God's Coming Phase Change: Can the Rising Generation Get Religion Right?

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/gods-coming-phase-change_b_4250506.html

Clay Farris Naff
Science and religion writer; Journalist; Author

Posted: 11/10/2013 11:01 am

Monotheism in the West has undergone two major adaptive changes in the past 2,500 years. A third great leap is nigh. Can it succeed? Whether you are religious or not, you'd better hope so.

Like life itself, religion has repeatedly met the challenge of extinction with a phase change -- a sudden transformation so dramatic that it is hard to relate the before and after pics. Here is a brief, historical account, drawn from several reliable modern sources.

The first phase change followed a mind-boggling disaster. In 587 BCE, after a Jewish revolt against Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, Jerusalem fell to its besiegers. King Zedekiah was forced to watch his children butchered before his eyes, after which he was blinded and hauled away in chains along with the rest of Jerusalem's elite. The Temple was demolished. So began the long Exile in Babylon.

This catastrophe made no sense. Jews were used to suffering, which the prophets invariably was blamed on their failings to adhere to the law. But when Nebuchadnezzar's army sacked the Temple, they destroyed the very place where God was believed to dwell. How in the world could that be?

more at link

[Benton D Struckcheon]

1. Kant covered this,

with his Categorical Imperative.

Anyway, if you believe in a deity that is immortal, that also means it is timeless. Time is a physical property, as Einstein showed. By definition, a spiritual being would therefore be outside of time.

[immoderate]

2. The conclusion at the link, as I read it, is that god is in your mind, and always was.

For those with a god, I concur.

--imm

[cbayer]

4. I also thought his conclusion was very interesting.

While he maintains that god exists in the minds of people, he seems also to say that that could mean that god does exist.

His argument seems mainly to be that that god is non-interventional, does not perform miracles and has a metaphysical existence.

His suggestion that we are moving into a new phase in regards to what god is or isn't and that there is a moral imperative incumbent upon believers to live up to what they say god is was not something I had heard before

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting article. Hope you enjoyed it.

[immoderate]

5. To paraphrase: "Depends on if the meaning of 'exists' exists."

His conclusion reiterates an old problem, how to differentiate between something that evades detection, and something that doesn't exist.

They are not different things.

--imm

[cbayer]

6. Isn't that what metaphysics is all about?

But in the end I don't think he is making an argument for or against there being a god. His argument seems to be that if you believe in a god, then you must acknowledge what "it" would have to be (or not be).

[trotsky]

8. What a terrible "argument."

So far, I've not met a single person who believes in a god that has different political opinions than they do. Universally, a person's god seems to be an idealized version of themselves - with all the same likes, dislikes, and annoyances as they do. What good is it to ask people to acknowledge what they've already constructed for themselves?

I realize you have no answer.

[trotsky]

3. Hilarious.

Get religion "right" according to whom? Think about that one for a bit, if you dare.

[dimbear]

7. To be completely fair, much of this simplified history has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Liberal theologians and Biblical minimalists would disagree with a good deal of that tale. As one small instance, not many liberal theologians would agree that Jesus was ever called Messiah in his lifetime.
Bar Kokvah, yes! Now he was called Messiah definitely. That's actually historic.

I do like the conclusion that God is definitely real, in the same way Harry Potter is. That I buy.