Quote from: Alyssa M. on September 21, 2010, 06:21:36 PM
As a scientist, I come across lots of lay-people (yes, that's really what we call non-scientists) who think "OMG! Einstein was wrong! And the scientific establishment refuses to accept that simple fact!" We call those people "crackpots." As a lay-person, myself, when it comes to religion, I try to avoid being a crackpot, whatever problems I might have with particular tenets of established Christian doctrine.

I know that I know far too little of the history of the Church to know all the reasons behind the issues I have, however "deeply" some TV show I might have seen delved into the subject. And whatever the question I might have about the tenets of Christianity, I'm fairly certain I'm not the first person to have asked it. That's not to say I have some kind of blind faith -- certainly not! But if I have a problem, I try talking to people who know more about it than I do, say, priests, deacons, people who went to a seminary where they actually studied the subject in some greater depth than I have anywhere near the time to do, including some who are quite close friends -- not random people on some unrelated Internet forum.

As an ex physicist, who is at least by inclination a hyperspatialist, I think the contention that Einstein was wrong is a bit of an oversimplification of an actual truth, namely that all science is limited by the theoretical models available at the time.

Was Newton wrong? Of course not, he just had a limited theoretical model and a few less mathematical tools to work with. So with Einstein - its a question of right or wrong, but vanilla general relativity will eventually be superseded by more comprehensive models, indeed it has to some extent already happened as I am sure you are aware. So perhaps those who shout Einstein was wrong may well just be showing a limited grasp of the way that science evolves. At the same time in a sense they are partially correct in so far as Godel's theorems of incompleteness almost predict with certainty that all scientific theories will eventually give way to a better model.

Now to theology... you comment that people are "lay" - it may surprise you to know that for some years of my life I was actually an auxiliary minister in the United Reformed Church, (I have preached and led services even whsn postop) and as such I have indeed studied theology and indeed church history. Indeed if you maintain that once ordained a person is ordained for life I am theroretically at least not lay! However I digress. The thing is any history or theological doctrine will be written from a Point of View - so I think in relativistic universe (we're strangely back to Einstein) in fact it is not a question of whether the church view or the alternative view is right or wrong.

Just as general relativity allows that two people passing at near light speed will exist in different inertial frames of reference and will therefore observe derived effects like time and spacial dimensions differently, so two people in differing theological frames of reference may have apparently differing interpretations of the facts without either of them being actually wrong.

I have made a study of the gnostic gospels. In fact the theology within them form the basis for a lot or my current fiction writing. In this regard I have had many interesting dialogues with established theologians who actually take parts of these writings very seriously indeed. So it is a brave person who would apply the epithet of crackpot to such things. They may not be orthodox, but they are far from crackpot.

Sorry for the threadjack...

Wait Einstein was wrong? About what? My whole world is in suspension! Fill me in, you science types!

Quote from: Nero on September 22, 2010, 07:27:11 AM
Sorry for the threadjack...

Wait Einstein was wrong? About what? My whole world is in suspension! Fill me in, you science types!

No he wasn't wrong - just incomplete. Just as Godel predicts.

Modern Hyperspatial theory and superstrings have built on his work and refined it. Seen from a very simplistic POV some might say that his theory contains errors, but that is a misunderstanding of the situation.

It is more accurate to say that his theorems contained some necessary approximations some of which are now being exploited and explored to produce more comprehensive and satisfactory models.

The work being done at the LHC to attempt to find the Higgs Boson is an exmaple because it will help to produce a satisfactory unified field theory - something which eluded Einstein all his life. Similarly Hawking started on the path towards developing Superstings partly in a search to explain limitations in the predictions of general relativity around the event horizon of a black hole. (that is a huge simplification - but believe me you don't want the full version...)

Now to try to get us marginally back on topic the point of all this is that all theories and understandings whether scientific or theological evolve over time!

Quote from: Alyssa M. on September 21, 2010, 06:21:36 PM
I try talking to people who know more about it than I do, say, priests, deacons, people who went to a seminary where they actually studied the subject in some greater depth than I have anywhere near the time to do, including some who are quite close friends -- not random people on some unrelated Internet forum.

Well, first of all, I know at least one member here is a Biblical scholar with a PhD.  So I wouldn't be so quick to dis the idea you can't find reliable information on an unrelated forum.

As for the people I'd go to for information, I'd have to include non-clergy, non-religious and any scholar/expert who would not benefit personally.  Religion is a business and needs cash flow to keep running.  So keeping alive the teachings in the Bible, Koran, Talmud or whatever is in their best interest.  That's why I need information from people outside organized religions too.

Whatever source we obtain our information from, there always has to be some filtering we have to do before we arrive at our own conclusions.  We have to think for ourselves and not take what someone says as the absolute truth.

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 22, 2010, 07:40:17 AM
No he wasn't wrong - just incomplete. Just as Godel predicts.

Jenny, are you referring to Gödel's theology - that he rejected the notion that God was impersonal, as God was for Einstein?  Einstein had a number of things to say about religion, as did his friend, Kurt Gödel.  I was just wondering what was incomplete and what Gödel predicted correctly.

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 22, 2010, 07:40:17 AMNow to try to get us marginally back on topic the point of all this is that all theories and understandings whether scientific or theological evolve over time!

I couldn't agree more.  As more information is gained, better conclusions can be made.  I guess that's why I have such a hard time with firm believers in the Bible, especially when everything after that is ignored.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 22, 2010, 05:21:03 PM
Jenny, are you referring to Gödel's theology - that he rejected the notion that God was impersonal, as God was for Einstein?  Einstein had a number of things to say about religion, as did his friend, Kurt Gödel.  I was just wondering what was incomplete and what Gödel predicted correctly.

I couldn't agree more.  As more information is gained, better conclusions can be made.  I guess that's why I have such a hard time with firm believers in the Bible, especially when everything after that is ignored.

Godel was also a mathematician. I was referring to the two great mathematical theorems of his life his two incompleteness theorems, published in 1931 when he was 25 years of age.

His theorems of incompleteness in a grossly simplified form basically predict that to be provable within a a closed system like the cosmos a theory must of necessity be incomplete.

That is to say that there is no such thing as an absolute proof. Also if an absolute truth exists it is by definition unknowable.

Thus by implication any demonstrable scientific proof must contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction and eventual downfall.

Or to put it another way no sooner has your theory been accepted by everyone as correct than some young smart-ass will come along with an even better one and promptly show up all the holes in yours that no one other than you had noticed!

However it has always seemed to me that the same principles can also be applied with equal success to theology

Oh yeah - and though I am not a Phd in it I have studied theology as I said... so count me in with your (moderately) educated correspondents.

I lov discussions on Physics as much as theology.

But would anyone mind if I repeat a question I posed on page 1 of this thread? Assuming no-one, I will.

Quote

Quote from: Kristi on August 30, 2010, 10:06:00 PM
  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

I sadly, can't contribute to any of the accademic questions on this matter. Like most people, I've heard so many different versions and am left feeling that any can be interperted to say whatever you want.

But I have read a number of accounts of early Christians being killed, being sent to lions, being covered in pitch and set on fire on street corners and such.

I wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?

What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?

What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

Quote from: spacial on September 22, 2010, 06:00:30 AMI wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?

What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?

What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

Based on what I've read and heard over the years (and feel free to apply the incompleteness theory to this), the sheer numbers of the Christian population made them an attractive group to gain their favor.  But there were so many different beliefs out there they had to be united under one belief or it would be impossible to control them.

At the time Christ walked the earth there wasn't much in the way of organized religion.  In fact I don't recall ever hearing anything about any kind of religion at all.  Catholic teachings say Paganism was rampant and painted Pagans very poorly, kind of like a of drunken hedonists that worshiped things like bronze bulls.

The stories I've heard is there was a need for a Messiah, a Savior to help take them from their sinful ways.  I would imagine if the entire world was like Vegas there would be a number of people who would want salvation from that life.  Christ was one of the Masters and as such taught humanity, kindness, selflessness and other things that weren't prevalent at the time.  And many people needed that.  So he was raised above humankind and made the Savior.

Three hundred years later, the need for that kind of life was still there, just as it is today.  I doubt anyone thought THEY would be thrown to the lions or THEY would be tortured and killed.  After all, they practiced their religion in secrecy.  If you don't get caught, everything's cool.

Obviously many people need to believe in a God, in heaven and in the afterlife.  Few want to believe this life is all we get and after that the lights go out.  Life back then was pretty dismal if you weren't rich, and few were.  So there HAD to be something more than this life or life wouldn't be worth living.  Thus the strong belief in God and Christianity.

Scholars, how did I do?

Understand Julie and thank you so much for responding.

However, Rome had a number of different deities and these allowed living humans to be made into gods as well. Caligula made his horse a god, I seem to recall.

I appreciate the notions of Christianity, not least aestheticism. Neitzche pointed out that Christianity is essentially a slave religion, teaching people to accept their lowley positions in return for a greater reward after death.

If the Christianity that was being promoted up to the time of Constaintine was the same, I don't really understand how it was more attractive than the various deities they had which promoted sexual activity, celebration and gluttony, the spectacle of killing and so on.

Yet the evidence is quite clear, that many did, willingly accept the Christianity of that time. I read once an account by a Roman who witnessed Christians being thrown to lions. They were said to be singing as they were being killed.

Strange that so many would accept a slave religion, as described by Neitzche over what they had.

I have to say from what little I know of Constantine, that he seems to me to have been motivated by his desire to control this cult, rather than embrace its teachings. But the question remains, what was so enticing about early Christianity?

To be clear: I was speaking for myself. I am a lay person (in the religious sense), and therefore I insist on self-scepticism in those areas where I find accepted doctrine troubling. And all the more so when those doubts come from others. Basically, I know when I know something, and I know when I just simply don't. Sure, maybe the Council of Nicea was a corruption of the church; maybe the process of determining the New Testament canon was wrong in some way or another.  But centuries of theologians disagree, and I'm just saying it's worth trying to understand why first before coming to a decision.

That doesn't mean I just accept church doctrine, either, and I'm quite open to other viewpoints from heretics, atheists, people of other religions, scholars of whatever sort. But I just can't bring myself to be a heretic about questions I don't really understand.

If any of you feel you understand the issues enough to have a strong opinion, then good for you. I'm just saying that strong statements require strong evidence. I'm a fundamentalist sceptic; it's just in my nature, okay?

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 22, 2010, 05:42:07 PM
His theorems of incompleteness in a grossly simplified form basically predict that to be provable within a a closed system like the cosmos a theory must of necessity be incomplete.

Okay, this is something I know about. You are implicitly making the statement that the universe is an omega-consistent recursive class of formulas. I think that is far from an obvious statement. Gödel also had a completeness theorem; it's entirely possible (and it's my hunch -- but only a hunch) that the universe is simple enough to be completely described by some mathematical model.

But more importantly, "complete" in the sense I'm using it and the sense physicists use when they say GR and the Standard Model are "not complete" is quite different from the sense in which it is used in number theory.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on September 23, 2010, 05:19:38 PM
Okay, this is something I know about. You are implicitly making the statement that the universe is an omega-consistent recursive class of formulas. I think that is far from an obvious statement. Gödel also had a completeness theorem; it's entirely possible (and it's my hunch -- but only a hunch) that the universe is simple enough to be completely described by some mathematical model.

But more importantly, "complete" in the sense I'm using it and the sense physicists use when they say GR and the Standard Model are "not complete" is quite different from the sense in which it is used in number theory.

Yeah ok it's a fair cop - I'll come quietly - I was indeed playing fast and loose with my analogies in pursuit of making my point.

But I'm sure you got where I was going anyway which is that the Standard Model and indeed any other current science will one day almost certainly be superseded or refined. So no understanding or knowledge, be it science or theology should ever be cast in stone.

Quote from: spacial on September 22, 2010, 06:30:11 PM
I wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?
What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?
What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

I think this can only be answered when one looks at the history of the empire.
The first Roman Emperor Augustus made it his life work to unify the Roman Empire (Then still called the Roman Republic). The century before him was filled with bloody civil wars of generals fighting each other for control of just a tiny piece of this planet. The people got so war weary that they were ready to give anything -even their political freedom- to a man who found a way to end this bloodshed. Instead of solely relying on violence Augustus took a more sneaky and subtle approach. He eliminated all opposition by murdering them and hired poets to write songs about his deeds: becoming one of the first statesmen relying heavily on propaganda and silently eliminating adversaries.
The end of the conflict resulted in more than 200 years of peace. About the longest time Europe hasn't seen war. For this the common people were ready to worship him as a god. So Augustus created an emperors cult, everywhere in the empire temples were built where the emperor was to be honored as a god. His statues were placed everywhere. Before a play or fight in a theatre a lifelike statue of the emperor was carried around to remind everyone who made this quiet life possible. Even a month was named after him: August (divine). The triumph arch in Orange is filled with pictures of fighting legionnaires to remind people of the sorrow of war.
So using religion and propaganda Europe was united and at peace. Foreign religions and customs were tolerated, you could pay homage to any god you wanted as long as you paid tribute to the emperor. This is why the Romans disliked the Jews and Christians. Both groups had a monotheistic religion and refused to praise any other god, attacking the fundaments of the Roman Empire. The Jews were more or less tolerated because Romans had great respect for ancient traditions, but the Christians were different. Their refusal of honoring the emperor was not justified by tradition, it was only insulting. So the Romans started slandering them and blaming them for any misfortune.. A North African governor said: "Listen, Christians. We don't want to kill you, we only want you to pay tribute to the emperor." It was too much to be asked and the Romans were fascinated by the attitude of the Christians when facing death.

Eventually the Christians would prevail. Some say it was because "it is true", but there are other possibilities.

The Roman culture was based on pride and honor, an unending competition between men. But what about the slaves, the women, the homeless, the losers? What about the times Rome did not do so well? It is understandable that Christianity offered an alternative ethic where miseries in life were compensated for in heaven: the losers would be rewarded. Christianity profited each time the Empire did not do so well. This caused people to be more skeptic about the emperor. In the 3rd century Rome found itself in an economical crisis. What happened? The population did not grow as fast anymore, but the borders were more frequently attacked by people arriving from the east. A stronger army was needed, but this required a lot of money. During the first century the amount of silver in a Sestertie was 97%. It declined to 40% in 250AD and in 270AD it was only 4%. Because coins had the image of the emperor, his influence would also decrease with the decreasing value of money causing a political crisis.
Augustus was very carefree and had a minimum of security: so great was the respect he had among the people. In the 3rd century a wide range of guards was needed to keep the emperor safe from the public. With the increasing social unrest Christianity grew together with the Roman hate against Christians.
It could have continued like this if not 1 man decided to get baptized. His motives are still unclear, did Constantine really saw a cross in the sky in 312AD? Was  "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES" (In this sign you will conquer) written below it? Or was Constantine just clever enough to use this new theology to power his own goals?

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 23, 2010, 05:28:46 PM
Yeah ok it's a fair cop - I'll come quietly - I was indeed playing fast and loose with my analogies in pursuit of making my point.

But I'm sure you got where I was going anyway which is that the Standard Model and indeed any other current science will one day almost certainly be superseded or refined. So no understanding or knowledge, be it science or theology should ever be cast in stone.

Yes, I mostly agree. The question is how to go about finding useful ways to refine current knowledge. In my experience in science, I've had plenty of times I thought things didn't make any sense (in particular, special relativity -- yes, I used to think Einstein was wrong, and in the crackpot way, not in the "SR and GR are approximations of some more fundamental theory we don't know yet" way). But even then, I figured "well, it doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe there's just something I'm missing," and eventually I learned what that something was; my doubts and the irritation they caused me were a source of motivation. I've had similar experiences with theological questions. So those crackpot doubts can be useful in helping one to learn.

I think math can be cast in stone -- I simply don't know how to doubt that 1+1=2, or that { p , (p->q) } |= q. I have complete faith in proven theorems (once I see and understand the proofs); incompleteness just means we'll never be able to come up with an axiom system which can prove or disprove all statements; I also think unprovable statements are actually either true or false within the context of a given model -- incompleteness just means there are multiple models that satisfy the Peano axioms (etc.).

But I agree that for anything else there will always be some doubt. I think that there exists, whether we ever find it or not, some mathematical model that perfectly describes the universe at a reductive level, though it might be impossible to use it to make predictions (for practical reasons; sort of like the current situation with QCD at low energy scales -- i.e., "I could tell you the answer, but I would need a 10 trillion years and a computer the size of the universe.") But even if I'm right, and we find the theory, and it turns out to be testable, then we would still never be able to have complete faith in it.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that no such model exists -- or that no such model can exist. Only time will tell ... well, maybe ...

Quote from: Octavianus on September 23, 2010, 06:57:25 PM

Eventually the Christians would prevail. Some say it was because "it is true", but there are other possibilities.

This is where I have my problem.

If early Christianity survived because it was more attractive than the other religions of the time, what had seeming disappeared by the 19th century that it was dubbed a slave religion?

I make this point because I can't really find a lot to argue against in Neitzche's assertion. The dogma of most Christian groups, especially in the 19th century, did indeed encourage acceptance. Such resistance to this notion, for example, Marx, continue to be the subject of attacks from many Christian groups. Modern medicine, which began in the early 19th century, of course, did offer some promise of relief in the immediate term, yet somehow managed to avoid the same fate as Marxism.

I appreciate your illustration of the decline around the 3rd century onward. I also appreciate your descriptions of the refusal of early Christians to pay tribute to the emporer and the reasons for the Roman's intolerance to this. These matters are emphasised by historical record and fit well into what can be expected of human behaviour.

But there remains the question, what was so attractive with early Christianity that so many were prepared to identify with it and not any other cult, of which there were many?

If I may contruct an alegory. There's a resturant offering free food. Everyone goes to that resturant and others go out of business.

Many years later, people are still going to that resturant, though it no longer offers any food.

There were many rebellions against Roman rule. In almost every case, the sources of these died out. I appreciate Judaism didn't but there are many other factors.

Yet this single cult survived. Not only survived, but was eventually nationalised by the Romans and adopted in place of all others.

Yet today, such is the mystery of whatever this was, that we are even now arguing over 'lost gospels' and other conspiracies.

I apologise if I appear to be making a statement here. I am really curious about this.

If anyone has any insights, perhaps mor information, or even anoter perspective on the human behaviour aspect, I will be most grateful

Thanks for prompting me to chuck in my two bobs worth spacial!

This is all starting to sound like a theological discussion, so I I'll just stick to Jesus' summary of belief.

Love God totally and love your neighbour as yourself. 

The rest is just commentary,( or Pharisaic hair-splitting if you must be pedantic  ).

Throughout grade school I was taught by Dominican nuns (6 years) and the Sisters of St, Francis (2 years).  Through high school and college it was the Jesuits.  I heard a lot of stuff about Christianity and a lot of contradictions, all from people of the same religion.  (scratches head)

I never met Jesus Christ.  I've never read a single word he wrote.  To the best of my knowledge no one else has either.  Maybe he was illiterate.  Doesn't matter, most people were then.  But the spirit of the man I think I understand.  I think if he were alive today he'd be a civil rights activist. 

I appreciate there were people alive back then who took the time to write their stories.  Be it Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Thomas, Judas, Peter and Mary Magdalene, it doesn't matter.  Each had something to say and each was written according to their individual perspective.  All deserve the same respect.  For us to say hundreds or even thousands of years later "this is right and that is wrong" seems a bit closed-minded.  And even if the authorship is in question, you still have a historic document that tells a story about the past.

This world is filled with historic information and we continue to discover more and more each day.  Why not embrace the opportunity to learn from these discoveries rather than holding on to "traditional" beliefs.  I've never understood the benefit of traditional beliefs. 

When you're green, you're growing.  When you're not, you rot.

Thank you Oz. Reality checks are always a good idea.

But I'm attempting to avoid theology.

We have a number of people here with quite extensive knowledge of the period. I'm attempting to pick their minds to hopefully get an answer to something that's been bugging me for years.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 21, 2010, 04:38:59 PM
And the church and Christianity became a business.  And like almost all businesses, it's operations are motivated by money and power... and run by men.

One reason Jesus was killed was because He upset the business as usual approach. The religious hierarchy ignored the spiritual needs of the people. Jesus didn't mince words when he rebuffed them about their negligence. The society was patriarchal at that time and women were considered property. Jesus upset the apple cart because women were welcome and often the most receptive to his message.

Gennee

Quote from: spacial on September 24, 2010, 10:05:36 AM
We have a number of people here with quite extensive knowledge of the period. I'm attempting to pick their minds to hopefully get an answer to something that's been bugging me for years.

I'm guessing you also have a hard time trying to understand why the Heaven's Gate people took their lives or why over 900 of the followers of Jim Jones would drink cyanide-laced Kool Aid.  Me too.  But, like the early Christians, they thought there was a better life waiting for them on the other side.  I believe it is as simple as that.  You don't need a scholar to explain it, only to be able to understand the power of faith.  Sometimes that power compels us to do irrational, hurtful or selfish things.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 24, 2010, 01:49:02 PM
I'm guessing you also have a hard time trying to understand why the Heaven's Gate people took their lives or why over 900 of the followers of Jim Jones would drink cyanide-laced Kool Aid.  Me too.  But, like the early Christians, they thought there was a better life waiting for them on the other side.  I believe it is as simple as that.  You don't need a scholar to explain it, only to be able to understand the power of faith.  Sometimes that power compels us to do irrational, hurtful or selfish things.

That's as good a response as any I suppose.

Though I suggest the suicide cults of recent US history have more to do with the pressures of forcing intelegent people to accept paradoxical notions for fear of appearing unpatriotic. The resultant paranoia is an expected and predictable consequence.

The rarity of such cults in history and in other parts of the world doesn't seem to have become apparent to the average US citizen as they wave their flags and obediently martch off to kill and die for other people's causes.

Thank you for the irony. 

I'll take it as irony. Love ya!