RE: The Simulation Hypothesis, Religion, Deism, and Time... (Part 2) - Could Deism be the Same?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I appreciate your deep thinking and your straightforward presentation of this topic.
I was not raised in a Christian home and was not exposed to Christianity until some friends in high school invited me to a weekly Bible study. After several months of Bible study, I came to a point of affirmation that the God of the Bible is indeed the Creator of the universe and, more importantly, that I had broken the moral laws He established from the beginning of time, that there was nothing I could do to right the wrongs I had committed, that Jesus' death on the cross provided the sole means to right those wrongs, and that I must willingly surrender control of my life to the Lordship of Jesus in order to receive His gift of forgiveness and the promise and hope of eternal life. That was about 35 years ago and my life since then has been filled with a deep sense of meaning and purpose (that was completely lacking before then).
Prior to that time, I would say I was a Deist by default. For some reason, I believed there was a Creator; I just never gave too much thought to who that Creator might be and how or why that might be relevant to me.
If I were to describe my view of God and His creation (which 99.9% follows orthodox Christianity), it would fit perfectly within the Simulation Hypothesis:
- There is a Creator of all things, and we refer to that Creator as "God" (the God of the Hebrews)
- God created everything ex nihilo (i.e. 'from nothing).
- When God created everything, he did so by creating a complex set of rules (i.e. the physical laws that govern the universe) and, along with that, time and space and matter.
- God, in His personal interactions with the creatures He created, has and continues to work miracles. Those miracles take two forms -- miracles of 'coincidence' (wherein God directs the laws of nature to cause something highly improbable to occur at just the right time to accomplish the miraculous outcome He desires, such as when He caused a powerful wind to blow all night and to continue blowing so as to create a path of dry land through the Red Sea, see Exodus 14:21-22) and miracles involving 'supersession of the laws of nature' (wherein God temporarily supersedes the physical laws of nature to accomplish something that is truly 'supernatural' and defies any attempt to explain it otherwise, such as when Lazarus was brought back to life after being dead for 4 days, see John 11).
- God created sentient beings (humans) who observe and interact with their surroundings and do so with free will.
- God created those beings "in His image", which implies many things, such as our ability and desire to create and exercise our own creativity.
- God has chosen to play an active role in His creation, by revealing certain aspects of Himself to the creatures He created. Some of these aspects of Himself permeate nature itself; other aspects were revealed through writings that He inspired; other aspects were revealed through the person and words and historical actions of Jesus of Nazareth; other aspects were revealed through interactions with individuals, either directly or via intermediaries such as angels.
I could go on, but all the above 'truths' that most Christians would agree with, all fit within your definition of a "Simulation Hypothesis".
In fact, one could take this all a step farther and explain exactly what type of simulation(s) are compatible with each of the major religions. For example, Christianity insists upon a personal God, i.e. One who is intricately involved in the lives of people. This would not be consistent with a 'hands off' type of simulation, where the creator sets up the rules, starts the sim, then sits back and merely watches the results.
Similarly, the fact that Christianity acknowledges supernatural miracles would require a simulation wherein the creator has given himself the ability to change the 'rules' mid-simulation.
The fact that most Christians acknowledge that we as individuals have been granted free will would require a simulation that is more akin to a video game than a 'John Conway' type simulation; for example, a simulation with only NPCs would not be consistent with Christian theology (except possibly for some hyper-Calvinists).
I want to stress that I am not endorsing the Simulation Hypothesis nor suggesting that Christians should embrace this line of thinking. Rather, I am pointing out the fact that I have studied and adhered to the precepts of Biblical Christianity for 35 years and I see no contradictions between the Simulation Hypothesis (broadly defined) and orthodox Christianity. However, I am open to critiques or challenges to this viewpoint -- and will change my perspective if confronted by a persuasive argument to the contrary.
I just realized I hadn't responded to this and it is well written.
While my path differs from yours (which we each should have a unique path or something is wrong) I don't have an issue with anything you stated here.
You basically addressed the point I've been trying to make. I've written about the Simulation Hypothesis every so often in the last 5 years. I think this might be my 3rd cycle as it were.
I would get a lot of push back from people that took it like it was a threat to their religion.
Really it isn't. It is not necessary to know we are in a simulation. It is merely an interesting thought experiment and journey. It is much like us imagining time travel. We have a lot of fun with that one.
If the simulation hypothesis is real though the only thing I can see it as a threat to is people who think their is no creator. You can't have a simulation until it was created.
I also don't see a problem with the creation story of Christians or other religions because CREATION can easily be replaced with SIMULATION and for all intents and purposes they would be the same thing. Purely semantics.
You did hit on one powerful thing that I have written about before and have only hinted at here.
A big problem I have with a lot of religions is the miracles and things that violate every rule of how the world operates that we are aware of. To believe it you basically have to embrace "magical thinking" and just say that's how it is and God(s) don't have to obey those rules since they make the rules.
The Simulation Hypothesis as you neatly explained provides a plausible explanation for this that does not require magical thinking.
The interesting thing about the simulation hypothesis if one allows it to do so is it allows one to make sense of these things by thinking "If we were far more advanced than we are now, could we do this, and how?"
If we can imagine ourselves doing it with the proper resources then it makes it much easier for a person who is uncomfortable with magical thinking to consider a route that it could be explained.
Thus it isn't actually a threat to religions. It makes even the wilder stories more plausible.
There is a lot of thought experiments one can do with this topic. Thanks for your support and your interaction on this. It has been appreciated.
Yeah, any discrepancy between the perceived geologic timeline and the Biblical timeline for creation can easily be summed up as "God could have created the earth to LOOK millions or billions of years old even when the universe was in actuality only 6 days old; just like when He created Adam, Adam probably looked 20 or 30 years old when he was only 1 day old."
This 'explanation' of course fits cleanly within the Simulation Hypothesis.
Personally, I believe God is infinitely more creative than simply creating the universe with a perceived history. I read a cool book many years ago called Starlight & Time (by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys), where Humphreys describes a 'model' of the first days of creation that follows all known laws of physics, yet explains how the universe could have appeared to be billions of years old at the end of the first few days of a literal 6-day creation timeline.
It draws on Einstein's theory of special relativity and the Biblical explanation of God "stretching out heaven like a tent curtain." (Psalm 104:2). Basically, if God truly stretched out the heavens at the beginning of creation, He would have been stretching time as well. Thus we could have ended up with stars that are billions of light-years away (and literally billions of years OLDER than the earth) even with the earth only being about 6,000 years old. Truly mind-blowing when you think about that possibility. Of course, Humphreys is careful to say that his model is just that, only a model. Although it explains how time differences between the Biblical account of creation and astronomical observations can be reconciled, he is quick to point out that his model is probably not the way it actually happened.
NOTE: In 1984, Dr. Humphreys relied upon Biblical statements about creation to predict the strengths of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. In 1986, when the Voyager II spacecraft was close enough to actually take measurements, the observed value was consistent with Dr. Humphrey's prediction (and not consistent with the 'dynamo' theory -- a prevailing theory at that time). In 1989, when Voyager II passed by Neptune, the measured strength was consistent with Dr. Humphrey's prediction (and also consistent with the 'dynamo' theory). Interestingly, other anomalies measured by Voyager II were better explained by Dr. Humphrey's theory than the 'dynamo theory'.
The above doesn't 'prove' anything. However, it provides plausible explanations for 'magical miracles' that don't require 'magical thinking'. If the actual simulation is truly boundary-less (i.e. there are and always will be ever-more-infinitely-small subatomic particles to be discovered) then no doubt all the 'magical' miracles recorded in Scripture can be explained by physical laws -- the problem being that we do not yet know or understand those physical laws.
Yeah I can speculate on what God is endlessly. I used to do it as a game back in my college days. What possible explanations could I come up with that could not be refuted or proven? Coming up with the most outlandish examples became the fun of the game.
I am not saying your beliefs are outlandish. That is just the direction that game took.
I don't push speculation as fact, and I try damn hard not to treat my speculations as a belief. I try to remember they are speculations. Me imagining them as a possible explanation. That doesn't mean they may not be correct. I simply try really hard not to let my own speculations become beliefs.
If I did otherwise then I might as well go start my own religion or denomination.
As to God. Perhaps he either is like us and just much more advanced in terms of the evolution of time and knowledge, or he is something so vast and complicated that anytime we try to use the limitations of our language to describe him we are doomed to fail.
It isn't necessarily an either/or proposition. I just presented it as one and preceded it with PERHAPS.
Yes, I think it is both/and. I also take the perspective that we are all heretics, because there is no way that our finite minds could even come close to understanding the true nature of an infinite God.
Explaining the concept of the Trinity (which is never explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but nonetheless represents a core aspect of Christian doctrine) is always fraught with heretical implications. This is not to say the concept of a triune God is 'wrong' or heretical in and of itself, but rather that any attempt to explain tri-unity will be so flawed that we can easily end up who knows where on the heretical spectrum.
I honestly don't have a problem with any religion until think it is justification for attacking other people. I am more of the lead by example type.
If you want to convince me to be like you and live similar to you then set a good example. It should not be because of fear. I shouldn't be following your example because I am afraid of damnation.
I should watch your good works and learn from those.
That of course is my opinion.
This is partially why I don't like organized religion. It places people into positions of authority over their congregation. While this can be good, it is also an avenue for power. That power historically has lead to some very dark places.
The moral teachings, the history, etc. Those are valuable.
A person pushing their interpretation as fact is not a positive in my mind.
Yes, I agree. If a religion teaches that its adherents should murder their children to appease ancestral spirits, then I would oppose their right to practice that religion.
Yes, hierarchy in religion (and elsewhere) is a double-edged sword.
Power corrupts. This is why Jesus exemplified the attitude and actions of a servant and taught his disciples to love one another and wash feet instead of "lording" their authority over others.
I used to tell some Christians when I was younger and angry and liked to challenge and play mind games still (I had a more vulgar name for it.) something like the following:
"Didin't Christ come along and throw down the Pharisees and take people out of those buildings and take them out into the world for the sermons?"
"If so why was one of the first things that happened when he was gone is that people were ushered into buildings, and quickly they were listening to a new breed of Pharisees?"
Even back then before I knew anything about Deism there were only two times I particularly felt what could be considered a religious experience.
I did perform at a contemporary service in a Presbyterian Church along with my father (he was an elder by then). We both played guitar for them. The minister had asked me if I would do it, even though he knew I was not a church goer. I told him if he could get my father to do it with me I would.
My father was a skilled musician and he'd basically given it up for a long time.
I attended that service, and I played music with my father.
He died several years later from cancer. When I was at his service they played one of the songs we would perform together and that was when the dam broke inside me and I wept the hardest I have since I was a young child. I was holding it together until that song. Then I couldn't stop the flood that followed.
My wife just held me at the time. It also likely was a surprise to my children who likely had never seen their father cry.
Music is powerful stuff.
I listen to a lot of music that commonly is labeled Satanic. Though that is very rarely actually the case.
I would ask myself things like why a priest could mention the word "Satan" and not be labeled as Satanic. Why could Stephen King and other horror authors make stories that have Satan and demons in them and they wouldn't be labeled Satanic? Why can people make a movie with Satan and horror elements without being called Satanic?
Yet as soon as the word appears in music the go to is immediately "Satanic".
That was a clue at just how powerful music can be. People tend to consider it as something potentially beyond most other art forms just by how they are so quick to form judgements around it.
I hadn't gone to a concert in some time. I heard Slayer was retiring and going on their last tour. That was a band I'd always wanted to see live and in person. I went and I took my children who were all adults by this time.
The venue did not have the best sound and it is known for having kind of crappy sound so I wasn't expecting an amazing audio experience.
I remember standing in a crowd of so many different types of people all there enjoying it and living it and feeling that religious like experience powerful in the air.
They are a band that is commonly called Satanic. They play into it with their imagery.
Their lyrics are heavily horror story oriented.
Yet the singer/bassist Tom Araya (Legal immigrant from Chile - U.S. Citizen now) has been a devout practicing Catholic the entire time and still is.
I know some of the other band members are Atheists but I don't know of any of them actually being Satanic. They seem a little too intelligent for that by the way they talk and the complexity of their lyrics.
Being interested things that resulted in immediate persecution for most of my life has definitely altered my perception in some areas. Of this I have no doubt.
That is not where I was... but it is the same concert.
The last 15 minutes of the last concert from them. Performing one of their most famous songs "Angel of Death" which is actually a song about the horrors of the Nazi concentration camp doctor Joseph Mengle.
They perform that song and then say goodbye. Sound sucks... but you can feel the power of the drums and such and might be able to imagine what that feels like when you are there. You feel it in your bones and everywhere.
I've been to non-metal concerts as well. They can be great and can give goosebumps but none of them match the in your bones feeling. The song ends at around the 5 minutes 20 second mark if you want to just hear it. You may not be interested but I thought I'd share it anyway. They were saying goodbye.
Actually... rewatching it he speaks at the 14 minute mark.
I was in high school (and a brand new Christian) when a call-to-arms about 'Satanic music' was making the rounds.
I remember seeing a documentary showing songs played backwards, where you could hear voices saying things like "Start to smoke marijuana".
A friend of mine at the time commented that we should be paying more attention to the message of the lyrics played forward rather than backwards.
You aptly point out that topic and message are two totally different things. Satanic imagery and use of the word 'Satan' does not imply a Satanic message. Also, God has demonstrated His ability to turn Satan's intentions upside-down to fulfill God's purposes (the cross is the ultimate example of this -- Satan entered Judas and convinced him to betray Jesus, then God used the crucifixion as the very means to make salvation and reconciliation available to the masses). So, even those things that are openly Satanic should not engender fear, but rather compassion for those ensnared by Satan's lies.
Music is a powerful medium. This was God's design. We observe in Scripture how David was able to bring spiritual relief to Saul's tormented soul through music. Most of the Psalms themselves were set to music (which we unfortunately no longer have access to).
Regarding the song you played with your dad and the emotions that same song evoked years later, that is a testament to the power of music and to the power of fatherhood.
I wrote several weeks ago about The Power of Fatherhood and how our conception of God is tied to our relationship with our earthly father. My takeaway from that observation is twofold. First, it helps us introspectively better understand the various ways in which our own views of God might have been corrupted by our earthly father's imperfections, and second, it (hopefully) causes us take a much more serious look at our own parenting style, recognizing that, as fathers, we are responsible to a significant degree for our children's spiritual health and well-being.
This will always remind me of the movie "Footloose" for some reason even though it predates that and is far more important. :)
I used to invited the Jehovah's Witnesses into my house when I was just in College (early 90s). I had 3 roommates. I was in the stage where I liked playing mind games. Fortunately that was a short lived interest. I look at that as a negative thing I did.
However, I on a couple of occasions played them the Metallica song "Creeping Death" and asked them if it was Satanic. Without fail they would say yes.
Yet the entire song is about the Angel of Death and Passover.
First verse "Slaves Hebrews born to serve unto the Pharaoh"... that video has lyrics as it plays if your curious. It's a pretty powerful song.
Their song Master of Puppets which has been vilified by the media several times is actually about drug addiction. Drugs ARE the master of puppets.
It's ironic how quickly people can jump to conclusions. It seems that music evokes such a response faster than any other medium I am aware of.
They also are known to have numerous anti-war songs.
They are but one of many examples. Yet it is aggressive energy so it evokes fear and presumption in people.
This form of music saved my life. That is why I am so passionate about it. A good portion of my life my parents were very bad alcoholics. They finally quit about half way through my junior year in high school. I wasn't suicidal but I was angry enough I was fine if they decided to divorce and I was fearless as I may not have been suicidal but I didn't care if other people tried to take me out. I was angry. Yet I never took it out on other people. Fortunately I treated everyone around me regardless of who they were like friends until they gave me reason not to. I was only able to do it due to the energy of this music. It didn't make me want to hurt people. It gave me something to put that negative energy to and it made me happy. The news was always talking about how it turns people into mean people that want to fight, kill, sacrifice, and bully.
I lived and breathed that community and I saw it helping many people the same way it did me. It is far better my negative thoughts and emotions were drawn out and turned into something positive by this than the alternative.
I am absolutely certain without it I would have been suicidal and possibly even homicidal. I was young and very angry. For brief times. I always had the music to bring me peace.
Eventually I stopped being angry. :) Especially once my first child was born. That changed EVERYTHING.
EDIT: Also when my child was born I immediately ceased being fearless. I had something to fear (something hurting my child).
I have often said that I have learned more about the nature of God by being a parent than via everything else combined.
I think you and I will continue to get along nicely. Also I am glad you have things you disagree with me on. It'd be pretty boring otherwise. If I want to talk to myself I can do that anytime. :)
Yes. When I say "magical thinking" I am referring to those that simply accept a thing and expect others to accept it without trying to understand how it might be possible. Sometimes the thing is so against what we know of nature that all we have at the moment is "magical thinking".
I truly dislike it when someone tells me "it just is", "you gotta have faith", or "God wills it". Those are lazy to me. If they preceded those things with "I don't know" or simply stated "I don't know" then that I can accept.
I am too much of a control freak of my own mind to blindly accept anything.
Christianity is not for me. I don't like organized religions. Yet if people were to pick one to follow and they stick to the moral teachings and things like was said on the Sermon on the Mount I see that as a net positive for the world. It is a problem when people revert to some of the things that occurred in the Old Testament and seem to use those things to justify abhorant/amoral behavior. They seem to miss the fact that Christ was here to change things. Those avenues of death, infanticide, rape, etc. Those things were no longer welcome though they were written of in the old testament.
A lot of people read the bible and they don't seem to grasp this. It can be used to justify some pretty heinous things if you use the old testament as a justification.
Thus, why I say... stick with the Sermon on the Mount and the things Christ taught. Stick to the 10 commandments (there are older similar commandments) and things are good.
Buddhists also tend to be pretty peaceful for the most part but it too has denominations and not all of them are as positive.
I am greatly opposed to Islam. It is not just a religion but also a system of rule. It is a government.
I think separation of church and state is important so one or more corrupt official does not gain control of a government that is merged with the religion and go on a spree of persecution. It has happened. Even with nations lead by Christianity. NOTE: I had an important word in there. "corrupt"
By extension since Islam is merged with a form of governance if you take it at face value the separation of church and state is impossible. If practitioners of Islam choose to ignore that or create a denomination that did not have the Shariah law stuff then I wouldn't have much of an issue with it.
I wouldn't agree with it. Like I said I am not a particular fan of organized religion MYSELF. I have zero problem though if other people benefit and find comfort in them.
When I was much a child "Noah's Ark" was without a doubt my most favorite part of the bible. I even ended up getting it as several toys.
As I became older and learned more and more it is one of the stories I have the most trouble in accepting. Though if we are in a Simulation it is possible. :)
I will admit I have a lot of reservations about the bible. I have seen it help people though so I try not to go out of my way to bring them up. Doing so can take what for someone like yourself can be a doubt free and comforting existence and try to throw spanners into it. If the person is not a deep thinker they likely would ignore me and be okay. If it is someone like you though I think it can do more harm than good.
I see little to no benefit in sharing my misgivings. I found myself writing about such things in a reply to someone (possibly you) the other day then I deleted them. I thought... "Why?" These are my conclusions, my research, etc. Would knowing these things do more harm than good?
If a person is at peace, feels good about their life, and is doing good in their life then yes, I think it can do more harm than good.
If on the other hand you were one of those "On Sunday I am at Church" Christians that then seemed to think that gave them a pass to act however they wanted the rest of the week... I'd come for someone like that both barrels blazing. I am no fan of hypocrisy.
I can tell you. I do live by the teachings of Christ as best I can. They make sense to me. I don't believe many things that I'd be required to believe and call myself a Christian.
I also like some things from Taoism. I like some things from Buddhism. I even like some Native American ideas.
So I take them... I try to be them, follow them, use them.
I call myself a Deist because as it is defined it fits. No two Deists are alike except they believe there is a Creator/God.
I doubt I'll ever embrace and organized religion. I instead hope my actions and who I am are representative enough.
For me, you asking probing questions would not end up doing more harm than good.
I consider myself first and foremost a 'truth and wisdom seeker' (see my Hive profile). As such, I do not seek nor desire a 'doubt free' existence. With that said, I do not desire to interact with folks whose primary goal is to sow seeds of doubt -- not much fruit to be had from those interactions. However, I am happy to engage with fellow truth-seekers. I used to teach a Sunday school class called 'Difficult Questions' where the aim was to invite folks to bring up those theological issues that they have genuinely struggled with. The presence of evil and pain & suffering in the world represent a couple questions folks commonly struggle with but might not have the courage to grapple with.
This is not to say that all such 'difficult questions' can be answered. Many times, our exploration of a specific question uncovered even more questions. The point of the class was not to provide 'answers' per se but to say that it's okay to have questions and to explore the ramifications of different viewpoints, even if we end up with no definitive answers. We should never fear honest inquiry.
If I am believing a lie or adhering to a belief system that misrepresents or misconstrues the 'truth' then I would rather have that fact exposed, so that I can abandon falsehood and seek truth along a different path. That is why I welcome genuine questions about Christian doctrine and theology, Biblical worldview, veracity of the Scriptures, etc.
That is good to know. Well let's start simple then. I'd like to know your take on some things in the bible. It's easy to explain if you don't consider it the word of God. Yet if you do view it as the word of God then it can often cause some concern.
The person that first exposed it to me is actually a devout Christian. He was also a Tax Attorney, and Concert Pianist. He was teaching bible school himself when he discovered these things (and numerous others) and they bothered him as an attorney enough that he did not cease being a Christian. He did however, go on a long journey and write a number of books as he researched and looked for answers. Many Christians I know would find many of his conclusions disturbing as they are not Canon but they did for him solve the issues.
You can start by closely looking at the accounts of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke. Compare them. You may need to check a couple of different printings of bibles as I cannot guarantee they all say the same thing. In my experience they often differ depending on edition, denomination, etc.
Like I said for me this is easy to rectify. I view the bible as the words of man attempting to explain what they experienced, what they were told, etc. It is often also written long after the event, or by someone who was repeating things they had heard.
I don't expect it to be flawless in such a condition. I also don't think that immediately invalidates the content of the book. It just is a perceptual shift. Is it the word of God or is it the word of man? If it is the word of God then the contradictions are worrisome. Also if it is the word of God which bible is the correct one? Why does man keep changing the word of God?
As to my friend, author, attorney, pianist I referred to. Let me see if I can find links to some of his works. He put a ton of effort into researching. I have a couple of his books signed. (I met him because I always made house trips to fix his computers for him more than a decade ago)
I don't agree with all of his conclusions but I respect the work and I greatly enjoyed talking to him.
His name is Edward Reaugh Smith and it saddens me to learn he died in August. I didn't know. On the upside I know he likely has some answers that all of us will get eventually now.
List of books
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=edward+reaugh+Smith&ref=nb_sb_noss
I have the Burning Bush and The Soul's Long Journey. I had the Incredible Births of Jesus which is a smaller book and not as daunting as some of the others. I loaned it to someone (forgot who) and never got it back.
Why do I mention him? He is someone who is/was a Christian and saw the contradictions. Instead of discounting them, ignoring them, or deciding it was a lie he went out and tried to explain them.
I guess I should start by explaining my take on the veracity and authority of Scripture.
I have always believed the Bible is the Word of God. I have believed this for as long as I can remember, even though no one (that I know of) ever taught me this. However, I never actually studied the Bible (in any way, shape, or form) until my junior year in high school. I became a Christian about 6 months after I began to intently study the Scriptures. My views about Scripture have changed some (but not much) over the years since then.
Regarding the infallibility of Scripture, I take a mostly orthodox approach (but not because I believe in orthodoxy):
If you are referring to differences in details, this does not bother me (e.g. one gospel writer says there was a blind man who Jesus healed, while another gospel writer says there were two blind men). Although I steadfastly hold to the infallibility of Scripture, I do not define 'infallibility' as "every detail was perfectly and precisely captured" by each author. Some might consider this a 'cop out' and maybe it is. This gets back to my view that God intentionally allowed mistakes to enter the canon. My personal belief is that those mistakes were transcriptional (i.e. they occurred after-the-fact, as individuals where transcribing copies from the originals and from copies of the originals, etc.). However, it would not upset me if some of those 'mistakes' were allowed from the outset. Again, my view is that [1] God intentionally allowed minor mistakes (to keep us from idolizing the Bible) and [2] God preserved the important truths from corruption (so Scripture can faithfully fulfill its purpose -- God revealing Himself to mankind).
Okay... good enough. Now we get to the next point. This is a big one for me and it relates to all of the above and it has nothing to do with Ed Smith. I don't think I ever had a chance to discuss it with him.
You do understand that the bible as it first came to be was put together over 300 years after the time of Christ. It was done so by the FIRST Council of Nicea formed at the behest of Roman Emperor Constantine.
They decided what would and would not go into the bible. There is even indication they changed things here and there.
Occasionally we discover papyruses, and writings that predate this. Often they are accounts of some of the same stories and could be quite close or they can sometimes vary significantly.
It was this Roman council that decided what WOULD and WOULD NOT go in there.
I can't bring myself to remotely consider that the word of God.
I can't do it. I don't trust Governments. I don't trust a council of humans to not use that as an opportunity to manipulate and control.
Could there be exceptions? I am sure there are. Though I have no way of proving that to my satisfaction without the assistance of a time machine to either let me travel there, or to view the past.
Does this bother me? Not really because I don't need a bible. I just appreciate wisdom and I try to learn from the examples of people doing good works.
I long ago gained far more respect for creating things as opposed to destroying them.
I long ago decided that the easy path is often not the one to take. The difficult path is usually more rewarding and often avoids some of the perils of the easy path. It just takes more effort.
I respect a lot of things in the Bible. I also learned from Taoism, and Buddhism. I know a lot of other mythologies Norse, Egyptian, Roman/Greek, etc. I am familiar with Hinduism and many things before that.
I've looked into the history of Judaism as far as we are able to currently know it from before the times of Christ.
I've even seen many examples of things similar to the 10 commandments from before Judaism, and in particular the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
The word of God. Those practicing Islam agree. They also extend that to Mohammed and what he stated.
Is their reasoning lesser? It is likely their reasons are the same as yours.
I found studying Judaism and Zoroastrianism to be particularly informative when I then looked at Christianity and where it went.
I myself do not consider Christianity as it is generally taught as being monotheistic. In practice it resembled Polytheism to me. Consider it Greater and lesser gods. The way Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub/Etc. is treated is pretty much the same as a lesser god is treated in Polytheistic religions.
Judaism on the other hand was truly monotheistic. They didn't have the concept of a Heaven and Hell. They had one place in the after life.
Though one of the most popular religions of the time had a Creator and his antagonist who is strangely reminiscent of God vs Devil type of Dichotomy. It also had the concept of Heaven and Hell and it was extremely influential and powerful.
To me Christianity seems to have taken Judaism and merged it heavily with Zoroastrianism.
Fear is a big motivator. While damnation is a thing people are afraid of and it has existed for a very long time (Most religions have it). The Zoroastrians took it to a new level. It was apparently very successful.
Many of the holidays and dates we attribute to Christ could not actually have fit for those times. The Church did a good job of repurposing holidays that already existed for their own purposes while referring to those that practiced those holidays as Pagans.
It makes sense. It is far easier to convert people if they don't have to give up their holidays, they only need to change the name, and over time change the meaning.
For control and conversion ALL of this makes sense.
Yet it certainly doesn't speak the word of God to me. It resembles patterns of humanity and control that are echoed time and time again. We even see such techniques at work today.
Does that make the bible a bad thing?
No. It has some great things in it. How much of it is allegory and how much of it is literal is constantly in flux as we learn new things, and as new archaeology backs up or refutes things. I also personally think the 10 commandments, and the Sermon on the Mount are quite good and wise.
I can think of reasons why a society would want all of the 10 commandments without needing a God to tell me. If you truly think about them and think long term they make sense.
So whether it is the word of God or it is not the word of God it is still valuable.
The only thing the Word of God might change is whether a person thinks they should believe everything written in it without question.
I don't believe that. I seriously doubt I ever will.
Though I am fine with you or others believing that. As long a you don't go for things in the old testament and think that justifies actions you take you'll be a good person practicing Christianity.
EDIT: I threw you a curve ball. My Polytheism twist didn't have anything to do with the holy trinity. :)
I, too, have an extreme distrust for 'governments'. As we discussed previously, power corrupts -- and political power is perhaps the most corruptible.
However, I have complete peace in trusting the Council of Nicea in their affirmation of which sacred writings constituted canon and which did not. My sense of peace about that resides not in me having any faith or trust that those present were holy and pure in heart. Rather, my peace comes from my faith and trust in an almighty Creator who cares for His creation -- I am confident that if such a Creator exists, then He would have taken a proactive role in protecting His Word -- the revelation of Himself to mankind -- from corruption. And that proactive role would include not only the content itself, but also the societal recognition of what constitutes that content.
In other words, I am convinced that one or the other is true:
I choose to affirm the former rather than the latter.
Of course, every individual is free to examine other so-called sacred writings and decide for himself whether they should be canonized. Same goes for examining the existing canon to determine for yourself whether any of the canonized books should be removed. Martin Luther was critical of the book of James and relegated it to a 'second class' status within the canon.
This does, of course, lead into your question about Islam and the Koran. Any serious seeker of truth must investigate other religions and their claims to have possession of the 'protected revelation' of the almighty Creator. I have studied the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, and Book of Mormon enough to convince myself beyond any doubt that the first two constitute the genuine Word of God while the other two do not.
Ultimately, we are each accountable to God for how we respond to the truth that He has revealed, whether to us individually (i.e. personal communications) or societally (i.e. via canonized Scriptures) or naturally (i.e. via nature and the created world). A wise friend of mine once said, "What God requires of each and every one of us, regardless of age or intellect, is simply this: 'Surrender everything I know about me to everything I know about Him.'"
This is where you and I probably disagree the most. If the Bible is not the Word of God then its value (from my perspective) becomes extremely low. This gets back to my assertion that the Creator is a God who cares. If the Bible (or some other collection of sacred writings constituting the non-corrupted revelation of God to mankind) does not exist, then the God (as I understand Him) does not exist.
A similar argument was made by the Apostle Paul regarding Jesus' resurrection. He said (in 1 Corinthians 15:12-14):
So, either God is conscientious enough to have preserved His revelation for us, or He is not. If He is not, then He is not the God I presume to know and serve, and I am delusional or foolish or worse.
A serious evaluation of textual criticism will reveal that both the Old and New Testaments stand alone in terms of the number of ancient manuscripts in existence and the level of agreement among the various copies.
I would encourage you to throw away the Council of Nicea (as you have already done) and adopt a decentralized alternative method for determining what constitutes Scriptural canon and what does not. Compile the enumeration of the number of distinct ancient copies (both full and partial) currently in existence, for each ancient writing that has ever existed. Those numbers will tell you what should be considered canon and what should not, because that will tell you what writings were viewed as sacred enough to copy and preserve throughout antiquity.
BTW, although I have not done the above exercise, if you do it and find any writing that is not in the Old or New Testaments that rivals the 66 books of the conventional canon, I will seriously begin studying those writings on a regular basis, as I currently do the OT and NT.
As to why I see the bible valuable whether it is the words of God or not.
The teachings of Christ and the New Testament in particular if they are honored and followed without doing so only when convenient and without twisting them to some interpreted purpose historically seem to be one of the most benevolent religions out there.
Buddhists as well are fairly benevolent but I personally see Christians acting as Christ asked as doing more for others. The Buddhists will as well but they seem less driven to seek the opportunity to help. They have denominations too though and I am not familiar with all of them nor have I ever lived or visited anywhere that it was the dominant religion so I may be wrong in these assumptions.
So given the track record of societies when they follow these things the actions speak loudly and that is why I think it has value whether it is the Word of God or not.
Book of Mormon - I chuckle when I think of that one. By the way my wife was raised LDS, married her first husband (I was married once before as well) and came disillusioned by it and left that before we met. Now her mother in her 80s and her father who just turned 90 live with us and have for 5 years at least. They are both practicing Mormons but no longer able to physically travel to church. The Mormon Church sends Elders to visit them at least every other week. We welcome them and treat them well and it brings my mother and father in-law happiness.
The Elders have come to respect and be friends with my wife and I though they know neither of us are of their faith. We treat them well and as if we were part of their faith without being of it.
I strive to do that for everyone.
Though talk about "Magical Thinking"... I have some serious problems with the Golden tablets that everyone is simply supposed to believe existed...
Not to mention one of his later books he wrote while consulting a Scroll he acquired. He produced a quite large tome from that (can't remember which one it was) and claimed it was from interpreting that scroll. Later through Egyptology and Archaeology a lot of examples of that scroll were discovered and translated. They were nothing close to what he wrote. They are what is known as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
So if he faked that translation, you still want me to believe in these Golden Tablets that the entire Mormon faith is based upon that were gone by the time you tell anyone about them? Uhm... nope. Not going to do that.
Now of course I don't say ANY of this to my mother and father in-law. They are happy. The elders are nice. I don't see any benefit to disrupting that because I see it as based upon a con.
Islam I am no fan of. To me it is a pretty evil religion that has been built around a foundation that was not.
The fact it has multiple names for types of lies and when using them is appropriate is enough for me. Jihad is not the language of peace either. And Hijra (conversion through immigration) is not particularly appealing. Don't get me started on Shariah law. If people follow Islam precisely then Separation of Church and State is impossible for they are one and the same.
I also have a lot of interest in mythology. I've studied quite a bit of Celtic mythology as well because I've been told that is some of my ancestry. Whether that is true or not. I know not.
I haven't been seeking as I once did. If it happens though I'll try to remember to reach out to you.
I'm not nearly as angry and I am content. This means a lot of my motivation for why I voraciously studied this type of stuff has chilled. Being young, angry, stereotyped, and occasionally persecuted was a pretty strong motivator for me.
As promised... I am currently watching the following:
It may be of interest to you
By the way... thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. My vote is not worth much but I gave you a 100% up vote on this comment.
Yeah, Noah's Ark is anything but a children's story. The annihilation of every human being on earth except 8 should never have been rebranded as a light-hearted bedtime story, imho.
A couple interesting thoughts about Noah's Ark for you to ponder:
I don't expect you to agree with either of the above points -- just providing them as food for thought.
The toys were more centered around having two animals of each type... so you ended up with a bunch of toy animals. If I remember correctly the toys didn't even have any humans. :)
I wasn't implying that there is anything macabre in the way Noah's Ark stuff is presented to children; just that it is a misrepresentation of that event -- a global catastrophe that no doubt broke the heart of God -- seeing His creation become so corrupt that He had to wipe the slate clean, and there was only one family on earth displaying any righteousness at all.
When Abraham confronted God about destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, God was willing to relent if there were as few as 10 righteous people in the city, but there weren't. At the time of Noah, there were only 8 righteous people in the entire world. Sad days. Sad time in history.
Yeah. I knew what you meant. I was just recalling what it was packaged as to me. A toy with a bunch of plastic animals.