The God thread

[cwsox]

Actually....

 

Scientists found marine fossils in teh Himilayas.

 

Creation "Scientists" try to use such discoveries as evidence of a great flood.

 

The realization of how plate tectonics work -- that all of the land masses of the planet reside on floating cructal plates that move over time -- turned all of the purported flood evidence.

 

The Himilayas were formed as the result of tectonic upthrust -- major continental plates colliding and rock that was originally under water (hence the marine fossils) was thrust ever higher in the air over hundreds of thousands of years until the mountain range was formed.

 

Creation "Scientists" regularly like to use a world view that real science discarded about 150 years ago.  But for these folks, there is apparently no need to throw out perfectly good theories merely because they have been demonstrated to be hoplessly wrong...

you beat me to it -

 

Jim, you are exactly right- the moutains were thrust up, there was no water covering the mountains

 

people who believe the Scriputres are authoritative (as I do) will find nothing in attempts to "prove" it

 

what the Noah narratives tell us have nothing to do wth their total ahistorical nature

[southsider2k5]

you beat me to it -

 

Jim, you are exactly right- the moutains were thrust up, there was no water covering the mountains

 

people who believe the Scriputres are authoritative (as I do) will find nothing in attempts to "prove" it

 

what the Noah narratives tell us have nothing to do wth their total ahistorical nature

To me the question is how old are the fossils? Plate Techtonics takes literally millions of years to happen. If we are talking about fossils that are 10,000 or even 50,000 years old, then there were fish in the mountians. If we are talking about 50 million year old fossils then the arguement can be made that they were there and the mountians moved.

[FlaSoxxJim]

To me the question is how old are the fossils?  Plate Techtonics takes literally millions of years to happen.  If we are talking about fossils that are 10,000 or even 50,000 years old, then there were fish in the mountians.  If we are talking about 50 million year old fossils then the arguement can be made that they were there and the mountians moved.

Don't go trying to get biblical literalists to actually accept facts like the age of the Earth, SS.

 

For the literalists, the world is only, what, a little older than 10,000 years or so. Creationists will happily point to fossil strata containing different suites of organisms of evidence of divinely-ordained catastrophism – several events on the order of Noah's flood where most of the life on the planet was wiped out.

 

The same literalists refuse to accept universal laws regarding the behavior of physical particles. The cannot accept sound scientific techniques like the use of radioisotope decay rates to date rocks and fossils, because it points to their true age as Waaaay older than a literal biblical interpretation will allow. The US Supreme Court was correct in its estimation that calling anything concocted by the Creationists a "science" is ridiculous if not obcene.

 

For the record, a highly regarded group of Oxford geologists in 2003 published work that demonstrated that "rocks at the very top of the world's highest peak were laid down in a shallow tropical sea some 400 million years ago." That is from the geological Period known as the Ordovician, the time of the first explosion of bony fish diversity and way before the age of the dinosaurs. As 'recent' as the Jurassic, 200 mybp (million years before present), the continental land masses were still part of the supercontinent Pangea. The Himilayas are actually pretty young (though that's a relative term). The Indian subcontinent did not slam into Asia until the Eocene Epoch of the Tertiary Period, a 'mere' 58 million years ago. For reference, Dinosaurs had already been extinct for 8 million years before the Himilayas began to be thrust up.

 

Don't tell the biblical Flat Earther's though, they don't want to know.

[southsider2k5]

Don't go trying to get biblical literalists to actually accept facts like the age of the Earth, SS. 

 

For the literalists, the world is only, what, a little older than 10,000 years or so.  Creationists will happily point to fossil strata containing different suites of organisms of evidence of divinely-ordained catastrophism – several events on the order of Noah's flood where most of the life on the planet was wiped out.

 

The same literalists refuse to accept universal laws regarding the behavior of physical particles.  The cannot accept sound scientific techniques like the use of radioisotope decay rates  to date rocks and fossils, because it points to their true age as Waaaay older than a literal biblical interpretation will allow.  The US Supreme Court was correct in its estimation that calling anything concocted by the Creationists a "science" is ridiculous if not obcene.

 

For the record, a highly regarded group of Oxford geologists in 2003 published work that demonstrated that "rocks at the very top of the world's highest peak were laid down in a shallow tropical sea some 400 million years ago."  That is from the geological Period known as the Ordovician, the time of the first explosion of bony fish diversity and way before the age of the dinosaurs.  As 'recent' as the Jurassic, 200 mybp (million years before present), the continental land masses were still part of the supercontinent Pangea.  The Himilayas are actually pretty young (though that's a relative term).  The Indian subcontinent did not slam into Asia until the Eocene Epoch of the Tertiary Period, a 'mere' 58 million years ago.  For reference, Dinosaurs had already been extinct for 8 million years before the Himilayas began to be thrust up.

 

Don't tell the biblical Flat Earther's though, they don't want to know.

Who was the biblical scholar who went back and added up all of the days of occurences in the bible and came up with an exact creation date of about 5000 (IIRC) BC? That was one that always cracked me up.

 

But hey, poking holes in arguements is what I do

[cwsox]

Bishop Usher and it was 4,000 something BCE so your recollection is very close

 

the day of creation (I just doublechecked) according to the well meaning but wrong Bishop Usher was October 22, 4004 BC

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bishop Usher and it was 4,000 something BCE so your recollection is very close

 

the day of creation (I just doublechecked) according to the well meaning but wrong Bishop Usher was October 22, 4004 BC

Right around noon that day, too, if I recall correctly...

[southsider2k5]

Bishop Usher and it was 4,000 something BCE so your recollection is very close

 

the day of creation (I just doublechecked) according to the well meaning but wrong Bishop Usher was October 22, 4004 BC

Thanks CW. I almost instinctively knew you would be the one to answer that question. I guess it is the NTN in the blood

 

Anyways on a side note. This thread sure took a tangent from what I originally intended it to do, but I will say that I am pleasantly surprised. How often is their 8 pages of discussion in one day on something and no one has gotten flamed??? Great discussion all.

 

And back to my original question, has anyone read the Gospel of St Thomas, or any of the "lost" gospels, such as Q or any others?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thanks CW.  I almost instinctively knew you would be the one to answer that question.  I guess it is the NTN in the blood

 

Anyways on a side note.  This thread sure took a tangent from what I originally intended it to do, but I will say that I am pleasantly surprised.  How often is their 8 pages of discussion in one day on something and no one has gotten flamed???  Great discussion all.

 

And back to my original question, has anyone read the Gospel of St Thomas, or any of the "lost" gospels, such as Q or any others?

No, but if the Thomas in question is Aquinas, do I get any points for having to slog through "Summa Theologica" in theology class back in high school?

 

I actually do have an interest in reading some of the so-called heretical non-gospels, but I should probably take the time to reread the accepted versions from the Fab Four again as it has been some time since I have done so.

 

Way too many books on my persona; "to read" list.

[Queen Prawn]

A quote from the movie "The Mothman Prophecies" comes to mind.  During the movie it was believed that higher spirits were trying to contact humans about impending danger.  One scene involved the author of a paranormal book being asked "Why don't they just tell us what they want"  The author replied "You're more evolved then a cockroach. Have you ever tried explaining yourself to one."  Think about the relationship to God.

 

Great quote and I have to agree 110% with it. BTW - that was an awesome movie.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Thanks for adding your input, Vince.  It is, as always, very informative.  I think confessional Item 7 is an outstanding example of what it should be to strive to live as a christian. 

 

My youngest child is in pre-K at an Episcopal school because it is the single best place for him locally to get a head-start on his education.  While his teachers are very loving and nurturing toward him and his classmates, this parish and most of the others in central Florida are currently aligning themselves on (I feel) the wrong side of the current liberal vs coonservative Episcopal debate.  I am a classroom dad that volunteers to work with the kids 2 days each month.  But I made some people in the parish (I am not a member, obviously) wary early in the year when I alone raised objections to the suggestiosn that all teachers, classroom volunteers, etc., make some kind of public affirmation of their commitment to 'family values' (the biggoted variety) before they were allowed in contact with the children.

 

Frankly, too many of these lip-service christians continue to disguise their prejudices and phobias as concern for 'family values.' Your words are refreshing, and a reminder of the inclusive, loving community the Church (and hopefully the individual church) is supposed to be about.

I'm trying to hold back on any sarcasm because in the end jim I've always liked you as a poster.

 

But, I think it's unfair for you to blanket label "family values" as biggoted if someone doesn't necessarily agree with the current downward trends of the family and society. I will teach my children to love everyone, no matter their skin type, religion, culture or personal choices; however, I think the "if you don't think like us, then you're a biggot" mantra is a close relative to the "if you don't think like us you're either a masochist or a chauvinist" feminist movement in the 60-70s that emasculated an entire population of males.

 

My culture calls me to be the head of a household and take leadership and seek guidance from a higher power to better my family. It requires me to be a servant in my own household, putting my wife and kids above myself. Loving them above my own desires. It requires me to instill a healthy sense of right and wrong, a sense of justice, and actively show my kids that we should love the people who need loving, help those who need helping, and reach out to those who need reaching.

 

It's inappropriate to label any culture as better or more advanced than another culture. This is not a religious view point, but the view point of my very secular anthropology prof. Don't tell me I have to accept behaviors that my culture and belief system deems incorrect, because i'm not sitting here and saying you're a sinner. Live within my culture and then we might have some discussing to do, but you're not, so I have nothing but love for you. (see the first statement of this post).

 

this is why I have intrinsic problems with *****, whom I'm not allowed to address personally, and not you Jim. I'm fascinated by both of your opinions though. Thank you for sharing.

 

Alex

[cwsox]

was your translation or book of the Gospel of Thomas written by Elaine Pagels?

 

 

There is a lot of nonBiblical literature from that era out there (roughly 50 CE to 200 CE, CE = Common Era, a more inclusive way of saying the one religion centric AD. CE is the designation used by Bible scholars of all faiths).

 

The material in the non canonical literature is very interesting and informs our understandings of what it is the canon of Scripture, one way or another. It is very useful for scholarly purposes.

 

But it is not material in the canon - the canon of Scriptures recognised by the Church as its books of Scriptures, the 27 we have. There are reason Thomas and the others are not canon. The people of the Church in those times did not feel that God was speaking to them by the non canonical books, and/or the non canonical books were saying things that were considered correct, or pushing things that were not in acciord with the message of Jesus and the Gospel. There were prevelant mystery religions (a term of art, not that they were a mystery) and other things going on in those days, especially gnosticism, and the people who were the Church debated and thought and met and discussed and by various processess determined that the 27 books of the Christian Covenant (NT) we have are the books which are canon and the other material was not.

 

The Gospel of Thomas is the most oft cited non Canonical book. Worth reading as a side note. To me it is rather incredibly gnostic at times and takes leaps into fantastical stuff that is, ah, interesting but not Gospel. yet as a key to understanding the culture, mileau and all, essential for scholarly purposes. The Jesus Seminar used it in that way.

 

I love how so many authors print so many books telling us the Gospel of Thomas is being kept hidden from su by the Church and yet so many books out there with it - it has never been hidden, just not canonical.

 

Elaine Pagels is a first class scholar and very respected. I do not always agree with her but she is an excellent scholar.

[cwsox]

No, but if the Thomas in question is Aquinas, do I get any points for having to slog through "Summa Theologica" in theology class back in high school?

 

I actually do have an interest in reading some of the so-called heretical non-gospels, but I should probably take the time to reread the accepted versions from the Fab Four again as it has been some time since I have done so.

 

Way too many books on my persona; "to read" list.

No to that Thomas

 

you get no points for reading the Summa but will rememeber that boredom forever

 

they are not heretical books properly speaking, just non canonical - althogh some may contain what could be considered heresy, that is a term best avoided for real heresy and not every little thing

 

if you are going to re-read the Big 4, get the Jesus eminar stuff - you will find that fascinating

[southsider2k5]

was your translation or book of the Gospel of Thomas written by Elaine Pagels?

 

 

There is a lot of nonBiblical literature from that era out there (roughly 50 CE to 200 CE, CE = Common Era, a more inclusive way of saying the one religion centric AD. CE is the designation used by Bible scholars of all faiths).

 

The material in the non canonical literature is very interesting and informs our understandings of what it is the canon of Scripture, one way or another.  It is very useful for scholarly purposes.

 

But it is not material in the canon - the canon of Scriptures recognised by the Church as its books of Scriptures, the 27 we have.  There are reason Thomas and the others are not canon.  The people of the Church in those times did not feel that God was speaking to them by the non canonical books, and/or the non canonical books were saying things that were considered correct, or pushing things that were not in acciord with the message of Jesus and the Gospel.  There were prevelant mystery religions (a term of art, not that they were a mystery) and other things going on in those days, especially gnosticism, and the people who were the Church debated and thought and met and discussed and by various processess determined that the 27 books of the Christian Covenant (NT) we have are the books which are canon and the other material was not.

 

The Gospel of Thomas is the most oft cited non Canonical book.  Worth reading as a side note.  To me it is rather incredibly gnostic at times and takes leaps into fantastical stuff that is, ah, interesting but not Gospel.  yet as a key to understanding the culture, mileau and all, essential for scholarly purposes.  The Jesus Seminar used it in that way.

 

I love how so many authors print so many books telling us the Gospel of Thomas is being kept hidden from su by the Church and yet so many books out there with it - it has never been hidden, just not canonical.

 

Elaine Pagels is a first class scholar and very respected.  I do not always agree with her but she is an excellent scholar.

It is a translation by Marvin Meyer. I actually debated which type to get, a translation or a book about it, and went for the translation. I didn't want someone else's opinion to get in the way of what was in there. Then there is an "interpretation" Harold Bloom that I am reading now. It is a pretty clean intrepretation as he does a lot of referencing to other gospels where they parallell stories are.

 

Very interesting stuff.

[cwsox]

2K4, since you are reading non canonical lit and Jim, since you were discussing the same thing,

 

you might find some good stuff here on how what got into the canon and on all the non canonical lit - check all the links on the left - haven't read everything on this site but it seems very factual and scholarly and solid

 

canon site

 

 

 

 

edited by cwsox because it seemed I should add the first line of the post as it now exists

Edited January 27, 2004 by cwsox

[sox4lifeinPA]

you might find some good stuff here on how what got into the canon and on all the non canonical lit - check all the links on the left - haven't read everything on this site but it seems very factual and scholarly and solid

 

canon site

Oh, thank you *****, i have something to do at work now. sweet.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm trying to hold back on any sarcasm because in the end jim I've always liked you as a poster.

 

But, I think it's unfair for you to blanket label "family values" as biggoted if someone doesn't necessarily agree with the current downward trends of the family and society. I will teach my children to love everyone, no matter their skin type, religion, culture or personal choices; however, I think the "if you don't think like us, then you're a biggot" mantra is a close relative to the "if you don't think like us you're either a masochist or a chauvinist" feminist movement in the 60-70s that emasculated an entire population of males.

 

My culture calls me to be the head of a household and take leadership and seek guidance from a higher power to better my family. It requires me to be a servant in my own household, putting my wife and kids above myself. Loving them above my own desires. It requires me to instill a healthy sense of right and wrong, a sense of justice, and actively show my kids that we should love the people who need loving, help those who need helping, and reach out to those who need reaching.

 

It's inappropriate to label any culture as better or more advanced than another culture. This is not a religious view point, but the view point of my very secular anthropology prof. Don't tell me I have to accept behaviors that my culture and belief system deems incorrect, because i'm not sitting here and saying you're a sinner. Live within my culture and then we might have some discussing to do, but you're not, so I have nothing but love for you. (see the first statement of this post).

 

this is why I have intrinsic problems with *****, whom I'm not allowed to address personally, and not you Jim. I'm fascinated by both of your opinions though. Thank you for sharing.

 

Alex

Alex. First off, no offense is taken by your questioning my statements, so no worries. As for my digs at 'Family Values,' please note the quotes as I refer only to the very real use of the term as code words for the Christian Right in their ongoing attempts to separate an "Us" and a "Them." When Dan Quayle was released on the public in the second half of Papa Bush's term, he hit the motherlode of Conservative Christian voter support by saying the kinds of things that group wants to hear. I am simplifying the scenario, of course, but for someone to get all riled up about fictional single mother Murphy Brown as an example of the decay of family values, to have the Conservative Christian camp eat it up, AND to have the media pay attention to any of it was surreal.

 

The truth was and still is that this is one of the three most important Republican voter bases (the others being the fiscal conservatives and those pushing for ever larger defense spending). Here in an election year, we are hearing Baby Bush pandering to the same group with talk of reviving the pursuit of government funded faith-based social programs, expanded pro-marriage counseling services, and the possibility of a Constitutional amendment banning gay unions.

 

When 'family values' start to look like a Christian Conservative special agenda, I call a spade a spade.

 

I'm sure you and I both have more personal commitment to true family values (no quotes) than any 10 Newt Gingrich's combined. With the exception of the emphasis on the guiding role of God in daily life, you very accurately depict many of the things I think are important in raising my family.

 

For that matter, God is not a taboo subject with my kids. I'm the product of 12 years of Catholic schooling, and I simultaneously thank and blame the damn Jebbies of St. Ignatius for demanding that I question my religious beliefs and the viewpoints of the religious establishment I was born into. As I have said my 4-year old is currently enrolled in an Episcopal school, which I guess makes him the spiritual authority of the family. In terms a 6-year old and 4-year old can understand, I tell my kids that I am not an authority on God, that I think this world is a mind-blowingly amazing place, that Love will kick hate's ass 10 times out of 10, and that sometimes it's really hard to do the right things but that doesn't mean they are not the right things to strive to do.

 

Love and Do What You Will

[Soxy]

And back to my original question, has anyone read the Gospel of St Thomas, or any of the "lost" gospels, such as Q or any others?

I read the Gospel of Thomas (the actual Gospel) in my class called Jesus. But my understanding of Q is that it is lost and can't be found.

 

I've had many very interesting discussions with very devout and conservative in their reading and interpretiation of the scriptures Christians about the books of the Bible that were excluded.

 

Leaving the church is something that I've always struggled with--and when I had to ask the college Pastor to speak at an event I was sponsoring I was shocked when he asked me if I'd ever considered going to seminary (obviously the answer is no). The point is, I think that books like the Gospel of Thomas speak to people in ways other Gospels may not--I think that the essence of compassion that is Jesus is very much alive in that manuscript and it belongs in the Canon. In the end I think that books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mark (the one actually in THE CANON) encapsulate much more my idea of what Jesus and God should be--and how we can and should relate to each other--and how we actually DO relate to each other.

[cwsox]

I read the Gospel of Thomas (the actual Gospel) in my class called Jesus. But my understanding of Q is that it is lost and can't be found.

Q is only postulated that it must have existed. There must have been a Q - but it remains the unknown. I surely thing there was a Q long since lost.

 

Interesting you like Gospel of Thomas, and of the canonicals, Mark, more than me. Of the 4, Matthew is my favorite Gospel, I guess, although Luke sure has its moments!

[Soxy]

Interesting you like Gospel of Thomas, and of the canonicals, Mark, more than me. Of the 4, Matthew is my favorite Gospel, I guess, although Luke sure has its moments!

Mark has the most human Jesus--that's why I like it. I like that there's no birth narrative and that he's divinely chosen as opposed to born. Also, since it's the earliest I think it's the truest picture....

[sox4lifeinPA]

I tell my kids that I am not an authority on God, that I think this world is a mind-blowingly amazing place, that Love will kick hate's ass 10 times out of 10, and that sometimes it's really hard to do the right things but that doesn't mean they are not the right things to strive to do.

 

you and I aren't much different my friend. I agree with your whole post, and I was more of using your post to discuss my thoughts on cultural differences in America. Bush's attempts to vote grab by using these hot topics are why I grow to dislike him more and more. I'm just wondering why he didn't bring up abortion in the SOTU.

 

There are so many loonies out there on every side that no one is safe from prejudices. If I told you miss sox4life is really looking forward to being a stay at home mom and raising children, designing and decorating our home, and spending time everyday finding new recipes to try out in the kitchen...I'm sure you'd all laugh and call her naive and maybe even a waste of talent, being that she graduated 4th in her class, for example.

 

I guess I just wonder why people think that's not ok anymore...why are traditional roles and values looked upon as bad? when today's mantra accepts everything as equal?

 

weird.

[Wong & Owens]

I read the Gospel of Thomas (the actual Gospel) in my class called Jesus.

You have a class called Jesus?

 

"Hey, ChiSoxy, want to go grab something to eat later?"

 

"No, I can't, I have too much Jesus homework."

 

"I took Jesus, Jesus is hard."

 

"Yeah, I think I may flunk Jesus. I'll flunk if I don't do well on next week's Jesus Lab project."

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm only entertaining myself here. I'll shut up now.

[southsider2k5]

I read the Gospel of Thomas (the actual Gospel) in my class called Jesus. But my understanding of Q is that it is lost and can't be found.

 

I've had many very interesting discussions with very devout and conservative in their reading and interpretiation of the scriptures Christians about the books of the Bible that were excluded.

 

Leaving the church is something that I've always struggled with--and when I had to ask the college Pastor to speak at an event I was sponsoring I was shocked when he asked me if I'd ever considered going to seminary (obviously the answer is no). The point is, I think that books like the Gospel of Thomas speak to people in ways other Gospels may not--I think that the essence of compassion that is Jesus is very much alive in that manuscript and it belongs in the Canon. In the end I think that books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mark (the one actually in THE CANON) encapsulate much more my idea of what Jesus and God should be--and how we can and should relate to each other--and how we actually DO relate to each other.

The interesting slant on it, was that it was the "origninal" of the gospels because it was much less embellished than the Big 4, and it contained only the words of Jesus, and not the extras that the other gospel writers added, so the theory was that the others were written later because the improved upon the original.

[Soxy]

I guess I just wonder why people think that's not ok anymore...why are traditional roles and values looked upon as bad? when today's mantra accepts everything as equal?

 

weird.

Now, I don't think you'll be shocked Alex to find out that I'm a huge feminist. I've never actually burned a bra--but really only because it's quite cost prohibitive.

 

I'm not at all put off by stay at home moms. In fact, I think that feminists that say EVERY WOMAN MUST WORK don't get it either. The point is, women should have the choice. Men should do. At this point in my life I don't know if I want to get married or have children. Maybe I don't want to do either--maybe I'll want to do one. Maybe my husband will want to be the one to stay home. But the point is--that I have the right to make that choice for myself. I have the right to apply for graduate schools and to sit through interviews and NOT be asked about when I want to start a family. Or if I have a boyfriend. Or if I want children. Your significant other has the right to want to stay at home with wee ones. And she has the right to want to go to work when she wants to, if she wants to.

 

Essentially, that's all the liberal movement, as I see it is--creating those equal opportunities. So, I'm not belitting choices made by other women--I may not understand them. But they may not understand my choices either. Some men may not understand stay at home dads--but stay at home dads may not understand men that don't want to chill with their kids.

 

Hope that helps.

[Soxy]

You have a class called Jesus?

 

"Hey, ChiSoxy, want to go grab something to eat later?"

 

"No, I can't, I have too much Jesus homework."

 

"I took Jesus, Jesus is hard."

 

"Yeah, I think I may flunk Jesus.  I'll flunk if I don't do well on next week's Jesus Lab project."

Oh, yes we did--they might have changed the title--but I think it's still the same... But the thing was Jesus was way easy. I got a 98% on the midterm and a 96% on the final. Heehee. I love St. Olaf College.

[Queen Prawn]

I guess I just wonder why people think that's not ok anymore...why are traditional roles and values looked upon as bad? when today's mantra accepts everything as equal?

From a this woman's perspective, it's not financially feasible, in most cases, for a mom to be stay at home.

 

From my personal perspective, I like work and wouldn't want to give it up. Not the paycheck part, but the friends/working together for a reason part. I make as much time as I can to do the 'woman' stuff. Brian makes time to work at it as well, we consider our upcoming marriage (and current living together situation) as a partnership and not something that one person is supposed to do while the other does their thing. It works well for us.

 

EDIT: If it were financially feasible, I'd be the one working and Brian would be at home - not being a bum, working on cars for cash while the kids (when we have them) would be at school. Brian will be a great dad - he's already wonderful with our niece and nephews.