"The God Who Wasn't There"

[Yeeek]

I stoped to believe in God and whatnot around the age of 10. My family never been religious at least my parents never were. But i still believed in something, untill the day i watched my grandmother slowy dying from cirrhosis due to her long years of alcoholism. She was a vegetable, i'll skip you the other bits of this disease and how we found her in her apartment.

I can't explain why, i can't tell you how, i don't have the awnswers to my own questions but that day, i stoped to believe there could be an after life or a God. Keep in mind i was still very young. I started to reject any kind of theories about the existence of God(s), matters of religion ect. I grew up, i learned alot, sciences kind of proved me i was right.

But even with my strong feelings against religion, i only wish to be proved wrong. To this day, i haven't. Faith? I don't know what it means. It seems religions contains their followers like a sheep keeper would do. I still have weird feelings every time i step up in a cathedral/church. I couldn't tell why, most likely because i like architecture. Or perhaps it is something else.

 

[Elrohir]

If Jesus and Mary Magdalene did have children (which seems like a strong possibility to me) then there is a good chance that they have billions of descendants today. A bloodline is not something that you can control like that, especially not starting a thousand years after it started. How do they know that one of Jesus' great-grandsons didn't get some peasant girl pregnant without telling anyone?

I don't know. You raise a good point though; through all the intermingling and whatnot, if Mary Magdalene's descendants really did intermarry with the French Royalty in the early Middle Ages, then most Westerners today would probably be at least partly related to her. The idea that there would just be one particular person left is rather absurd, unless the descendants weren't allowed to have more than one or two children. And even then, there's always the chance for extra, ah, prodigeny that are "off the record", as you pointed out.

Anyway, Dan Brown's novel was an interesting read - as fiction. As far as history or theology goes, it was simply awful.

 

[GoldEagle]

I don't know. You raise a good point though; through all the intermingling and whatnot, if Mary Magdalene's descendants really did intermarry with the French Royalty in the early Middle Ages, then most Westerners today would probably be at least partly related to her. The idea that there would just be one particular person left is rather absurd, unless the descendants weren't allowed to have more than one or two children. And even then, there's always the chance for extra, ah, prodigeny that are "off the record", as you pointed out.

Anyway, Dan Brown's novel was an interesting read - as fiction. As far as history or theology goes, it was simply awful.

No, they didn't. So says the History Channel.

 

[skadistic]

God exsits only in the minds of those who believe.

Pointless movie but it's probaly better then the other poop hollywood crams down out pie holes every year.

 

[Low Tier Hero]

There was a poll by National Geographic in Canada, awhile back, and something like one in three of the people there who had read the novel believed that descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are alive today, and their bloodline was protected by a secret society. (Apparently they never heard that Plantard, the actual founder of the Priory of Sion, admitted in a French court of law that it was all a fraud. )I wish I was joking, but some people are so gullible, it's scary.

Quoted/Bolded for irony.

Anyways, this movie is probably just iconoclast propaganda anyways. Same as televangelists, but for the other side. Preaching to the chior, if you appreciate the sentiment

 

[Tycoon101]

I don't watch movies anyway, only adventure ones like Pirates and Superman. No propoganda films, or garbage that is meant to degrade someones beliefs. I could care less if this movie was put out there, or if it was boycotted and banned.

It's not the movie that we must oppose, it is the people who right it, and what they view God as.

 

[cairo140]

As it stands, belief in God right now has more scientific opposition than belief in the Loch Ness Monster.

On what planet?

And by the way, although obviously his divinity is quite debatable, it is my understanding that most mainstream historians accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

To clear up the misunderstanding, I was not referring to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a person. The historical community, along with myself, were never in denial of the existence of Jesus. Jesus did exist... no big surprise there. Jesus also was responsible for starting what would turn out to be the largest, most evangelistic religion in the world.

What I was talking about is strictly belief in God, and belief in divinely inspired acts (walking on water by virtue of divinity alone; apocalypse by virtue of God rendering his judgement).

Today, there are only two pieces of sorta-definitive evidence that suggest the presence of God.

First, the paradox of creation (although Mormons, as far as I'm aware have not, Catholics and most Protestants accept the Big Bang and Inflationary Universe because it leaves room for a divine act to start it). It just suggests that the Big Bang had no reason to go off unless something set it off, seeing that every other thing in the universe after t=3min can be quite easily explained using cause-and-effect and definitive science.

Second, the problem of design, which states that complexity of even primordial RNA could not have been formed through a process of randomness, even given the enormous timeframe and scope of possibilities (several trillion atomic ingredients on each of several trillion celestial bodies over ~13.4 Billion Years).

My comparison for the Loch Ness Monster draws from the fact that the monster is held responsible for more unexplained events, and that people have actually made video recordings of a possible monster in the water that have yet to be refuted.

Hope that clears up some of the confusion .

 

[cairo140]

But even with my strong feelings against religion, i only wish to be proved wrong.

Well said. That's the exact same way that I feel. I have been a bordering-on-non-believing agnostic for all my life, and through studying history and cosmology, I've raised a strong voice against theism. However, there is absolutely nothing I'd like more than to somehow be able to comfortably validate the existence of God. I, too, want to be proven wrong. Regular theists of any religion or sect do this with faith. I just can't bring myself to do it because I see so many things that contradict faith. Still, I can hold out hope that someday I'll be a believer and be able to know in my heart it is justified.......

Too bad it just will never happen.

 

[shadow2k]

To clear up the misunderstanding, I was not referring to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a person. The historical community, along with myself, were never in denial of the existence of Jesus. Jesus did exist... no big surprise there. Jesus also was responsible for starting what would turn out to be the largest, most evangelistic religion in the world.

What actual proof is there for Jesus having actually existed?

 

[Mott1]

It really dosn't matter whether the film is a propaganda effort, offensive or not useful. The hard core Christians can protest all they want, it will avail them not, little thing called freedom of speech says so.
I highly doubt there will be any Christion riots. There weren't any over the da Vinci Code movie, just the usual fandamental protests.

You want to see rioting, wait until this hits the media stands

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

 

[Tycoon101]

What actual proof is there for Jesus having actually existed?

None, if you do not think of the Bible as a legitimate source of ANY history. But why would anyone follow an IDEA of a man, they would follow the actual man. He may have been fraudulent in your eyes, but there is really no reason why this man shouldn't have existed.

 

[bgast1]

Well said. That's the exact same way that I feel. I have been a bordering-on-non-believing agnostic for all my life, and through studying history and cosmology, I've raised a strong voice against theism. However, there is absolutely nothing I'd like more than to somehow be able to comfortably validate the existence of God. I, too, want to be proven wrong. Regular theists of any religion or sect do this with faith. I just can't bring myself to do it because I see so many things that contradict faith. Still, I can hold out hope that someday I'll be a believer and be able to know in my heart it is justified.......

Too bad it just will never happen.

Isn't that what faith is all about? Not blind faith, but somewhere along the line don't you get to a point where there are no realistic alternatives, then isn't faith the logical choice? For me, the clinchers are, the Big Bang. Where did it come from? DNA. No scientist can create DNA and besides, even if they could they already have the materials necessary. They didn't create them from nothing. The final clincher for me, is that I cannot refute the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At that point, faith has to take over. Jesus Christ is all that He said he was. And if He isn't then all Christians on the face of the earth are the most pathetic people you could ever hope to meet because they have been snookered big time by a liar and a lunatic.

What movie is this thread about? The Da Vinci Code or some other movie? I read the book and enjoyed it as a fictious novel. I wanted to see the movie for the same reason but will have to wait for it to come out on DVD.

As a Christian parent, I have 5 children who have gone thier own way. That is something they will have to deal with on their own. Nevertheless as a parent, I always expected and received the respect from my kids to tell me where they were going and what they were doing. I would not forbid my kids to see the Da Vinci Code if they were old enough to go. (I would probably fit into your fundamentalist description, although I don't see myself that way). At some point you have to teach and allow your kids to make their own choices and mistakes.

 

[shadow2k]

None, if you do not think of the Bible as a legitimate source of ANY history. But why would anyone follow an IDEA of a man, they would follow the actual man. He may have been fraudulent in your eyes, but there is really no reason why this man shouldn't have existed.

There's no proof that he did exist though.

Whether or not the OT/NT gets some things about history right doesn't mean it didn't get some wrong as well. Some we just don't know. That doesn't make it fact.

Why would they follow the IDEA of a man? You mean like every other God? That argument really makes no sense to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@cairo140: you seem to be making a common mistake, in that you equate "the existence of God" with "a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis". There is no question among the scientific community that the evidence indicates an old universe, and life evolving slowly from a common ancestor. (By the way, although there is no official doctrinal statement on the matter, the LDS Church accepts the Big Bang and the theory of evolution, as indicated by the curriculum at our universities). But one can easily accept that God exists without saying that He must have created the earth 6000 years ago. I accept the age of the universe, and the origin of life, as science has shown, and am still capable of believing in God. What you seem to be referring to is Creationism, which is quite a different thing from theism in general.

 

[cairo140]

@{a few of the posters in general}

For me, the two "clinchers" of God's existence are creationism and design (and as another poster pointed out, Jesus' resurrection; although this cannot be taken in the same regard because it is extremely disputable and compared to the other two, inconsequential). But yet, whether or not you accept these two phenomena as possible without divine intervention, I still find it difficult to mount one's own legitimate stand for God without somewhat of a blind faith.

Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for many (I'd like to say most but I'd be lying) theists, and I believe that they are completely right in their views. My post was just a small dissertation on a personal note. Many things have happened to Christianity, not to mention:

- People getting together in numerous councils in history to decide how to interpret a supposedly "divine" text and how to run a "divine" organization. It seemed like the councils made the church out to be more of a non-profit benevolent faith-organization than something that allows people to connect with God.

- The Catholic church-supported selling of indulgences. Even Christians who would join the Reformation got mad at this. And the increase of money going to the church was spent on buying bright and shiny stuff.

- The fact that especially the Catholic (and to a lesser extent Orthodox) church spends so much time of the congregation with rituals (communion, confessional), rather than just delivering practical sermons on how to live a better life.

- The fact that the church keeps on changing its mind.

- The fact that they continue to live in a world that rejects certain civil rights in the name of God (including abortion, even in the case of rape; gay marriage; and divorce).

I forget where I was going with this... But in any case, I'd like to believe in God, but if joining a Church means going through (in my mind) bizarre rituals, and if belief means rejection of people's rights, then I just don't see how I can do it.

 

[bgast1]

@{a few of the posters in general}

For me, the two "clinchers" of God's existence are creationism and design (and as another poster pointed out, Jesus' resurrection; although this cannot be taken in the same regard because it is extremely disputable and compared to the other two, inconsequential). But yet, whether or not you accept these two phenomena as possible without divine intervention, I still find it difficult to mount one's own legitimate stand for God without somewhat of a blind faith.

Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for many (I'd like to say most but I'd be lying) theists, and I believe that they are completely right in their views. My post was just a small dissertation on a personal note. Many things have happened to Christianity, not to mention:

- People getting together in numerous councils in history to decide how to interpret a supposedly "divine" text and how to run a "divine" organization. It seemed like the councils made the church out to be more of a non-profit benevolent faith-organization than something that allows people to connect with God.

- The Catholic church-supported selling of indulgences. Even Christians who would join the Reformation got mad at this. And the increase of money going to the church was spent on buying bright and shiny stuff.

- The fact that especially the Catholic (and to a lesser extent Orthodox) church spends so much time of the congregation with rituals (communion, confessional), rather than just delivering practical sermons on how to live a better life.

- The fact that the church keeps on changing its mind.

- The fact that they continue to live in a world that rejects certain civil rights in the name of God (including abortion, even in the case of rape; gay marriage; and divorce).

I forget where I was going with this... But in any case, I'd like to believe in God, but if joining a Church means going through (in my mind) bizarre rituals, and if belief means rejection of people's rights, then I just don't see how I can do it.

Christianity as it stands on earth will never be perfect. The church will never be perfect. People will always be corrupt and self-serving, churches are not exempt.

For me personally the resurrection is not disputable. I tried to dispute it and came up empty. All I could do was believe.

Regarding the human rights issue, those are choices that we all wrestle with. Without faith, and absent believing the Bible to be the Word of God, I would draw the same conclusion that you do. I think what rubs most people the wrong way is that while Christians say that these things are wrong, is that they attack people personally rather than the action. The abortion issue is very complex, and while I believe it is wrong in every case, far more needs to be done to alleviate the pain and suffering of those individuals affected by it. While I think it is wrong to have an abortion, you still have a precious human life left over that deserves to treated with dignity, respect, and be provided for.

Christianity to me is not about bizarre rituals. And it certainly isn't about rejecting people's rights. Name one person other than Jesus Christ who is without sin. We can't. Christianity to me is about loving God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and my neighbor just as much as myself. I can be just as much of jerk as anyone, but I try not to.

But I fear we have jacked this thread and I guess I'll have to stop here. I apologize.

 

[Spartan117]

The Chrstians will probaly boycott it and riot over it here and try to make the govenrment ban it. I mean they did that for the Da Vinci Code so imagine for thsi...jeez...damn religous minorties always imposing their views and beliefs on the masses. I can just imagine the furor, the government will prably oblige them too.

arent religious people the majority

 

[silver 2039]

arent religious people the majority

Christians are a religous minority here (India). That however does not stop them from trying to impose their views on everyone else. They got the Da Vinci Code banned in 7 states before the Supreme Court overturned it.

 

[GoldEagle]

What actual proof is there for Jesus having actually existed?

IIRC, there are 2 or 3 historical letters from that time period between different high-ranking Romans discussing in one or two lines Jesus and any possible threat. I Googled it, couldn't find it. But then again, those officials could have just been hearing rumors.


Here is a great website with proof that he didn't exist.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

For the record, I don't see abortion as a civil right. I can come up with nonreligious ethical reasons why it is wrong. And as far as Creationism, only some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. A lot of other Christians, as well as most other religious people, can accept fundamental tenets of science.