R3NNiS

LOL the line has gotten even more tangled. :P

I bring up the POSSIBILITY of other universes only as an intermediate conclusion of this: If one assumes that the universe consists of random variables, then since our universe is rare in that it supports life, it must be the result of one of these two scenarios (both of which require a primary and sustaining Metaphysical cause): 1. That God wove the fabric of our universe just so, so that the unlikely could occur, life and humanity. or 2. that God created a number of random universes for the simple purpose of creating, or with our universe ultimately in mind.

These are just thoughts, nothing i really lean my weight on. While i might not know the details of God's creation, there is much simply in our existence and the possibilities that point toward a God who is intentional and loving, and who has provided us with sufficient knowledge of Himself and the capacity for relationship. I ultimately believe that a personal and Holy God, the one described in the Bible, has purposed me for relationship with him, that i was born unprepared for that relationship (in sin), and that He has, through grace in Christ, offered a restored relationship, not just for me, but for all.

Og

I guess your belief is out a need for causality in your head then?

I see no reason why causality need to apply to the existence of the universe. And by that, I'm not saying that the universe just all of a sudden happened out of nothing. I'm saying that causality and time only have value as concepts within the frame work. Without causality (i.e. theoretically outside the framework), why need there be a creator? Does the verb "to be" even apply there? Can it have tenses? If so, why? Because within the universe we observe these things existing?

As for belief in god: Ok.

Personally, I think that making it an issue of belief or not belief misses the point. I think this idea of myth as fact makes the religion dead. Buddha was said to have been born out of his mother's side at the level of her heart. This is identical to a virgin birth. But buddhists don't actually think he was born out of his mother's side. It's symbolic of a spiritual person's birth or rebirth. If someone told you today that "this guy over there" was born from the side of his mother, would you believe it? Nah, i don't think so. That's not how people are literally born. Why suspend belief for older claims? Because lots of people do?

By solidifying the myth as fact, I feel that you become dead to life. Maybe the pretty stories of god make you feel alive and loved, but I don't think that anything applied from the outside is going to bring you to the kingdom of heaven.

But hey, there's nothing saying that belief in myth as fact isn't a good first step. That's what we do with the spirit of christmas. Kids believe in santa claus and then are graduated to the myth as metaphor in the spirit of christmas.

R3NNiS

My belief is supported by a perceived need of a Cause outside of the confines of physical and temporal causation. explained above...

My belief was not my main issue. My main issue was to argue that Reality itself has a Cause, or a Reason.

But it will come down in the end to faith. Whether parts of the bible are literally and factually accurate, there is only one truth. I have neverheard of that version of the Virgin birth. I believe that Jesus was born in a natural way, but that he was concieved supernaturally, that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born.

I mentioned my personal convictions (which are spiritual), which i see no resemblance to myth or mythic facts, to describe what I beleive the purpose/reason of the universe is. We have the capacity for knowledge and the capacity for relatioship. I made no assertions to the existence of Adam and Eve, but i believe that there is enough evidence in even a secular reading of the Gospel accounts to affirm the reality of Jesus. As for the Bible, while parts of it were not intended to be perfectly historical, but often history, and possibly legend based moral lessons, it is a book where divine and human elements coexist in order to sufficiently reveal true knowledge of God, and His plan for relationship.

As for the last two paragraphs talking about solidifying myth to fact making me more dead to life, I have no idea what you are driving at in those few sentences

Og

Yah, I hear you. I understand why you see no resemblance of myth to fact these days. Christianity has been an idol religion (myths for what they denote instead of what they connote) for around 1500 years. In that span of time a lot has changed in the worlds. The myths did not evolve with the culture because they were made concrete.

This is what I mean about it being dead.

And faith is no answer either. It's an arbitrary assertion. And most of the time made based on "feelings" that you have without all the information.

You believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. You believe that this is an actual fact. Yet you would not accept it as fact today because people do not become born as virgins.

The story of virgin (read: spiritual) birth was nothing new to christianity. As I said before, buddha came out of his mother's side at the level of the heart indicating a spiritual birth (heart chakra is above the concerns of the carnal nature of man). A variety of egyptian and greek gods would periodically do this too.. Orpheus, for example, was the son of apollo.

Point was not that they actually were. The stories tell us that this is a spiritual birth.

But you say "it was really a literal virgin birth because of faith" when all the traditions of man point to something much more powerful. The power of a human being (like you and me) who are, in the end, the writers of myth.

This is basic eastern religion.

R3NNiS

No I believe it was a factual literal Virgin birth. not that the miracle is a product of my faith, but that the miracle inspires faith. you can go ahead and get cyclical on that. "Which came first, the miracle of the faith?" I'll say the miracle.

My main assertion is that there is something (or some-One) from "outside" physical existence that caused, evidently sustains and ordains our reality to exist. You can call that a myth or not. You arent really engaging the point, but injecting your idea of mythology. Tell me what has changed in the last 1500 years apart from local human rights laws, and technology? The "Myth" of Christ, I claim, is a true myth with all its attending spiritual, allegorical, and historical meanings.

Og

Not much I can say. It's not a matter of evidence or collaboration or of the myriad equivalent myths and their known intended meaning. It's not a matter of how it correlates with what we know about biology and reality.

Tis your right to make this claim. Good luck with it. Namaste brother/sister/whatever

R3NNiS

As i started to say before, it is a matter of faith. Not that faith determines truth, but it will take a measure of faith to believe something true or believe it false. May God have compassion on our ignorance.

Peace. Not that we solved anything, but it was a pleasure conversing. I hope that God blesses your search.

Og

R3NNiS, I appreciate your approach and wanted to throw up another concept here.

If, the garden of eden story is taken as metaphor in that you don't actually believe the literal existence of some proto-man named Adam and some woman made from his rib named eve and that they were in a garden in some physical location with talking snakes. Where man was fashioned out of clay and an anthropomorphized deity walked around with them.

If it's ok to see what science has described about the nature of the universe and what radio-astronomy has told us about the age of the universe and what evolution has told us about the development of man/life within the age of the universe.

Then, when presented with the story of christ and the virgin birth and miracles and of the death and resurrection, how can one take them as literal?

Does it really make sense to apply literal fact to acts that are in response to a metaphorical story about the human condition (i.e. triumph over sin)? Why must faith lead you towards acceptance of the mythology associated with christ as literal fact if the same faith doesn't lead you to accepting the story to which his sacrifice is in reference as literal fact?

Furthermore, how could the later be literal fact, if the former was, in fact, a myth describing humanity?

Either, jesus' sacrifice was an actual act of god to overcome an actual act of man in an actual garden, or the entire thing is metaphor.

And by metaphor I do not mean to cheapen the story in any way. Fact of the events is not high up there on my list of priorities! The story that it tells us and the picture it paints for all human beings is something beautiful in my opinion. Whether it really happened or not in all the supernatural sense of the stories doesn't change that for me.

How does that strike you? This seems to me to be more in line with your original comment:

The distinction may not be that big of a deal at first glance, but in my opinion, taking the myth for what it denotes makes it opaque such that you can't use it as a pointer to the connotation of transcending the human experience.

By taking jesus and the supernatural stories surrounding him as fact, it seems to me that the finger pointing at the stars then takes up your entire field of view and you can't see the unspeakable beauty that the finger is pointing at. And then people start killing each other over it.

R3NNiS

I accept some parts of Genesis to be myth, but aside from the historical evidence and significance of the witness of the 4 gospels, i believe that a if the Incarnationis nothing more than a myth or metaphor, then its meaning is nothing. If God has not truely beome man in Jesus, then the death of Jesus is not a sacrifice, but a just death for blasphemy. If the ressurection is a myth, or metaphor, then it is equally as meaningless. There is no hope beyind death, no reunion, no justice for those who die meaningless deaths at the hand of someone who dies in old age-these are not necessities of logic, but in my perception spiritual necesities. If the miracles of Jesus are only metaphor, then what do they mean? That Jesus ought to have had supernatural power to heal. To me, if these are metaphors only and not also true events, they can do no more than give a person false hope, or tell a brutal story, of how a people killed a great teacher.

I believe there are big truths behind events, people, and actions. The spiritual is manifested in the Physical. Just as James said, "faith without works is nothing" I would suggest that a Spirit without real manifestation is nothing.

my response is that it is not truely an either-or as you say. My understanding is that Jesus was actually God who actually became man, who actually lived died and rose again, who, having lived a perfect life according to the law, spiritually paid the debt of justice and bought salvation for all mankind whose condition is truthfully(spirituall) described in a garden metaphor/myth/legend. (as well as other legends)

sorry, i havent had much time today to respond to this. anyways, take care.

Professional Widow

I just think that a bunch of rocks in the sky went flying around and slammed into each other. Now either god is a horrible billiards player or I don't know what!

__________________
Heresy is only another word for freedom of thought.
~Graham Greene