Re: In The Beginning...
[
Replying to The Tanager in post #125]
Quote:
I’m not sure I understand your question. What does the “logic of something which is alternative” mean?
It means that when there is an alternative given, that can be examined, logically.
Quote:
As to your example, I think a supposed NDE meeting with Jesus that contradicts known historical teachings from Jesus would give one reason to believe that they didn’t actually meet with Jesus.
This assumes Jesus remains static in the framework of the history the Bible presents him as - the biblical Jesus - fixed.
Over two thousand years have passed since then. Are we to assume that Jesus would not move with the times - and indeed [re The Control Room] not have influenced said times?
Quote:
I realize one could say: “but we’ve gotten Jesus all wrong,” but the evidence just isn’t on their side, a NDE that could have other scientific explanations for it against historical scholarship.
Historical scholarship is simply that. If we are to believe that Jesus has been active behind the scenes - in N.T. Wright's "Control Room" analogy, then we best not assume that the influence of that room is forever stuck in and dependent upon - that one frame of ancient history.
Quote:
Where do the scriptures say it’s currently all wickedness or give something like a percentage?
In the days of Noah. There is a comparison drawn. [Matthew 24:37-39] couple with [Genesis 6:5]
What reason would Jesus have to return if things are balanced. Why do Christians believe in the second coming if not that they believe the world is more wicked than goodly?
Quote:
Paul’s writings usually have two halves to them, where he gives the gospel and then tells Christians how this should impact how we live, and that the way we do this is through God working in us (Phil 2:12-13).
I say that the metaphor for YHVH breath of life is the same.[Genesis 2:7]
Some Christians believe that the soul is what that breath is. The soul integrates with the Human experience and personality is formed through that integrated experience.
The instigative/compelling influence of the soul over the personality appears to be the Holy Ghost...perhaps the soul of YHVH, more directly?...perhaps reminding the soul attached to the personality, that it is integral to the personalities development within the framework of the personalities experience, for purposes which extend beyond the borders of materialism.
Quote:
Do you believe it was the same body Jesus had prior to his death?
Quote:
Yes, but enhanced.
Please explain why something which is '
enhanced' is '
the same'.
Quote:
No, I don’t think they believed Heaven was an actual alternate realm located elsewhere to begin with. I’m saying they metaphorically associated the heavens with talk of spiritual things and that a bit of ascension could have jogged that thought for some people, while not running the risk of being misunderstood.
This implies that Christianity has it wrong re the belief that when one dies, one goes to Heaven - or alternatively - Hell.
What evidence can you provide that the ancients Jesus was in contact with at that time, believed differently?
What is to say that if, what they did believe in was not true, that Jesus - knowing differently - wanted them to understand that their beliefs were in error?
Given the account of the telling from Jesus re YHVH reality [Kingdom] plus the ascension, how can your thinking otherwise, be counted as acceptable?
Quote:
I do not agree. I’m as close to 100% positive as one can get that N.T. Wright, if you were able to ask him, would definitely not say that he meant that. I think that would be quite clear from anyone who has read or listened to Wright much at all.
That is not my point. I am simply taking what you quoted and showing that N.T. Wright is describing something which can be taken in the context of ST.
Jesus
went somewhere and we should be able to agree that where he did
go had something to do with YVHV Kingdom, and unless that Kingdom is somewhere hidden in the Universe nearby - [perhaps in the hollow of earths moon?] - based upon what Jesus
did say about the YHVH Kingdom, what reason do we have NOT to think he was speaking of a different
realm?
Point being, whether it is N.T. Wright or C.S. Lewis, ST can explain the metaphors and if Jesus' ascension is not counted as a metaphor but a real event, then we are left to wonder where he
went - once the clouds concealed his form from the eye witnesses.
Quote:
I think all stories should be approached skeptically, until we see good reasons to believe they aren’t lies, hallucinations, honest mistakes, etc.
That is a non-theistic approach re biblical stories and not appropriate to faith. I have seen Christians use this as a means to argue against things which are not aligned with their particular beliefs - one personal example - my being told that experiences I have shared over the years on this message board "could be
delusional."
I expect
non-theists to argue in that manner, but reject the validity of such argument from theists calling themselves "Christians" and promoting faith-based beliefs which themselves, do not facilitate skepticism...
Having a foot in both camps doesn't bode well with honestly confessing one is a theist/Christian, as far as I can see.
Quote:
I don’t think the differences between a Biblical worldview/story and alternative worldviews/stories are cosmetic. There are definitely similarities at point, but they have real and often deep differences on key issues.
Re our particular conversation here, what "key issues" are you speaking to?
Quote:
Descartes’ demon, the Matrix, various other examples are distinct philosophical views.
ST in it's narrow view might facilitate your reasoning for not agreeing, however, in the broader sense "existing within a creation/existing within a simulation" bundles all apparent differences under the one idea.
The distinct philosophical views might be for particular purposes?
I am viewing the whole concept [we exist within a created thing] as the overall 'philosophy' rather than focusing upon any particular flavor.
Re C.S. Lewis, the
wardrobe into another
realm represents a gateway between one reality experience and an alternative one.
Whatever
philosophy Lewis was using in relation to his renditioned storyline, only differentiates what
kind of simulation one experiences. It does not seek to promote that his portrayal of it is the only one, or the overall one...
each speak of the same thing, in different ways, much like the same can be said of the differences between the Star Wars Universe and the Star Trek Universe...different universes same,
simulation principle.
[In that, "Universe" is another way of saying "Simulation".]
All such stories are of course modeled off of this one, from where they are authored, but there is no way of telling if the inspiration comes from the influence of actual simulated realms, or are purely figments of the authors own imaginations.
This is what I was attempting to convey to you when we were both interacting in the "Around The Campfire" Universe... as said universe was described as the hub of all Simulated Universes...
Quote:
I do consider myself a Christian. My point is that I’m not going to adhere to a belief simply because Martin Luther stated it, or my pastor says it, etc.
Why do you support whatever belief you adhere to? And what about ST has you concerned, re those beliefs?
Quote:
I didn’t mean that it had less explanatory power. I meant simplicity in the Occam’s razor sense. ST theory says there is one level of reality that we experience and then another level of reality behind that. That’s two levels of reality to explain. I think traditional Christianity asserts one of these levels of reality. One is a simpler framework than two. That’s all I meant there.
The math agrees with ST. ST agrees with the mathematics of quantum physics.
The evidence is more than just a theory - it is a mathematical theorem. A theorem is a statement which has been proved true by a special kind of logical argument called a rigorous proof.
The statement which has been proved true, is that "Spacetime is Doomed." This is to say, that spacetime is NOT the base reality which materialists have insisted that it is.
This bodes with theism, and Christianity being theistic means that this should also bode with Christians.
Yet you - as a Christian - are arguing for the materialist interpretation of this universe experience.
Given "Spacetime is Doomed" is relatively new to human insight and thus not popular in terms of humans knowing about that, one can accept that arguments such as yours are coming from a place of ignorance, but the information is there for anyone with internet access to find, so the idea would be for one to get knowledgeable with new information being presented and, in doing so, drop old concepts for new ones.
Quote:
I think heaven and earth are part of the one base reality. I don’t think heaven is a construct of the physical universe. It has nothing to do with the IF…THEN you mentioned above. I don’t think that would follow.
I see no good reason to see that our universe is not part of the base reality.
There is very good reason, as I just mentioned.
ST gives us the better explanation [re The Razor] and aligned with the latest information.
The mathematics prove that your Christian understanding of reality is as faulty as the materialists understanding of reality.
Theism up to this point has had no choice but to accept materialism as base-reality and attempt to superimpose the idea of Creation/Creator into that mix.
Theism does not have to proceed in that manner now that the math supports our universe is not base reality.
Quote:
I don’t think that is a given, as I shared above. I don’t think Paradise was thought of as being another location in that society. They didn’t think people went to another realm.
I can accept that folk may well have thought about reality in materialistic terms, but Jesus didn't speak of reality in the same way. According to his own words, we should be able to accept that he
knew that the material universe was
not base reality - his oft enough commentary on the realm of YHVH, confirms this to be the case.
Quote:
We absolutely can say that they do not teach simulation theory. There is no mention of ST theory being explanatory of reality. If ST theory is true, then the Biblical accounts are oblivious to that fact.
Or we absolutely
can say that they
do teach that we exist in a reality which is not base-reality and that the accounts by those telling the stories, would have been oblivious to that but we - today - should be able to see such stories in a different light, since we have access to knowledge that they did not.
Agreed?
