The Best Game in Town

"Straight"

You're arguing against a straw-man version of the Christian faith that no one here is pushing. It feels as if you're shouting over my shoulder at someone who's not even in the room.

As for flippancy, all I can do is ask you to re-read your posts.

How do you get flippancy or mockery from what I said?

I assure you that I take your religion and your Bible very seriously indeed. And it scares me. It scares me that _anyone_, let alone millions of people can read the things I've read in the Bible and not only work to justify them, but actually see them as God wisely tempering even _more_ horrific ideas.

How, in any context, or any time, or any "civilization" can it be seen as right to stone to death one's child because that child disobeys his parents, or disrespects them, or chooses another religion for himself?

"Believer, Lots of folks have become non-believers after years of trying to make sense of the bible."

Absolutely - and others have found themselves convinced - intellectually honest, sincere people disagree about these things. My point is that it doesn't help when people - on either side - fail to take the other's point of view seriously.

It's far too easy to flippantly mock what we don't agree with, without ever taking the time to understand it. If we really understand someone else's position, we may still strongly disagree with them (it's a fallacy to assume, when someone disagrees with us, that "you just don't understand. . . "), but we're much less likely to mock them.

Believer, Lots of folks have become non-believers after years of trying to make sense of the bible.

"I am convinced that the higher power does not exist."

This is really the root difference between the two of us. If you're convinced that God does not exist, it will affect the way you approach the Hebrew and Christian scriptures - most likely, it will from the very beginning make it impossible for you to take them seriously.

Because I do in fact believe in a supreme being, I am forced to dig in and ask myself "is this inspired, and if so, what does it really mean?"

"I can't feature worshipping, well... _anything_, really, but certainly not the God I meet in the Bible."

Based on what you've said, I would argue that you've never really met the God of the Bible. It sounds as if you haven't even approached the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures as serious examples of human moral and religious thought. (Whatever else you may say about them, they are surely that.)

It's easy to mock Shakespeare if you've never taken then time to understand the plays. The same is true of any piece of great literature that originates from a very different time and place.

I don't assume that you'd be persuaded to become a believer if you took the time to understand the Bible in proper context - but I am convinced that you would better understand why hundreds of millions of us are believers, and you'd be less flippant about our faith.

I am convinced that the higher power does not exist.

Were I not, then the "trust and respect" would come into play. I can't feature worshipping, well... _anything_, really, but certainly not the God I meet in the Bible.

"No, I can't honestly say that I believe in a higher power, but I know for sure that if I did, it would not be the God of the Christian Bible."

That's the impression I got.

When you say that you don't "believe in" a higher power, do you mean that you are not convinced that the higher power exists - or perhaps more strongly, are you convinced that it does not exist?

Or by "believe in" do you mean "trust and respect?"

I'd like to offer one thought. When we talk about people - politicians, scientists, philosophers, whoever - we don't draw conclusions about their existance based on whether we agree with them (or even like them). Whether or not we agree with them may be important - but for other reasons. (Just like we don't believe that the big bang occured because we like the idea - or refuse to believe in it because we just don't like the concept.)

Sorry, Concerned, but I have to reply.
No, I can't honestly say that I believe in a higher power, but I know for sure that if I did, it would not be the God of the Christian Bible.

"If I were he, I know what I'd say to any god that required that."

Do you believe in the existance of a God? If we're not at that point, then the rest of the discussion is meaningless.

For someone who is convinced that God does exist, then understanding Him and His will becomes very important.

Concerned - my apologies.

Straight but Realistic,

Going off-topic violates the etiquette of blogging. For a good example of staying on topic, see the comments to Sam Harris' views.

Concerned,
That's the way human discourse proceeds - one topic leads to another. Get over it.

Believer, that reply was a whole bunch of words saying (but carefully avoiding doing so directly) that , yes, a homosexual has to go his entire lifetime without sex - or the love and comfort of a partner. This for something that's no fault of his own. Nice.

You try to make it sound less punitive by saying that had you not married, you would have been rquired to do the same - but you DID marry, didn't you? Our hypothetical homosexual doesn't have that option. If I were he, I know what I'd say to any god that required that.

BTW, I didn't assume that you were Catholic (although it wouldn't surprise me to find that you were). I only mentioned Catholics because of the celibacy requirement for priests - and how wonderfully well that's been working out. Not.

And today's off-topic award goes to________?

Straight But Realistic,

no one denies that, as you put it, "sex is a powerful natural force." Nor do Christians believe that it is inherently evil - after all, we believe that God invented it.

Your sarcasm is misplaced when you accuse me of being "magnanimous" - I have no desire to establish myself as a lawgiver, or as an arbiter of morality. I am convinced, for reasons that are really part of another discussion, that the core claims of Christianity are true. I'm trying my best to understand how God wants me to live - all of it, ethics, morals, the whole ball of wax. If you take Christianity seriously, the question isn't "how do I think we should live," but "how does God want us to live?"

(As an aside - I'm genuinely curious - why do you assume that I'm Catholic?)

Is there any shame in being born as God has made us? Of course not - it's beyond our control. Some things make life easier - great natural intelligence or tremendous innate athletic ability, perhaps - and others can make it harder - a physical disability, a tendency towards alcoholism, or mental illness, for example. We choose none of this. We are worthy of praise or blame only for what we do with what we're given.

Speaking of sex, you go on to say that "the day comes when they can deny it no longer...thus the current scandals."

Sexual ethics are only part of the New Testament message - but they are part of it. The standards set are high - regardless of your orientation. The Christian view (and indeed, the Jewish and Muslim views as well) are that God expects us to be in control of our sexuality. (Note that control is different from denial - we never deny who we are, but we control what we do.)

In the heterosexual context, the standard laid out in the Bible demanded that I remain celibate until marriage. Had I not married, it would have demanded that I stay celibate.

If the health of my wife were to prevent us from engaging in sex, it would again be necessary for me to be celibate. If she were to die, it would be necessary for me to remain celibate until and unless I remarried.

Is this challenging? Heck yeah. Nothing in scripture says otherwise.

"But sometimes the timing gets screwed up, and the brain ends up oriented the other way. There should be no more shame in that than there is in being born without legs."

That's absolutely true.

"Nor should these people be sentenced to a life of denying their sexuality or one of fewer rights than those enjoyed by heterosexual persons."

No one is ever asked to deny who they are. But in the Christian world view, sex and marriage are not "rights" - they are gifts given by God, to be used as He directs. I may not correctly understand the teachings of scripture on the question of homosexualityh - there are Christians who disagree with me - but ultimately, for the Christian who takes his or her faith seriously, it is a question of "what's God's will."

"The Bible is wrong about a great many of the 'laws' laid down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If you're going to uphold this one, let's uphold them all. Ready to stone some adulterers to death?"

The specific judicial procedures and penalties in the Pentateuch were given for a specific time and place - as was much else, such as the animal sacrifices. No serious student of scripture believes they are still applicable - not even the most orthodox Jews believe that they still govern.

As to the larger question - yes, adultery is just as contrary to God's will as homosexual intercourse. It would be just as wrong for me - in fact, morally no different - for me to cheat on my wife with another woman than it would be for me to cheat on her with another man.

Believer wrote:
"Most who take the Bible seriously as a standard for faith and morals do find themselves forced to conclude that active engagement in homosexual intercourse is not consistent with God's will for us.

Understand, though, that even those of us who understand scripture to teach this do not believe that: a) homosexual orientation is in itself sinful"

As I understand this, you're saying that it's OK to BE a homosexual, just don't ACT on it. Right?
How magnanimous of you! If his head isn't on straight (according to YOUR ideas) a gay person should just go a lifetime without sex?

I think this is precisely the problem in the Catholic church as it is. Boys who find that their sexual orientation is to other men are horrified that they will go to hell for it, so they join the priesthood, thinking that if they must remain celibate, this is the way. But sex is a powerful natural force, and the day comes when they can deny it no longer...thus the current scandals.

A gay person doesn't CHOOSE his orientation any more than a straight person does - did you CHOOSE yours? Was it a tough choice? Don't you think Haggard would have chosen differently if he could have?

Sexual orientation happens in utero - the brain is masculinized or feminized by the chemical environment at a certain critical point in development. At this time the fetus is meant to release hormones that cause changes in the brain. But sometimes the timing gets screwed up, and the brain ends up oriented the other way. There should be no more shame in that than there is in being born without legs. Nor should these people be sentenced to a life of denying their sexuality or one of fewer rights than those enjoyed by heterosexual persons.

The Bible is wrong about a great many of the "laws" laid down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If you're going to uphold this one, let's uphold them all. Ready to stone some adulterers to death?

"The Christian community should be defending the Rev. Mr. Haggard's dealings with his male prostitute/dealer friend. There was nothing wrong or sinful about that relationship. Mr. Haggard's only "sins" were preaching what he preached and then accusing himself of wrongdoing."

Really? Setting the issue of homosexuality aside, wasn't he a married man? Just how appropriate is it to hire a prostitute - of either gender? What was he doing buying drugs illegally?

There's nothing particularly moral or holy about any of this - as Mr. Haggard has quite properly acknowledged.

The issue of homosexual relations is one that Christians disagree on. Most who take the Bible seriously as a standard for faith and morals do find themselves forced to conclude that active engagement in homosexual intercourse is not consistent with God's will for us. You disagree - fine.

Understand, though, that even those of us who understand scripture to teach this do not believe that: a) homosexual orientation is in itself sinful; b) that homosexual relations are any "worse" than any other sin, such as adultery, theft, etc.; c) that God loves someone with a homosexual orientation any less than he loves anyone else; d)or that we are any better than someone who is homosexual.

Believer,

The Christian community should be defending the Rev. Mr. Haggard's dealings with his male prostitute/dealer friend. There was nothing wrong or sinful about that relationship. Mr. Haggard's only "sins" were preaching what he preached and then accusing himself of wrongdoing.

KnowYourBible,

Christians aren't answering you because your post of 11:03 is a silly charicature of what most Christians believe (I'm tempted to describe it as the "Monty Python" version of Christianity). Even very theologically conservative Christians understand scripture to have been written using natural human language, using the idioms, figures of speach and literary conventions of the time.

Yes, there are people who claim to be Christians who are hypocrites. There are also people trying their best to be faithful Christians who are flawed in various ways - as are we all.

Christians who take their religion seriously understand that we're called to a higher standard of personal moral behavior. We cannot condone or excuse sin. I think you'll find that the Christian community is not defending Mr. Haggard's behavior - nor should it. We do believe in the possibility of repentence, of changed lives, and of forgiveness. That is, after all, the core message of Christianity.

"It's fairly common for people to choose a career because of an exciting experience during adolescence."

This is very true. But it has nothing to do with religious faith.

As traditionally understood by most serious Christians, Jews and Moslims, faith requires a combination of belief and trust. It makes no sense to have "faith" in something you know to be a figment of your imagination (e.g., Santa Claus), no matter how emotionally uplifting or psychologically meaningful that figment may be to you.

It also makes no sense to say you have "faith" in someone or something that you know to exist, but do not trust (e.g., for Cindy Sheehan to say she has "faith" in George Bush - she knows he exists, but still . . . ).

There's nothing here that suggests Mr. Crossan's experience gave him an insight into the existance or nature of God. There's nothing here that suggests he found a new trust in God, or commitment to God.

He chose a career, and describes it in a way that suggests he saw (and perhaps still sees) religion as just another job.

I don't think Dr. Crossan claims his experience was mystical - just exciting.

It's fairly common for people to choose a career because of an exciting experience during adolescence.

Do readers skip all posts of more than three paragraphs, like I do?

If so, should we let posters of more than, say, 120 words know this?

Unless, of course, the poster is a new Mark Twain.

Dear Baal and KYB

There is a new posting by Marcus Borg where the mystical experience--if not the"God of the Mystics"--is discussed. I suggest removing there should you wish to continue the discussion further. You can see one example of crude reductionism on the Borg forum already--IMO this seems to be one of the consistent logical errors 'scientific' (especially!) atheists make.

Why, I wonder?

Best

NarrowGate.

You gave me a Creationist website.

I still have not seen my questions answered [see my post from 11:03 am yesterday.] and this is not the first site I have posted.

Feel free to use your website (or any other website) and all the help you can find..
for assistance.

I can't get Christians to answer these. I look forward to you being the first.

Don't disappoint me now.

Tangent,

Most of my comments applied to conservative (not liberal Christians). And I would agree that many fundamentalist Christians are -- personally -- wonderful and good people.

My point, still is why was it so easy to FOOL most Christians with false leaders--since these groups claim to be in tune with the Holy Spirit?

"I" was able to read how both Bush and Haggard were major hypocrites before the devout Christians seemed to figure this out. (With Bush, many Christians still have not figured it out.)

Is this not proof their "spiritual feelings" are not very reliable?

Of course, even the Bible notes feelings are not reliable, else it would not give a test for following false prophets and leaders...

"and ye shall know them by their works."

But I don't see modern Christians applying this. Why is it?

It's because it is sects like the Evangelists who think they can rely on their feelings, and throw away their intellect.

I don't accuse more liberal Christian sects of this. But this group usually stays timid and silent, harboring their doubts to themselves.

That's what I meant.

I didn't know DubYa talked to God before the Iraq invasion. Figures. Everyone who talks to God heas what they want to hear. I can't help but notice some of them want to hear of pending disasters but none come while Bush wanted to hear of great triumphs and has gotten a REAL disaster.

"God sho is dumb" is what the underprivledged kid had to say about it. Maybe the public schools have better educational opportunities than the private ones. They don't teach lies and call them the word of God or encourage the children to hallucinate, see God.

You could be onto something KYB, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says you are. That part about Bush talking to Devil. Did you see them politicians taking their oaths with their hands on Bibles? Don't even have to cross their fingers.

please don't lump all christians together with bush and haggard. evil exists and is manifested in all human beings, including christians, or those who claim to be christians. rather than focus on bush, look at mother teresa, if you want an example of a real christian life.
oh, and the concept of hell that modernity has is largely a result of dante and john milton, not in fact biblical teaching. revelation is not a book concerning the end times, and should be understood alligorically. the whole burning sulfur, lake of fire stuff is a misrepresentation of it's true purpose, the only true scriptural principle regarding soteriology is that those who believe will be w/ god, and those who don't will be away from his/her presence and consequently, away from any or all goodness, hence "weeping and gnashing of teeth." (sorry, dont have the exact reference on hand) it's a choice, to be with him/her or not.

1 more thing: genesis is, was, never meant to be a scientific textbook, and christian fundamentalists who think that are mistaken. it's purpose is show give glory to god for creating the universe, not a blueprint for how he/she did it. (belief in that account is, of course, up to the reader.)

Knowyourbible,

You need to look at your "scientific" evidence for evolution more objectively. Take a look at this web site: www.answersingenesis.org

[ Mary C. A religious experience--a truly mystical, religious experience--is usually both intensely personal and beautiful (it is also rare). What Karl Barth called the 'sensing of the numinous' comes through the nonverbal senses and is difficult to describe in words. Music: yes, Figurative art: yes, Poetry: yes. Prose: difficult, if not impossible. ]

==========================================
Mary, Why do you "presume" only the religious have mystical, spiritual experiences by calling them RELIGIOUS experiences? I assure you religious skeptics including atheists to too. We just attribute the source as emanating from ourselves -- not a divine external source.

I had the same strong spiritual feelings WHEN I was religions – as now --when I believe there is no OUTSIDE DIVINE religion.

These feelings (which I feel as strong electrical tingly pulses flowing through me) can be triggered by music, art, and poetry as you note. But it can also be prose or movies – especially when experiencing the love of a parent for their child (ranging from great happiness to grief over a death), a doctor trying to help others, or a case worker trying to help a disadvantages or poor person.

Neuroscientists such as Michael Persinger, have shown they can induce spiritual feelings (including mystical out of body experiences) by subjecting our brains to strong patterns of magnetic fields. CAT scans show that meditation and other spiritual states.

“In a related study reported in the 2001 book Why God Won’t Go Away, researchers Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili found that when Buddhist monks meditate and Franciscan nuns pray their brain scans indicate strikingly low activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe, a region of the brain the authors have dubbed the Orientation Association Area (OAA), whose job it is to orient the body in physical space (people with damage to this area have a difficult time negotiating their way around a house). When the OAA is booted up and running smoothly there is a sharp distinction between self and non-self. When OAA is in sleep mode — as in deep meditation and prayer — that division breaks down, leading to a blurring of the lines between reality and fantasy, between feeling in body and out of body. Perhaps this is what happens to monks who experience a sense of oneness with the universe, or with nuns who feel the presence of God, or with alien abductees floating out of their beds up to the mother ship.

Sometimes trauma can trigger such experiences. The December 2001 issue of Lancet published a Dutch study in which of 344 cardiac patients resuscitated from clinical death, 12 percent reported near-death experiences (NDEs), where they floated above their bodies and saw a light at the end of a tunnel. Some even described speaking to dead relatives.

The general explanation for all of these phenomena is that since our normal experience is of stimuli coming into the brain from the outside, when a part of the brain abnormally generates these illusions, another part of the brain interprets them as external events. Hence, the abnormal is thought to be the paranormal. In reality, it is just brain chemistry.’
(taken from Michael Schermer’s recent debate with Deepak Choprak)

==============================================

No one has ever been able to prove they have special knowledge from these trances. Worse, there is a lot of evidence that people who say they are in these mystical states, really are not.

Just a few easy examples:

* Bush insisted he talked to God before ordering the invasion of Iraq for WMD.
Either Bush is lying, Bush was talking to the Devil, or else Mr. Bush was just mistaken and really talking to himself.

* Why did Evangelists (many who purportedly pray to the Holy Spirit on a daily basis) have no clue that Ted Haggard was a gay and a drug user? It took a gay prostitute to inform the Evangelist movement.

* I've heard preachers state how they talked to God (about trivial items such as taking Church money to build an expensive parking lot.) Somehow... God almost ALWAYS seems to agree with them, but it quiets skeptical parishioners.

*Look at all the televangelists who tell the most despicable lies and become rich off their believing flock.

==============================================================
Spiritual feeling are not linked just to the religious. And there is no evidence they give ANYONE true knowledge.

Reductionists have never had a problem accommodating the phenomenon of "emergent properties". Rather, the existence of emergent properties is essential to avoid absurdities already noted, and this recognition is the starting point of research into complex systems. Reductionism has been the single most successful approach ever used towards understanding natural phenomena, even though synthetic explanatory leaps are needed to "put the pieces back together again". Reductionism is a humble acknowledgment that people just aren't smart enough to solve big complex problems in one step. People are able to effectively think about two or maybe three scales of organization at one time. Not more. Reductionists also know that putting the pieces back together again is the more difficult task.

Attempts to solve big problems in one step are doomed to fail and lead one to absurdities -- like looking to imaginary friends and magic for an explanation of things not easily understood. Some people have trouble letting go of a medieval world view, even if it is notably unsuccessful.

On Reductionist Errors:

The following quote is the first essay in a handy little introductory philosophy book entitled "How to think like a Philosopher".

"[Discussing Thales's grand theory that all properties is the world were composed of water]...Thales was making a grand reduction. The properties of all objects in the world, be they metals, mountains, gases or people, were reducible to just one set of properties--those of water. So if you ground things finely enough, dissected them thinly enoungh or examined them closely enough, you would not find iron or stone or flesh, but water. [Thales was, of course, mistaken but he did live in 460 BC.} It might seem strange than anyone would want to explain one thing in terms of another, rather than treating it on its own terms, but this how reduction proceeds....

The taste of abricots, for example, could be reduced to the interplay of the molecules of the fruit with the receptors in our palate. But does this not ignore the sensation of what apricots actually taste like? After all, someone could know about the chemical constituents of apricots without ever having eaten one?"

Duff:

A reductionist error many atheists make. But the components of the form do not equal the form itself. The bits and pieces of coloured glass that were used to make the great north stained glass window of Chartres are not the same as that great window itself. And if--God forbid--you smashed that window, the ensuing broken pieces would also not be the same.

If you mixed up the notes of, say, a Bach cantata, played them back to front, the music would be dissimilar. Yet they are the same notes.
But it is not the same music.

Brain wave patterns in epilepsy might be composed of the same patterns as those when we listen to music, take drugs or--for a very few--sense the numinous, but it is not the same situation at all.

I hope this is clear. I hope it is also clear that Crossan in this mystical sense is not in the least religious.

Mary Cunningham, you claim a "truly mystical, religious experience is both intensely personal and beautiful...". I can assure you, if it is intense enough there is a fine line between mystical and insanity, or maybe even temporal lobe epilepsy.

BGone says:
"This blog, not just this thread doesn't seem to have much body with the question posed.----I'm left to believe most visitors haven't had much in the way of a religious experience or they're ashamed of it one or the other."

Good point but your conclusion is wrong. A religious experience--a truly mystical, religious experience--is usually both intensely personal and beautiful (it is also rare). What Karl Barth called the 'sensing of the numinous' comes through the nonverbal senses and is difficult to describe in words. Music: yes, Figurative art: yes, Poetry: yes. Prose: difficult, if not impossible.

But I do agree that Crossan's 'relgious' experience is not/was never religious.

I wrote this to an Evangelical named Canyan when he claimed the Bible was scientific.

He then wrote back that he didn't have to answer me. Since I gave citations, anyone else is free to jump in if they want.

* According to Genesis, the earth and heaven were created on Day 1, and the sun, moon, and other stars were created on Day 4. [Modern astronomy holds the earth is an ORDINARY planet that was created billions of years later, not earlier than the sun and the rest of the universe!]

* Is the earth flat instead of spherical? The prophet Daniel described a vision of a giant tree situated in the middle of the earth, whose "top reached heaven and [which] was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11). Daniel was clearly envisioning a flat earth, since a giant tree was needed from which to view the entire world. Likewise, Matthew implied the earth was flat when he stated that Jesus was able to see every empire on earth when looking down from a high mountaintop. (Matthew 4:8)

* Is the earth a STATIONARY body in the universe, as opposed to revolving around the sun, which in turn wheels around our galaxy? According to Chronicles 16:30," the world stands firm, never to be moved" (See also, Psalms 93:1,96:10, and 104:5).

* According to the Old Testament, Joshua ordered the sun to halt, implying the earth is fixed in space with the sun revolving around it-- in order to give the hebrew army more sunlight for taking "vengeance on their enemies" (Joshua 10:12-14). Modern astronomy teaches the earth and planets revolve around the sun which spins in a massive galaxy, one of billions.

*How Old is the Earth? Geology teaches that the earth is billions of years old - as opposed to being created in six days about six thousand years ago.

*In 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the author describes how when Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, that a circular bowl was made that measured 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. As any mathematician can tell you, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is a mathematical constant known as pi--and whose PRECISE value is GREATER than 3 (ie 3.1415926...)

*The Old Testament states witches exist and should be executed. (These verses were thought to be responsible for the witch hysteria in Europe and New England.)

*The New Testament believes in “false Messiahs and prophets” who have real powers, equal to those of Jesus (but not from the true God, instead from the Devil). This was a common belief in the ancient world prior to employing the scientific method.

*The New Testament describes the cause of mental illness to be from demons and repeats the commonly held ancient view that cures can only come from casting out these demons.

--"They brought to [Jesus] all who were ill or possessed by devils...He healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many devils." (Mark 1:32-4; Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40-1)

--"So all through Galilee he went...casting out the devils." (Mark 1:39, Matthew 4:23)

========================

[there's lots more too, the Flood covering the entire earth, the Ark carrying all the species of animals on it, the age of the earth... even if a day meant eon, the eons would have dramatically different time spans -- some in billions of years, some in millions; the order of Creation in Genesis Chapter 1 for animals is different that the independent Creation story in Genesis Chapter 2....]

Tom (I saw another poster put this out and I liked it.)

If religion gave people special insights and make them better people, wouldn't we be seeing this?

The bible says, "And you shall know them by their works."

Let's take George Bush. He says God told him Iraq had WMD and the two of them discussed him invading Iraq.

Doesn't look good for Bush. But conservative Christians don't seem to look at this as a real test.

Then there was the Reverend Ted Haggard, head of the Evangelists Churches: With Evangelists Holy Rollers insisting they commune directly with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, etc...

how come it took a gay priest to tell them that their leader was gay and a druggie?

Doesn't look good to me.

If you look at a history book on Christianity -- especially during the Dark Ages at the Catholic Church -- the behavior is outright atrocious.

I would expect to see BETTER behavior than average when the Church ruled society, not worse behavior.

Tom H.

Regarding Pascal's Wager:

You still have to believe in the correct religion (not just any ole religion) for it to apply.

Else, you're going to the same place as atheists.

And let's say the true God is Zeus -- we are all in the same boat, man...

Don't like Zeus, what about Krishna? or the Reverend Moon, or Ray Hubbard (Scientology), the list could go on and on.

But here is my reasoning:

If there was an all powerful God that demanded our obedience to his Laws -- we would each instantly "know" what those laws are just as if it was another sense.

Then the true test would be whether we obeyed those laws or not.

What all good God would punish his creation for not knowing (really knowing) what his demands were.

If you look in the Bible you see terrible superstitions. If you look at the history of Christianity, you see terrible corruption, wars, and evil popes, etc easily fooling the people.

Seems to me if there was a God he would appreciate the good atheist for not falling in with all the evil priests who use his name to do evil.

[ Norrie: I agree completely. And if there was such a God, he would make sure everyone knew exactly what he wanted... instead of making humans "guess".]

There are tens of thousands of sects -- each telling their followers only they know God's secret. (And that's just in Christianity.)

How many wars have been fought (remember the Protestant/Catholic wars, the Crusades, etc) because people couldn't AGREE what God really wanted and so fought over it?

And think of it. A (vain) God whose top interest was to be worshipped in the proper manner -- wouldn't allow his subjects to remain ignorant in the exact manner he wished to be worshipped in.

Shelley put this the best:

"If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?" --Percy Bysshe Shelley

Not to mention, God sure doesn't know a lot about science in the Bible:

"When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know." -- Mark Twain

it seems to me thisis a better explanation of ALL the facts:

"Pay no attention to that man behind the Curtain" -- the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz

Actually, Pascal missed the whole point of faith. It's not faith in God but faith in the Bible that's so confusing only God's agents can read it. That means faith must first be in Bible readers and then that the Bible is God's word. One or the other first else faith comes in pairs. How does that stack up in a "hedge your bet" probabilities setting? Worse than simple not believing there is a God that's got everyone under the suspecions?

The Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, no holy book needs to be God's word or the word of God's agents, prophets for there to be a God. They are evidence there is no God that wishes to communicate with people more that evidence there is one.

KnowyourBible,

Pascal's wager only makes sense if the "God" in question is a Yahweh type, i.e, a sadistic monster. A benevolent god wouldn't care if anyone believed in Him/Her or not, so there would not be any negative consequences to not believing.

KYB, thanks for the info. So Pascallie says it's better to believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. I can think of many situations where that's a killer. Knowing that's why I don't own the Brookly bridge and be not a land baron in S.Fla.

PT Barnum had a lot of Pascals pass through his doors no doubt. I guess it's doubt that made Pascal what he was and made PT say things. You know, things about another sucker being born each and every minute.

BGONE,

Pascal's Wager is not a formal "proof" for the existence in God. Instead, it is a form of hedging, based on statistical outcomes to weigh the consequences of NOT believing in God.

According to Pascal, it is impossible to rationally "prove" the existence of God to an unbeliever. But the consequences of NOT believing far outweigh those of believing in a God who does not really exist. That is, per Pascal there are two possible states: (1) either God exists, or, alternatively (2) God
does not exist.

Pascal reasoned that in the (unlikely) state that there is no God--it really posed no serious harm for one to FALSELY believe in the existence of God. However, the opposite was NOT true. For if God truly exists, then this mistake has terrible consequences--specifically eternal damnation and suffering in hell!

To Pascal, man's best course of action is to HEDGE himself against the future by believing in God!

However, his wager is based on some rather simplistic assumptions, which if not true, quickly brings down the whole theory:

Pascal's Wager assumes there are only two states: you either believe in God or not. But what if one believes in God, but worships the God of the "wrong religion"? Many religions (or sects within religions) teach that only believers of their God and doctrine are going to heaven. Therefore, if you believe in God
but belong to the "wrong" religion, you could still go to hell.

Pascal assumes there is really no harm done if an INDIVIDUAL believes in God - and God did not really exist. But this also assumes every individual is isolated - an island to themselves-without affecting the lives of others and
society collectively as a whole.

1. PW ignores the NEGATIVE cost when a person's beliefs in God cause them to be passive (as opposed to active) in improving society-both for the present AND for future generations.

2. PW ignores the NEGATIVE cost to society from religious fanatics trying to impose their view on society, sometimes through violence.

I find this one very, very curious. Mr. Crossan describes making the decision to choose the priesthood as a lifes work as a "formative religious experience" - but he describes making that decision in much the same way, and for much the same reasons, as you might imaging someone deciding to become a cowboy rather than an accountant. Or perhaps more to the point, a sociologist studying religion, rather than a member of the clergy.

Is there anything other than excitement here?

I would really, really like to know if Mr. Crossan's decision was based on belief in anything other than the excitement and interest of the job.

If not - this particular vignette appears to be completely unrelated to the idea of "faith."

Bob, what's the problem? Don't you find religious ceremonies exciting? If they had a public hanging lots of folks would show up. How about a curcufuxion, if you really want to draw a crowd.

They sent the "mean little kid" to Catholic school and he straightened right up. He expalined it with what they do to those that misbehave, hang them on the cross.

"But those missionary priests were something else. And, what profoundly caught my imagination were those missionary priests who came from monastic orders. What struck me very forcibly is that religion insofar as it was incarnated in people like those speakers was the most exciting form of life I could imagine (I adored my father, but it never occurred to me to be a bank manager like him).

At the age of 15 the constitutive religious experience for me was that God seemed to have the most exciting game in town."

Wow. This question really reveals all the columnists here, doesn't it. Will this guy ever grow up?

Concerned, good shot! Jesus was iliterate? I knew it all along. Jesus did come back to life. His new name was Muhammad. That explains how both their bodies are in heaven when there's only room for one.

Tom, I'm not familiar with Pascal's wager. I've heard that he proved there was a God but can't be sure about either he did actually do that, prove there is a God or made a proper calculation. Perhaps you could share that with us. Faith experiences seem to be in short supply. You don't want to hear another "saw the light" story?

Professor Crossan,

I have read many of your books and continually use your conclusions listed in these books in addressing NT issues on many religious blogs to include this one.

There are two points in these books that continue to concern me.

1. In "Who is Jesus", you note that you do not believe in an afterlife. Is that still true?

2. You have concluded that Jesus was an illiterate peasant from Palestine but conclude in "The Historical Jesus" that the one reference (Luke 4:16, 22+. Prophet's Own Country: (1) Gos. Thom. 31 & P. Oxy. 1.31; (2) Mark 6:1-6a = Matt 13:53-58; (3) Luke 4:16-24; (4) John 4:44)) to Jesus' ability to read was historical. How do you rectify the differences?

most formative religious experience:
as a young adult
objectively, concluding that the universe was designed, apparently with the purpose of humans. Then finding credence in the Biblical record.
subjectively, comparing lives lived by faith community with others, desiring what I saw in one over the other, which reinforced what my mind was concluding
years of adulthood have confirmed my choice more solidly
Pascal's wager applies: if I'm wrong, all I've lost in money and time I've given away when I could have been having "fun". If I'm right....

Even in his youth Professor Crossan was wise. Finding religion exciting is probably the best possible reason for going into "the religion business", just as it is for going into any other business. Much better than choosing a religious life because of a miraculous conversion, fear of the afterlife or sexuality, or simply not knowing what to do in life (like so many law students I have known).

It's great that he still feels the same at age 72. His life seems to be a validation of making important decisions on the basis of intuition and immediate global perception, rather than attempting a process of formal reasoning.

This blog, not just this thread doesn't seem to have much body with the question posed. I'm left to believe most visitors haven't had much in the way of a religious experience or they're ashamed of it one or the other.

There is the case of the fellow who "saw the light" on the way to the mail box that had his draft notice in it. He had to tell the draft board at a minimum about his religious experience, thoughts of getting bayonetted by one of Patton's "hun bastards" or worse not being included.

Mr. Crossan, Do you believe in God?

It would really be interesting to know more about what those missionary priests from Africa had to say about their experiences in Africa that caught your imagination so much. The 1940's surely was a period of turmoil in many African countries as they were moving from colonial exploitation to national independence. How did those priests portray black Africans to Irish children? As exotic? As noble savages? As oppressed by European white settlers? Did they project their task as part of a civilizing mission to the uncivilized?

It would really be interesting to know more about what those missionary priests from Africa had to say about their experiences in Africa that caught your imagination so much. The 1940's surely was a period of turmoil in many African countries as they were moving from colonial exploitation to national independence. How did those priests portray black Africans to Irish children? As exotic? As noble savages? As oppressed by European white settlers? Did they project their task as part of a civilizing mission to the uncivilized?