How do I learn about Christianity?

First, there’s a huge difference between the teachings of Jesus and Christianity. Second, almost every single new version of Christianity has sprung up because people couldn’t agree on what was the purest teachings of Jesus. Just like how if 30 people witness an event, there will be 30 different accounts of what happened, every person has their own interpretation of Jesus’s teachings.

Personally, I’m a fan of the Very Short Introduction series, but I’ve only looked at the chapter list of that particular book, not read it.

I’m sure many here would be happy to help you with more specific questions.

The obvious answers would be “The bible”. More specifically the Gospels. Then again if it was that easy there would be one christian sect, not the bajillions that there are today.
Ton’t expect to be blown away, though, I’ve read some bits and pieces (mainly the positive ones because i was raised catholic) and I’ve found it remarkably unimpressive.

If you’re looking for it for conversion purposes, i suggest you look into Odin. It makes as much sense and Valhalla is much better than Heaven.

If you are looking for an outsider perspective, I would suggest finding an Religious Studies textbook focusing on Christianity.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

I think you should start off reading the Bible, and interpret it for yourself. If you don’t want influences from specific denominations, it will be hard to find anything that’s not slightly different from another’s teachings unless you visit a non-denominational church.

Bear in mind that even the New Testament has been “massaged” by christers for 2000 years. You’ll have to hunt down a lot of apocrypha which was expurgated from the NT to get the full story—and deciding which stories belong and which don’t means you’ll have to wade through a lot of theology. There’s no easy way to find out about the real teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef (if such a person ever actually existed rather than, as seems more likely, being an amalgam of a number of Jewish mystics and reformers), the christers have seen to that.

I agree with papyalily that it would hard to find agreement on a lot of things. Even if we are to put aside our reservations about whether or not his words were recorded accurately, the interpretation of those words causes a lot of disagreement, hence all the sects of Chrisitianity.

The differences can be understood as differences in meaning but also differences in how we should live our lives if we wish to live according to his words. But if by purest you mean his core teachings, and if you’re willing to seek this out with an open mind, then I don’t think it is really that hard to get the core of what he was all about. I would study his parables and then read what the various interpretations of those parables were. The parables were told in order to illustrate inportant concepts in a way that was simple and powerful. I would also look up the Beatitudes. A lot of his most important ideas are there. I appreciiate the fact that you’re trying to get to the heart of what Jesus taught. If you strip away the religious differences and stick to what he said it will be a lot easier .

There is plenty of evidence that there was indeed a historical Jesus, a real person, whether or not one believes that he was God and savior. I do understand what Smash the State is saying:
“There’s no easy way to find out about the real teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef if such a person ever actually existed rather than, as seems more likely, being an amalgam of a number of Jewish mystics and reformers”
Even with that said, even if it is an amalgam of things attributed to him there is much agreement on the basic teachings.
Then of course you can put those teachings in the context of his life. You can’t really look at the teachings as separate from the man. The New Testament is the source for most people and Christians profess to believe in the bible as truth. How literally and perfectly true, I think, depends on how fundamentalist you are.
I hesitate to recommend a book I haven’t read but this one seems to have good reviews and might be what you’re looking for. It’s a start anyways.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-His-Own-Words/dp/1615791329
There’s another book to go along with it.
http://www.amazon.com/Words-Jesus-Sayings-Reflections-Phyllis/dp/0470453672/ref=pd_sim_b_1
Here is a link to the wikipedia article about The Beatitudes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

I would read the New Testament of the Bible. Read Elaine Pagels’ books. As a Bible scholar, she is one of a handful of people who has access to Vatican source documents. Her perspective is objective, as it is a historical perspective, and not religious based.

A study of Christianity would not be complete without studying the Old Testament.

I took a course through frangipane.org and found it enormously helpful. It resolved many questions in my mind.

The Christian scriptures that deal with Jesus’ teachings are different from the Qur’an in that there is little doubt that the words of the modern Qur’an are the actual words that the Prophet wrote down 1400 years ago, whereas there is no certainty whatsoever that many of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament were ever actually spoken by him.

A group of Bible scholars went through the Gospels trying to determine exactly which “words of Jesus” could reliably be considered authentic. The result? Not much. Of the entire Lord’s Prayer for instance, only the words “Our Father” can reliably be traced to Jesus.

So yeah, if you’re looking for the authentic teachings of Jesus, even the Bible may not help you much. Learning about Christianity is more a matter of learning about how people have come to think about Jesus than about Jesus himself.

The Bible. Completely unfiltered.

Be careful just picking a random part of the Bible, it might seem strange and not make sense out of context. Start at the beginning of a particular section.

In order to have a pure understanding of Christianity, you first have to do some comparison of various versions of the Bible.

Let us start with The Amazing Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge! which shows how many modern Bibles edit/omit stuff. Many people died due to various translations of Exodus 22:18 To quote that link, “In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m’khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others – e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly “evil sorceress” or “woman who does evil magic” would be the most accurate phrases in today’s English usage for this verse. ” yet the Revised English Bible changes that to, _“You must not allow a witch to live.”; quite a difference.

I cannot really cite a single, one-stop source for learning about “pure” Christianity as even the core beliefs vary a bit. Some add books wile others stay with the original texts and most go with some translation of the originals that may or may not be even close to the original but are widespread enough to effectively change the core beliefs of a large section (though no the totality) of Christianity.

The Mind of Jesus by William Barclay is worth a look.

I understand that this is a complex subject but I think it’s a little overwhelming some of the references people are suggesting here. After all, salman1025 did say he want to understand “the basic core principles”. He’s not looking to become a biblical scholar, lol. I think if he gets tied up in all this theological historical wrangling he will be utterly confused before he starts! That said, it is good to note that a true and reliable version of events and history is pretty much impossible. I guess we will have to settle with the beliefs and words that are generally ascribed to Jesus. Finding that “purest teaching” will be nearly impossible. I applaud the effort however.

@Earthgirl I wish I could agree with you, but as I said, even the core beliefs are in dispute. They all agree that Jesus is the son of God and the Lord and Savior, but the similarity between sects often ends there.

@Nullo Well, the Bible is a little iffy too. It’s full of the translator’s personal opinions. You’d have to learn the language that the Bible was written in—Aramic ? (what language was it written in?) AND immerse yourself in the culture of the day. But your understanding would STILL be colored by your own opinions and personality.

Let me try to give you some basics.
In two words: Love and reconciliation.
The basics: (all Christian faiths agree on the following)
Crisis:
1) No one is perfect, our awareness of how we fall short (love, charity and unselfishness) is universal. We are all aware that we have fallen short of the perfection of God.
2) Because of our imperfection we are separated from God and we need reconciliation.

Solution: (John 3: 16 and Romans 10:8 excerpts of verses below.)
3) God provided a solution that was profoundly free and profoundly available. He became man and lived a perfect life.
4) When he was killed as if guilty he became the ransom, the bridge and our reconciliation to God.
5) He established a solution that is profoundly, completely, independent of our efforts, but is based on beliefs that God exist, that Jesus was the Son of God, and that when Jesus was crusified he became the bridge of reconciliation to God (our salvation).

Don’t think Christianity is about Christians. Christianity is about Christ. Christians are not something better or more disciplined; the difference is they accept profound forgiving love of God through his Son Christ.

There are three sources for knowing God; the bible (purest text are the gospels, most encompassing text explaining our faith is in the book of Romans, in the bible), prayer, and other true heartfelt Christians. Many critics like to attack the bible but don’t have answer for the other sources other than, “oh, well, I haven’t experienced that”, well I have and as I have chosen to walk with God there is deep profound peace and joy in my life that I have in any circumstance. I am not perfect but I have peace that I am and will continue to be forgiven for my imperfections. In fact I call myself a sinner. I falter, but the knowledge that I’m forgiven for where I have fallen short in the past and in the future gives me the peace to continue to try to live a pure life.

The two following verses are considered the salvation verses. Read them and ponder them. Go somewhere quite and listen, listen to your heart, listen to your conscience, listen for God.
John 3: 16
“16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NIV

Romans 10:8
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NIV

I answered a similar question in here:
http://www.fluther.com/110779/what-are-the-beliefs-of-a-non-denominational-christian/#quip1812805

@Dutchess_III The Bible states that it is a memo from an infallible God to His creatures, written so that they might come to know Him so that they might spend eternity ‘hanging out’ together, instead of perishing eternally. This makes it a very, very important memo. Surely, an almighty and infallible God would be able to preserve the important parts. And if the important parts, then why not all of it?
There are those who will make illicit edits (no room for interpretation if you’re just copying, and if God wants you to be translating His Word, it’s a good bet that He’ll help with picking the right words), so it is important, as @jerv said, to compare.
The NIV is widely regarded as being a good balance between strict accuracy and accessibility; a “good ‘nuff” Bible. A thorough study of the Bible usually involves a few different translations (possibly a transliterated Bible, or else an interlinear one), commentaries, and prayer. Context is the greatest counter to bias.

Anyway, where else is a person supposed to learn about Christianity? The Bible is the source. We’re supposed to evaluate doctrine by comparing it to what’s in the Bible. If it’s not in there, or it doesn’t look like it would fit, you’re supposed to confront the doctor or go somewhere else.

My advice: attend church! Ask questions. Get answers.

@Dutchess_III The original texts were in Hebrew and Greek.

@Nullo Not all Christians believe that the Bible states that it is a memo from an infallible God to His creatures. You do, but there’s enough dispute over it that it seems unwise to state that all of Christianity believes this, and thus is an indisputably good place to go to.

Matthew 25 was Jesus Sermon on the Mount. That pretty much summarizes what he taught.

Simplisticly, The Bible is divided into 4 parts: The Laws of God, The Creation of Israel, The Prophesy and Its Fulfillment of the Coming of Jesus, and The Development of the Church.
To understand it, you have to study it. To learn the message of Jesus, read the New Testament’s first four books. Jesus’s words are often printed in Red.
If you want the really short version, the Sermon on the Mount shows what His teachings are. Much of the rest is evidence that He is God.

@papayalily, no, most of the dispute seems to be from people on here that have seemed to mostly reject the faith. I agree with @Nullo and don’t think its unwise for him to say that.

@Season_of_Fall I wasn’t talking about dispute on Fluther. I was talking about dispute by all Christians within the last 2 milenia.

the basic core and purest Jesus teaching, would be found in the bible, Jesus speaks and teaches and in the King James bible its written in fine print red.

@papayalily I’m not talking about what other flavors of Christian think, though.
Really, it doesn’t matter what people think that the Bible says; what it says is right there, in the Book. Certainly, a lot of what it says is unpopular, or makes people uncomfortable, so they’ll ignore those bits; this is in no way a reflection on the validity of the text. Ultimately, it comes down to what you believe about God.

This might better answer your point.

Really, what do you think of people who pick and choose which parts of the Word of God they want to adhere to?

@Nullo The Bible. Completely unfiltered.

Fuck no, that’s what caused the Westboro Baptist church.

If anything there should be a huge filter of a) skepticism of the highest order, b) knowledge of the cultural context and c) possibly a good knowledge of philology to understand how figures of speech and similar stuff generally get mistranslated.

And even then you’ll probably get a giant “What. The. Fuck. that is horrible” reaction to may things that happen in it, if there’s any sense and humanity left in your head.

@Thammuz Abstain yes. The WBC latched on to specific bits and dropped several others. That’s filtering right there, and it has prevented them from developing a comprehensive view of the Bible. Grace, for instance, is wholly absent from their doctrine, even though it was a major theme in the New Testament. Jesus is still Savior, but only of about 15 people – when the Bible clearly states that, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Unfiltered, I say, and I stick by it.

@papayalily, My point exactly, what is being said here is obtuse and not of common concensus. Only by the intellectual self rightous that choose to solve the crisis part of my initial point by abosolving guilt through dismissing any ultimate standard of truth.

@nullo, The reactions are summed up in John 3:19–20 and I do believe it is time for us to shake the dust off of the bottom of our sandels and walk away.

start at your public library. I recomend Christianity by Diarmaid MacCulloch. It’s along one but a good place to start.

Regarding “filters”, it seems to me that what made Jesus different from the religious authorities of his time was precisely that he urged the use of filters. He criticized the Pharisees for applying scripture as written, without applying the filter of compassion. Wasn’t that the lesson of his intervention in the stoning of the prostitute and his justification of healing on the sabbath?

If one can point to exactly what Jesus’ core teaching was, I think it would be this: Be guided by compassion.

[mod says] Please stick to the question “How do I learn about Christianity?”. Remember that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. This is a potentially volatile subject, please be courteous and avoid personal attacks. Thank you.

If I were you I would do as the Bible and other scriptures suggest. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it will be opened to you. Ask and ye shall receive. You should never rely on others views of the information but seek it out for yourself.

@Summum, makes one of the most important points in this whole thread. As you can see throughout the thread, opinions every where.

@Season_of_Fall @Summum Which Bible?

If he is looking for a Christian answer then any Christian Bible @jerv.

@jerv, any of the widely accepted bibles jerv. What I have laid out is commonly accepted and represented in any of the standard Christian bibles and by any Christain denomination, accepting fringe outliers.

@Season_of_Fall How do you define “fringe outliers”?

In every line of thought there is a dispersion of varying thought. You suggest it is rampant and pollutes the whole faith with little to no commonality of the basics. But I suggest that within the Christian church this is minimal and there is wide spread solidarity through an overwhelming majority of the basics sighted above. I’m sure you can come up with outliers that have polluted the message beyond its true form but. I’m not going to stab at specific numbers I don’t know but the preceding description should get my point across.

@jerv and @papayalily, before I entertain you with an argument, what is a one sentence description of your belief in God and Christ as God? atheist? agnostic?

@Season_of_Fall Atheist, but interested in theology and currently taking 1½ classes on it.

Young 20s right? Were you always an Atheist or was there a defining moment where you embraced that?

@Season_of_Fall Mid Yes, young twenties, exactly ;) Always been, although I was raised Anglican.

@Season_of_Fall I’ll reply as well since I’m still lurking and I’m interested in your answer: 21 and counting, raised catholic, stopped believing at the age of 6. I was baptized at birth, I’ve received both the sacrament of confession and of holy communion, then i finally convinced my mother to take me out of Catechism. She accepted this even though she teaches a group of children herself.

I’ve been agnostic up to about five years ago when i started studying the scientific method in depth, as well as other culture’s mythologies and religions. I’ve qualified myself as atheist ever since.

Both my parents and my family in general know that i don’t believe in any god, and generally speaking don’t give a toss. They’re all extremely informal with their belief, which was never shoved down my throat by any extent of the word.

I’m fairly knowledgeable on the contents of the bible, its philology and the current interpretation of the catholic church.

I always get snagged on the scientific method. Let me make sure I’m correct here, the scientific method is where if you can’t verifiy something with all senses and get it to be tested and concluded repeatedly it doesn’t have validity as being true? That may be skewed a little but please correct me if I’m off?

@Season_of_Fall From the Wikipedia article:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. [...] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.

The reasoning behind my rejection of the abrahamic god is that the qualities attributed to it are inconsistent with what can be observed. Observed not necessarily meaning seen, but simply meaning empirically verifiable.
The same reason Epicurus put to writing almost two thousand years ago and whose only rebuttal since then boils down to “god works in mysterious ways”. Which is not a valid explanation for the very vast inconsistencies.

Could you clarify qualities of the abrahamic god?

If one understands who and what God is and his purpose then one will not have a problem with science and the spiritual side of things that cannot be measured by a 3 dimensional existance. I find no inconsistances with the idea of a higher being and science and I have studied both. But that is what I have found and it has taken many years to do so. You are correct in saying I cannot verify a lot of things but I really don’t need too. My experience gives far more meaning to my life than does science. Our science is very limited but has grown over the last 100 years. Science has been a great access to lots of knowledge and advancements for man. I have a great respect for science. But there is so much more. I’m not trying to convince you that is totally up to you and your experience in life.

@summum, I wonder if the bible really contradicts science or the bible is misinterpreted. How many people realize that the first verse of Genesis is better interpreted as “the earth became formless” rather than “the earth was formless”. Does E=MC2 line up with Hebrews, “all that is seen was created from what it not seen”

I am actually quite agnostic with regard to a lot of the details and don’t dismiss either side, I think there can be more connection then we consider possible.

@Thammuz, @summum is stealing a little of my thunder. Science seems to think it has everything all sowed up. But it’s a limiting technique, dismissing any phenomena that don’t meet its guidelines.
What side would you have argued before we discovered the earth was round? Would you have said look that way and than this, see it’s flat.
A hundred and fifty years ago would you have told me I’m crazy for thinking I could talk to someone on the other side of the world over the air waves? Just because we can’t prove something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

@Season_of_Fall All-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. At least in theory. The bible doesn’t characterize it as such (Especially the old testament is really stingy on benevolence of any kind) but those are the commonly accepted traits.

What side would you have argued before we discovered the earth was round? Would you have said look that way and than this, see it’s flat.
Common misconception. No scientist ever believed that the earth was flat, in fact the fact that the earth was a sphere was known since ancient Greece. Eratosthenes even measured its circumference quite accurately considering the means he had at the time.
Also, regardless of the metaphor, i side with the evidence. There is only one truth to each question (assuming such question makes sense), the more evidence we gather the closer we get to it. It’s as simple as that.

Just because we can’t prove something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I never said that id doesn’t exist. I said that i don’t believe in it, and that i will act as if it doesn’t exist because as long as it doesn’t affect me it might as well not exist at all. I’m prepared to humbly change my mind when some actual evidence comes my way. It hasn’t yet and I’m willing to bet it never will, but in the remote case that it actually does you have my word that i will believe. I will probably not worship if it’s the god of the bible we’re talking about, but that’s beside the point.

@Summum If one understands who and what God is and his purpose then one will not have a problem with science and the spiritual side of things that cannot be measured by a 3 dimensional existance.
If God’s existence or his actions don’t influence the world as we conceive it in any measurable way, then its existence is ultimately unimportant because it doesn’t have any bearing on our lives. Until we actually establish that there is a causal link between any event in our world and something that is for all intents and purposes outside of the realms of our existence that path of speculation is unfruitful and scientifically incorrect because it reduces itself to an unfalsifiable hypothesis. I.E. a hypothesis that can’t be proven or disproved by virtue of its own definition.

You are correct in saying I cannot verify a lot of things but I really don’t need too. My experience gives far more meaning to my life than does science.
I don’t accept my own experience as proof of anything. I’m fallible, my senses don’t always work properly and i know enough about psychology to understand the extent that wishful thinking has on our perceptions. If i thought i saw god or heard him speak to me, i’d ignore it at first, if persistent I’d get my head checked, believing that I’m actually hearing/seeing an intelligent life form communicating with me from the outside of the reals of existence would be the furthest down on the list of options.

If the phenomenon was actually consistent and repeatable, then I’d take it into consideration.

@thammuz, I respect your resolve in staying grounded and admire the intellectual capacity you display in laying it out. But as much as your technique is too exclusive mine is too inclusive and neither of us can really prove its side (with regard to God) to be ultimate truth apart from the reality in our own perceptions. Your experience has been there is nothing there that affects your life and mine has been there is something there that has affected all my life in a huge way. Not a point to persuade just acknowledging the difference.

@Season_of_Fall I thank you for the compliments and i return them in kind. It’s been a while since i happened upon such a well structured debate on this subject, devoid of emotional outbursts on both parts.

But as much as your technique is too exclusive mine is too inclusive and neither of us can really prove its side to be ultimate truth apart from the reality in our own perceptions.
Personally, i evaluate the technique based on its result. So far i saw very little to be accomplished indisputably through prayer or supernatural agency, meanwhile we’re having this debate because of several scientific discoveries that have proven themselves to work time and time again.

Your experience has been their is nothing there that affects your life and mine has been there is something there that has affected all my life in a huge way.
As I’ve already told @Summum I don’t value my experience when determining truth from fiction unless my experience is consistent, repeatable and, possibly, validated by outside observers.

If i hear clopping i think horse, not zebra. Believing that any event in my life is the effect of an action taken by a being external to the realms of reality as we know it, whose cause is still unaccounted for and who is somehow not only intelligent but all knowing and omnipotent is a huge leap that defies Occam’s razor and has no grounding in evidence.

As a personal curiosity, why have you dropped the “attributes of god” subject?

With respect, I still have experienced the opposite. Prayer is effective, there is wisdom that comes to me that both circumvents time and is understanding that is outside what is available to me. I knew my wife’s name two days before I met her or knew she existed and on and on and on, consistently as you say. There is a congruity to my life when I walk what I believe. If I were to describe it, it is like the love of a perfect parent.

It is not as evident as the reaction of any simple science experiment but there is enough for me to acknowledge. There is enough for me to know it’s not foolishness.

None of this is said to try to convince you but maybe to help you respect that I am not grabbing a feather floating in the air and calling it an ostrich.

Why would a good God only give enough to have to accept him through faith? Why are there some lessons children must learn on their own rather than just be given the answer?

Brings me back to your qualities of God, the ones you say are more suspect than evident. I won’t answer this for you, but I will tell you when you are closest to the answer. What we learn in our hearts is not learned by simple words alone. The lessons of the heart are learned through stories and experiences. When you are holding your first child and are blown away by the love you feel, then you will be close. I don’t think I can argue the absolute completeness of Gods knowing or perfection of his benevolence, or completeness of his capabilities, but as you raise your children you will see the parallels of relative hierarchies of wisdom, love without condition, forgiveness that seems endless and willingness to lay down your life for your children.

These matters of the heart are not taken from any ancient mythology but are as real as the breath we breathe and all else we experience from the objective to the subjective.

@Season_of_Fall With respect, I still have experienced the opposite. Prayer is effective, there is wisdom that comes to me that both circumvents time and is understanding that is outside what is available to me. I knew my wife’s name two days before I met her or knew she existed and on and on and on, consistently as you say. There is a congruity to my life when I walk what I believe. If I were to describe it, it is like the love of a perfect parent.
Good for you, it means your belief is justified, to you.

These matters of the heart are not taken from any ancient mythology but are as real as the breath we breathe and all else we experience from the objective to the subjective.
And have fuckall to do with the existence of any supernatural creature, any incarnation of said virtues and anything else, aside for the fact that humans are mammals and mammals are programmed to react that way to their offspring because it is a biological advantage since it better suits the survival of said offspring.

This isn’t even a leap, it’s a complete non-sequitur. And i’m not discussing how much you love your kids, i’m sure you adore them and they adore you back, that’s not the point. What you’re basically saying is that you learned that a supernatural (which is a bogus term depending on your definition of nature but i digress) entity that may or may not have the qualities i’ve listed and the power to change the world on a whim exists, because you love your kids. Where’s the connection? Because i see none.

I’m sorry but gut feelings and the like are irrelevant when we’re determining what exists and what doesn’t. In the words of Carl Sagan I’m often asked the question, “Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?” I give the standard arguments—there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren’t extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it. And then I’m asked, “Yeah, but what do you really think?” I say, “I just told you what I really think.” “Yeah, but what’s your gut feeling?” But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it’s okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in. Emphasis mine.

Again, as i said, if you’re satisfied with your experience as proof, because you see it as consistent and you don’t think you’re fooling yourself and seeing what you want to see, good for you, I’m glad you’ve found something that makes you happy, but that’s not what science is about. I too would love some gods to exist (i’d personally love them to be the norse gods, because i find them better examples of virtue and valor, but that’s my opinion) but what i like, what i want and what i feel have no bearing on truth.

My understanding is this and it comes from direct consistant experiences. This world was organized with Universal Law and every being in the Universe including God is subject to it. God cannot break those laws either. “God” being a higher being is able to understand more of the principles and dynamics of those laws and therefore can use them in a far greater capacity than we as mortals can. I submit that Jesus the Christ never once performed a miracle and I say that because he was aware of the principles of those laws and was able to do the things he did. If for instance we were to take an F16 or computer back in time those viewing it would think it a miracle. This world is governed by those laws and if you want to test that jump off a building and see what happens. LOL The natural, universal laws would then have you fall but if you understood something greater and knew the principles of gravity (if that is what it is) you might not fall. But I wouldn’t try it for now. :)

@Summum Interesting work of speculation. It is completely unsubstantiated by proof (except for the “laws” part), not supported by any holy scripture i know of and inconsistent with the attributes of the abrahamic god but interesting nonetheless.

I agree @Thammuz. I do not believe in the abrahamic God because he doesn’t exist. However there are higher beings that do watch and help as we evolve into a higher being ourselves. And you are right there is no proof. I would say that Holy Scripture supports my view completely but then my experiences have brought me there. The scripture is not the problem but the interpretation really is. Ask any church on earth the same question about a set of scriptures and you will have completely different opinions on the same subject. Also when the Bible was put together is was put together by a few that already had an opinion and if the book fit their opinion then it was added to the Bible. How many books are there that were not added to the Bible? I consider them as scripture also. I also have read the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants and I consider them scripture as well. What is scripture? Nothing different than a historical history/record of the past.

I’m curious, what do you say about the fallibility of humans. The question first assumes there is a standard which you may or may not subscribe, and you may want to address first. But given even human standards of decency, I point to this question I asked recently,
http://www.fluther.com/111918/do-you-have-an-honor-code/
Isn’t our inability toward perfection (perfect lifelong observance and acting out of this standard), universal, just as death itself is universal?

Is it safe to say we can find common ground in saying no one is perfect?

@Summum Nothing different than a historical history/record of the past.
Personally, I consider scripture as historically accurate as Harry Potter. Yeah King’s cross station exists but that hardly proves Hogwarts does. In fact when you look at how we validate historical records you’ll notice that no accounts of the events of the bible from outside sources exist. Jesus was apparently so relevant and troublesome that not one single roman historian wrote a single line acknowledging him until about 200 years later when they acknowledged his followers rather than him.

However there are higher beings that do watch and help as we evolve into a higher being ourselves. And you are right there is no proof.
Then I rest my case. Without proof all you have is an opinion, which has no weight on fact or truth. It would appear, though, that you think you know that to be true, from the way you word it, which is odd and a little dissonant with the next phrase. Why do you believe something for which you have no proof? Do you mean there is no objective proof and that you base this belief on personal experience? (I did read you mention experience later on but that’s a slightly different context and I’d rather ask than assume)

@Season_of_Fall I’ll get to your question in a moment

Yes it is from personal experience. Again as I have always stated that I don’t see my experience as truth to everyone. It is my reality as is your life and experiences your reality. There are things that mankind experiences the same but I think truth is very subjective and I will maintain more of a opinion than a truth. If a thing is True then every single person would see it that way. That is truth. How many things do all mankind see as the same?

@Season_of_Fall It is, indeed, safe to say. Simply because perfection is a human concept that is unreachable by its own definition. It’s like the mathematical construct of infinity, by its own definition it can never be reached because there’s always another number beyond the one you’ve managed to count to.

Perfection is, IMO, an irrelevant concept if applied to humans, because it assumes a blueprint to which one is meant to conform, which implies a predetermined goal which, just like every other god-related concept, has to be proven before it can be taken into the equation. It might have applied before we started to live beyond survival, because back then there was indeed a single dominating goal for all humans alike, but that is no longer the case for most of us.

Whether the goal can be reached or not does not make it irrelevant. It is relevant as a direction to point our compass and to model our actions. If it were not relevant, society would fall apart in anarchy.

Not only does the concept exist in the human mind but we strive toward it for some reason. As you said “better life for all of society if” and “don’t inflict suffering to anything without good reason”.

It at least has relevance to make life better for society and to minimize suffering.

@Season_of_Fall I have not dismissed the concept of perfection because it is unreachable, i dismissed it because it assumes there is such thing as right and wrong beyond what each of us decides them to be. Since this would hardly be provable even assuming the existence of a god to begin with, the concept is irrelevant because its existence requires that we know something which we don’t even know if it actually exists. Make no mistake: I’m willing to bet my concept of perfection and yours differ a great deal, the fact we found a point in common doesn’t make the others any less extraneous. In fact i can already give you a person whose concept of perfection doesn’t entail either the points you quoted: Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, most notably known for attempting to pass a law that would have made him untouchable as long as he was in charge, having sex with underage prostitutes and leading a government where xenophobia and plutocracy are the key points.

It at least has relevance to make life better for society and to minimize suffering.
No it does not. Ask a fundamentalist muslim what his ideal of perfect muslim man is and you’ll see how little it makes life better for anyone who doesn’t share his ideas or doesn’t have a penis. Ask that to a fundamentalist christian for that matter, or a fundamentalist national socialist, communist, whatever. The concept of something perfect is an extreme. Extremes don’t work well in a world of approximations.

@Summum I could argue that that’s precisely why we use repeatable experiments whose results are consistent and measurable through a chosen standard measurement system. Whatever your particular flavour of perception is (my blue could be your green for all we know), as long as it is internally consistent the experiments will still work to you as they do to me.

@Thammuz It has been good to discuss this with you and see you have an open mind and can without judgement discuss matters. That is rare and I acknowledge you for it. Thank you

Lurve

@Summum It usually isn’t like that, to be honest. I’m glad I found someone to discuss with who doesn’t make me flip out. Lurve

Your right, we found a common point and maybe that’s a good stopping place. Like @summum I have appreciated the discussion, it was all with great respect, thank you. Sometimes when I debate something I will check reasonableness of the other by seeing how a point of potential agreement will be handled. I wasn’t going to go on about the point you made about perfection but interesting what it alludes to. Please give me credit for being willing to just merely learn other perspectives. I question myself and test to see how those other view points might affect my beliefs. So thank you again, I leave with immense respect for you @Thammuz and you @Summum. Maybe you would like to compose a question about perfection and standard of human decency and I will see you there, but let’s give this thread a rest.

@Season_of_Fall I really enjoyed this discussion as well, it’s nice to just share opinions without biting eachother’s head off. Let’s give it a rest for now. By the way you can ask the question about perfection too, if you feel like it, i’m not one to call dibs on that kind of thing.