Another "doubt"/problem that often keeps coming back to me is perhaps a silly one But still: What if all those religous experiences by great religous mystics are the simple result of epilepsy? We know Dostoevsky had epilepsy... What if Paul 's revelation of Jesus was an epileptic seizure, and the whole foundation of organized christianity is based on nothing but... An epileptic seizure? I might trust Jesus when he tells me to have faith; but why am I demanded to trust in the infallibility of Paul's experience?

I would also like to ask you one thing : What is it that makes you most attracted to Catholicism, rather that Orthodoxy for example?

Anyway; regarding the Old Testament it is my opinion that one can read in A LOT of mystical things into it (as Gregory of Nyssa does in his magnificient work The Life of Moses, one of the greatest theological works ever written and he is my favorite of the church fathers), mainly because it is GREAT literature, and you can do this with all great literature (Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Dante, Dostoevsky, Proust, Kafka...) but when it comes to God in the Old Testament, Harold Bloom(Perhaps the greatest literary critic in the world and also a jewish) is correct I believe: Yahweh is Human all too human... And it is exceptionally hard to NOT see him as BAD news. It is hard to believe he is the God Jesus talks about, no matter how much you do as Origen et al suggested and read the Old Testament through the lense of Jesus and the New Testament... Yahweh is human all too human, a typical literary character...

On the 'hidden god', and on the reasons for keeping himself thus hidden and never emerging more than half-way into the light of speech, no one has been more eloquent than Pascal a sign that he was never able to calm his mind on this matter: but his voice rings as confidently as if he had at one time sat behind the curtain with this hidden god. He sensed a piece of immorality in the 'deus absconditus'48 and was very fearful and ashamed of admitting it to himself: and thus, like one who is afraid, he talked as loudly as he could. — Beebert

Look at this for example. Strawman. Have you actually read the man? I read Pascal's Pensées, and it's nothing of this sort at all. Pascal was writing a work of apologetics, and so people in that day - like many today - say in protest to Christianity, "Oh well, if God actually existed, why doesn't he give a clear and undeniable sign? Why doesn't He speak with us? Where is He?". So naturally Pascal pointed out to what the Bible says - namely that God is hidden, and not obvious. So quite the contrary, their objection is actually in accordance with Christian scriptures and justifies Christianity, rather than condemn it.

Paul was promoting a social-control-system religion, eventually officially codified at Nicea around 300 A.D.

God didn't write the Bible. The Bible was written by some authoritarian men.

If you're tempted to believe the Bible, then look again at the Book of Joshua.

An international conference of Christian scholars concluded that Christ is heavily misquoted in the Bible.

Don't trust doctrinaire authoritarians. Faith in doctrinaire authoritarians is misplaced.

The Catholic Church collected money from my mother, to be prayed into heaven.

Michael Ossipoff

An international conference of Christian scholars concluded that Christ is heavily misquoted in the Bible. — Michael Ossipoff

:s

You mentioned the Upanishads. I subscribe to Vedanta, and my metaphysics can be regarded as a version of Vedanta metaphysics, though it doesn't match any of the 3 usual Vedanta versions.

Michael Ossipoff

I'll take that as agreement.

Michael Ossipoff

I'll take that as agreement. — Michael Ossipoff

What's the international conference? And how are they "Christian" scholars if they claim the Bible misquotes Jesus? And how the hell did they establish that the Bible misquotes Jesus? Presumably they have a separate source for what Jesus said with which they compare the Bible no? You're clearly bullshitting us most likely.

Does anyone really believe that God told Abraham to kill his son? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes.

What's the international conference? — Agustino

It was described in a newspaper article. No, I don't believe newspapers to be reliable about everything, but there almost surely really was that conference. There'd be no motive to make it up. It probably took place in 1983. I don't have more information about it. But no, I didn't make it up.

And how are they "Christian" scholars if they claim the Bible misquotes Jesus?

Who says a Christian scholar has to believe everything in the Bible? Because they revere Christ, they critically examined quotes attributed to Christ.

The article was brief, and was a long time ago. I couldn't tell you what the conferees' credentials were, though the article might have briefly mentioned them..

And how the hell did they establish that the Bible misquotes Jesus?

Good question. I was wondering the same thing. Most likely there are mutual contractions among the Bible's quotes of Jesus. If different quotes in the Bible contradict eachother, then at least one of them must be false.

Maybe they compared the post-Nicea Bible to the pre-Nicea Bible.

Presumably they have a separate source for what Jesus said with which they compare the Bible no?

Not necessarily. Mutually-contradictory quotes would be sufficient to establish false quotes.

But, additionally, I heard that the Council of Nicea threw out parts of the Bible that didn't suit their agenda.

You're clearly bullshitting us most likely.

No, I wouldn't make it up.I have no reason to bullshit.

Michael Ossipoff

The Nicea re-write of the Bible doesn't inspire confidence.

Michael Ossipoff

Then do you also believe that God told Joshua to perpetrate all those massacres in Canaan?

Michael Ossipoff

I've deleted this duplicate copy of my post. When it didn't post right away, I tried again to post i t, and so it posted twice.

Michael Ossipoff

As for Abraham & Isaac, you're saying that God ordered a murder, to test someone's obedience regarding violence and murder..

That doesn't sound like God. That sounds like some of those authoritarian authors.

It came from those authors.

Michael Ossipoff

No to be honest I havent read Pascal... Only looked in the Book and read maybe 20 pages or so... But it wasnt my opinion on Pascal I hope you know; it was Nietzsche's. Anyway, thank you for clarifying that part... May I ask, how do you respond to the rest of the quote?

But I must add that it still posses some problems that Nietzsche still addresses in the same quote which you didnt reply to... And I would really appreciate if you could share your view on it. That is; sure God is hidden, but how does that effect US? What does it tell US about this God and in relation to what WE can understand and observe in history as sorry and suffering and tragical little human beings? And to some extent I think that is what Nietzsche is addressing... But mind you; Nietzsche was very much a social critic in these aphorisms...

It was described in a newspaper article. No, I don't believe newspapers to be reliable about everything, but there almost surely really was that conference. There'd be no motive to make it up. It probably took place in 1983. I don't have more information about it. But no, I didn't make it up. — Michael Ossipoff

The article was brief, and was a long time ago. I couldn't tell you what the conferees' credentials were, though the article might have briefly mentioned them.. — Michael Ossipoff

"Teacher, teacher the dog really ate my homework! I know I don't have any other evidence, but it was 19:31 and he actually ate it! I don't have more information about it. But no, I didn't make it up!" >:O >:O >:O

Good question. I was wondering the same thing. Most likely there are mutual contractions among the Bible's quotes of Jesus. If different quotes in the Bible contradict eachother, then at least one of them must be false. — Michael Ossipoff

Can you give examples of such quotes? And even if this were so (which by the way it isn't), this wouldn't mean that at least one of them must be false. That would presuppose a dogmatic adherence to the law of noncontradiction, and as it pertains at least to God and the transcendent, this would require some backing.

Maybe they compared the post-Nicea Bible to the pre-Nicea Bible. — Michael Ossipoff

Again, you're speaking blatant lies here. These are entirely nonfactual claims.

No, I wouldn't make it up.I have no reason to bullshit. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, you do have a reason to bullshit, which is to drive your anti-Church propaganda.

The Nicea re-write of the Bible doesn't inspire confidence. — Michael Ossipoff

What re-write? :s

Then do you also believe that God told Joshua to perpetrate all those massacres in Canaan? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes.

As for Abraham & Isaac, you're saying that God ordered a murder, to test someone's obedience regarding violence and murder.. — Michael Ossipoff

No, that's not what I'm saying.

That doesn't sound like God. That sounds like some of those authoritarian authors. — Michael Ossipoff

I doubt those authoritarian sources would have any reason to have God make such a demand.

What does it tell US about this God and in relation to what WE can understand and observe in history as sorry and suffering and tragical little human beings? — Beebert

Well, to begin with, it tells us that Christianity (or Judaism) for that matter is likely to be speaking the truth, since we notice from experience that God is hidden.

You're wrong here. I do not reject the Law, all I do is diminish its sphere of application to creation, not Creator. Good isn't evil and evil isn't good - but those concepts can only be applied to creation (including nature), not to God. You are committing a category error when you apply them to God. — Agustino

And when God intervenes in nature and does something we judge, by the moral law he gave us, to be evil, then what? We're talking about events God causes or directs to be caused in creation.

The Law in my conception applies as harshly and with the same iron-like nature as the Law applies in your conception, only that mine is limited to Nature and creation in its application, while yours has been lifted even above God Himself - as if God's creation (the Law) can raise itself above its Creator! — Agustino

A straw man. It's not lifted above, but made to be identical with God himself. God is not merely good, he is goodness itself. Do you reject the doctrine of divine simplicity? It seems like you do, which is another hallmark of Protestant thinking.

The relevance of that is that when the effects of sin disappear in the denial of the will, then you see the world aright. — Agustino

I still don't get the relevance. Are you saying that the repugnant things are suddenly no longer repugnant once sin goes away? Ugly and evil things just disappear? That would be an interesting claim to the extent that it suggests you are an annihilationist.

How quaint that I disagree the most with that man ;) — Agustino

But you don't. Calvin tried justifying his doctrine of double predestination by saying that God predestined those to be damned in order to manifest his glory. You tried justifying the admirability of God being beyond good and evil by precisely the same justification. It seems that God's "glory" is always appealed to when trying to smooth over theologically absurd or morally repellent claims.

Your child belongs to God first and foremost, and only then does he or she belong to you. Your reasoning of course fails because you and your child are both creatures under one and the same God, and are therefore on an equal footing. The child can absolutely question you, but you cannot question God. The gap between creature and Creator is of the essence. The relationship parent-child is only analogical with the relationship of man or woman with God. It is fallacious to apply the same kind of reasoning to both of them. — Agustino

I made an analogy between a father and his child. Do you reject that God is a father and that we are his children? It seems you must do so in order to say that my analogy is "fallacious."

Yeah, that may be true, if it was possible for God to break his Law in the first place. — Agustino

Now you're saying that God can't break his law, after you've just beaten me over the head with the claim that God can do what he wants, because he's above and beyond the law? Tell me how you have not just contradicted yourself here.

As corrupted by the Fall* — Agustino

Alright, so then anti-natalism follows. Why create more humans corrupted by the fall? You're just perpetuating the fall and its corruption indefinitely.

I would also like to ask you one thing : What is it that makes you most attracted to Catholicism, rather that Orthodoxy for example? — Beebert

Briefly, because, from my present and by no means exhaustive understanding of the history of the Great Schism, it was the East that broke from the West, and not vice-versa. Other reasons include the fact that I like the idea of purgatory, see nothing wrong with the Filioque, and see historical precedent in the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility.

Then, as matters of taste, I prefer Western church architecture to Eastern, and I like that the Catholic Church actually lives up to its name. It accepts Eastern rites, saints, and theologians. It can be found everywhere on the globe. It has produced the most saints. It's founded dozens of top tier universities. Etc. Eastern Orthodoxy is way too bound up with the ethnic identities of Eastern European countries, and is almost entirely found in those countries.

Read the vedas and you will find it there too. Read some muslim texts and you Will find it there. Your answer is in all different ways a strawman. You must say something more than that. To say "jews and christians say that God is hidden and history shows he is so they must be true" I find to be a strawman and a ridiculous argument. And it has nothing to do with what Nietzsche REALLY said in the quote.

"Eastern Orthodoxy is way too bound up with the ethnic identities of Eastern European countries, and is almost entirely found in those countries."

On this, we are very much in agreement. It creates a big problem for the East. My problems with Catholicism though is that it has had a very turbulent history with many committed atrocities that I find hard to accept, and I dont like that it has adjusted itself so much to modernity that it is nowdays hard to go somewhere and find the old mass in latin rite with gregorian chant... That they have almost abandoned that is a catastrophy IMO

On this, we are very much in agreement. It creates a big problem for the East. My problems with Catholicism though is that it has had a very turbulent history with many committed atrocities that I find hard to accept, and I dont like that it has adjusted itself so much to modernity that it is nowdays hard to go somewhere and find the old mass in latin rite with gregorian chant... That they have almost abandoned that is a catastrophy IMO — Beebert

I don't know what you're including under atrocities, but I find many of them attributed to the Church to be overblown. A lot of anti-Catholic myths surround things like the Crusades and the Inquisition, for example.

I agree with you about the liturgy, though. The Catholic Church, in the false "spirit of Vatican II" almost succeeded in selling its birthright for a mess of pottage when it comes to the Mass. Benedict XVI has been influential in reviving the Latin form of it, though, so I hope it continues its comeback. Or at least, I hope the Ordinary Form can become more solemn and reverent.

Are you saying that the repugnant things are suddenly no longer repugnant once sin goes away? Ugly and evil things just disappear? That would be an interesting claim to the extent that it suggests you are an annihilationist. — Thorongil

This is a question, not a challenge: do you think there are 'ugly and evil things' 'in Heaven'?

I would have thought not, and furthermore, that this is at least relevant to the discussion.

This is a question, not a challenge — Wayfarer

As far as I know, annihilationism isn't condoned by Eastern Orthodoxy, of which he is a member. So it is a challenge.

My question was: does evilness and ugliness exist in Heaven?

I would have thought the answer to that was 'no' according to every Christian denomination.

Why would you direct that question to me?

It was in response to the passage I quoted - you asked the question 'Are you saying that the repugnant things are suddenly no longer repugnant once sin goes away? Ugly and evil things just disappear?' I would have thought that the answer would be positive, from any Christian denomination. One way of making that point is to ask - is there 'ugliness and evil' in Heaven? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is 'no'.

The world, with its ugliness and evil, does not disappear when one goes to heaven.