Category: religion
06/06/07 12:07 - ID#39544
Religion: Theory and Evolution
I'll begin with something my mother once told me. It went something like
"I don't need a roof over my head to believe what I believe" in reference to going to church.
I grew up attending church. Or Sunday school at the very least. I have to confess that a great deal of my superficially religious nature had to do with the activities at the church, rather than the religion itself. My Sunday school teacher was a wealthy woman who used to set up an assortment of activities that peaked my interest. Picnics, trips to Darien Lake (what is that religious week that they have? Kingdom Bound?) We went to Toronto to see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream coat.
It wasn't until about tenth grade when, in my social studies class, we started to study world religions from an educational position. It was at this point that I started listening. I started quietly questioning what they were teaching me.
Throughout the years I have become very interested in religion, but from a more open minded, historical and didactic point of view. I took a course in the Bible in college and got an A. I have probably watched every program that has ever been on the History channel about religion. But my curiosity has always been in the historical rather than the religious. To be precise, the evolution of religion to what it has become today, and the theories and gospels that have been dropped along the way.
I read in a book of fiction recently (one of the slew of post - DaVinci Code religious conspiracy theory books) something that I actually found as an interesting theory. At the risk of an argument, I will summarize.
The theory went as follows: Jesus was an ordinary man who had a religious inspiration about the way to live life. It was a beautiful and inspirational way to live without judgment of others, and love for one and all. When Jesus died, he was not resurrected to walk the earth in the flesh. The resurrection of Jesus was intended to develop into the rebirth of his principles into the traditions of his followers. It was the state of the world, and the requirement for a more authoritative message that prompted for the ascension of Jesus as the Son of God, in order to generate Christianity as force to challenge the pagan religion of the Romans as well as Judaism.
Now I'm not saying that this is in fact my belief, but I will say that this speculation touches me more than the contradictory and ever evolving verses of what has become the bible. The bible is an amazing volume of poignant and moral (and not so moral) stories that serve as a guideline for living a life of love and peace. But the idea of taking said Bible and following it as if it were law is quite absurd to me. I am very much in the conviction that religion is an individual experience, not one of sheep following sheep blindly without question.
Okay on that note I'm going to stop, as I could probably go on forever, and I've probably made enough enemies for the day.
Permalink: Religion_Theory_and_Evolution.html
Words: 560
Author Info
fellyconnelly
Date Cloud
Category Cloud
More Entries
After This
My Fav Posts
- This user has zero favorite blogs selected ;(
Of the four Biblical Gospels, 3 are similar, Matthew Mark and Luke. John is pretty different, and likely written at a later date. By looking at what's in the other 3, scholars have concluded that Matthew and Luke both had access to Mark and used it as a source. They also each had an independent source that nobody else used. Matthew and Luke also had a source in common, besides Mark. The Scholars called this "q" short for the German word for source. Nobody has a copy of Q, it may or may not have existed, it is our best guess.
Even the most skeptical of scholars give earlier dates to the New Testament. There are multiple attestations to it in the 2nd century.
The different translations have actually helped us understand what the early texts said. This is because most translators did not do translations of translations, but worked from the original languages. There are, of course, a few variants, and the footnotes of a scholarly Bible will point these out (Oxford NRSV is kind of the standard English translation--I can show you the best Greek if you want). Anyway, by comparing early translations, we are able to see that the Greek text was pretty well established. Almost all modern translations have gone back to those early texts, rather than doing the copy of a copy thing.
Yes, the canon was formally voted on at Nicea. However, there was wide agreement much earlier than that. If we look at the "excluded" texts, most of them were written at a later date, and by people that had no connection at all to Christ.
It's fun to look for conspiracies, but if they were being conspiratorial, they did a lousy job of it. After all, they did not do anything about the inconsistancies among the 4 gospels, or the different theologies held by Paul, John, and James. They also left letters explaining why some books were left out and others included.
Same thing about the bishops "deciding" that Christ was the son of God at Nicea. That's like saying that Newton "decided" that gravity was real when the apple hit him. The ideas had been there for a while--yes, there were people contesting them. (By the way, some argued the opposite position--that he was only divine, and not human). They weren't "decided" at Nicea, so much as "codified."
Yes, history is written by the victors, but its pretty much all we have.
As for other theories:
If Roman soldiers knew anything, they knew how to kill people.
If Jesus had a kid, SOMEONE would have mentioned him/her.
Thanks for listening.
Anyway, thanks for reading. I get into this stuff, but I know I am in the minority.
And yes, I do understand that I can be wrong on just about anything, but I have put some time and energy into this stuff.
1) The Bible (any realigous book) was written by men and not god.
2) It was supposidly written around 400 years after Jeusus died
3) It was translated into many different langauges and there are different versions of it
: For your own personal beliefs it is good to keep those things in the back of your mind but when you start to think someone isn't living the way they should then you need to think about those 3 things and understand that you might be wrong.
At the Council of Nicaea - wherein said canons of what was to be the bible were decided upon, it was decided that Jesus was the son of God.... by bishops. And even at that, it has been proven that there were many bishops that were prevented from reaching the council until after the vote had been made. But all that is another story that I will not get into right now.
Truth is a constant factor that exists at many levels; it is in our interpretation of the details that confusion exerts influence and our faiths fragment.
For myself, someone who had struggled for a long time with religion, I find peace in following the teachings of love and compassion for all, without having to adhere to the beliefs that have been outlined by various religions.
Yeah, I think denying the ressurection would rankle Christians - its one of the single most important articles of faith in all of Christianity, and most Christians would argue that beyond the ressurection being an article of faith, it is a historical fact based on documented eye-witness accounts. Ultimately, I suppose either you believe it or you don't.
To be honest though, I agree with virtually everything you wrote and am particularly interested in the historical angle.
Actually, this afternoon NPR had a panel discussion about religions role in society - slightly skewed (everybody on the panel was either liberal or a member of the "left hand of God") but still an interesting and level-headed discussion that I thought had alot of value. One of the panel members suggested that Europeans, while vastly secular, are more educated about religion than most Americans. Personally I thought this idea was counterintuitive and simply wrong, but it got me thinking about how more secularized societies than our own approach religion. Generally speaking, its my understanding that secular people are more prone to approach religion from a historical perspective. One of the more interesting historical tidbits for me is how the Roman Emperor Constantine affected the spread of Christianity - without him Christianity as it is and has been might have been vastly different. Another more controversial topic might be the Apocrypha and how the early church manipulated what the Bible would contain based on what they thought was and wasn't heretical.
For religious people... true believers, religion is (in my own view, anyway) not an intellectual exercise outside of knowing the content of the Bible. The larger meaning of the faith is contained within the experience of having a personal relationship with God. I think all religious people should at least have some understanding of other faiths, because there are some lessons to be learned and since religion has been the most powerful force in human history (for both good and bad, admittedly) the more everyone knows the better.
I also grew up attending church (e:felly) - my family are members of the United Church of Christ... one of the more liberal and gay-friendly denominations I might add. We did not grow up as members of your stereotypical "christian right," in other words, hehe.
Maybe some wouldn't admit it, but I believe everybody struggles with understanding God, or if not g-o-d then the concept of a higher power. Personally I find myself wondering alot about the concept of a loving God versus the concept of a punitive God (biggest religious topic (e:jason) and I talk about), the afterlife and whether or not the major world religions really are that mutually exclusive. I think there are some positives to take out of most religions that Christians, Buddhists, Hindus can all appreciate. You can imagine my twin brother and I with a joint talking about these religious things - sometimes they get too deep and way too theoretical, haha!
Sorry for this long comment but I'm like you - I could go on forever. When it comes to TV I'm a horrible, unrepairable History Channel/National Geographic Channel/Science Channel/Discovery Times Channel junkie.
Secondly, I agree with most of your post.
Finally, while your theory is intriguing, there isn't a lot of evidence to back it up. Because you have studied a lot, I am sure that you know that the earliest and most reliable accounts of Christ and the church were Paul's letters, and then the Biblical Gospels. I'm not saying that there weren't other books. We both know that there were others, but most of those came later.
Proving the actual resurrection is tough, but the first followers of Jesus were convinced that they saw an actual resurrected body, and were willing to (and did) die to defend that idea.
That being said, I wouldn't mind if a lot of people followed the way of Jesus for other reasons. I just don't think your theory squares well with history.