But, not above forgiveness. If really Judas did that for the reasons given in a the gnostic gospel named after him, I would think him delusional. Delusional people frequently do things that lead to great harm to others.

Still, I don't see any reason why Judas should be singled out. In fact, the ancient creeds do not mention Judas, only Pontius Pilate, who gave the order for Jesus' death. Singling out Judas, or any one person, for eternal vilification seems to harkening back to an ancient Christian tradition, that we don't practice our own religion very well. Vilifying Judas gives us permission to do exactly what Jesus taught us not to do, condemn others. Vilifiying someone also gives us reason to feel self-righteous about doing something evil to the one we vilify.

Rather than worry about whether or not we could, should, would forgive Judas, why don't we look at Judas as a human being like too many others in the course of written history? Most of us are capable of justifying to ourselves deeds that bring terrible hurt and misfortune to others. The message that forgiveness is available even to the likes of us is truly redeeming and divine.

I will have to wait for you to publish something more to give us some enlightenment on gnostic motives and the Gospel of Judas. I read it when it was recently published and had a hard time making heads or tails of it.

Soja,

You are a simplton if that litney is all you know of faith.

I sense a setup.

Hey sheep-banger (dyedinthewoolskeptic)

....you are an ignorant bigot; go "shear" some more sheep.

Fascinating fairy tale. But what is even more fascinating is that you actually believe this is an accurate representation of reality. Sheer idiocy.

Staggering lack of common sense Soja. Simply staggering. Have you no shame?