I have a question about Christianity

[Yahweh]

Do Christians actually believe that there is a God who is as real as I am right now as I'm typing this?

Do they believe that Heaven is just as real of a place as Kentucky? Because I, personally, believe that everything in the Bible that doesn't sound like it could happen naturally, most likely did not happen.

Do they believe that Mary was truely a virgin? I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a real person but I am not convinced that Mary was a virgin. Keep in mind in those days you were considered tainted if you were an unwed mother, so what better to say than this a child of devine creation. I know that today its possible for a virgin to give birth, but only when artificially insiminated which obviously is a modern day creation.

Do they believe in any sort of afterlife? Why would you believe in an afterlife? I dont think that everything that is unknown has some form of higher meaning behind it. What if, and this may sound crazy, what if when you died you sorta stayed dead and you didnt go anywhere because you were decaying.

What good is religion or Christianity for that matter? All I see Christianity is good for is maybe just a little bit of entertainment value like Lord of the Rings. I bet you could find a few fanatics who believe everything written in Lord of the Rings was a factual account.

Christian Morality? Christianity teaches a few moralities that I think is completely a waste of time, such as no sex before marriage. Thats like telling someone "You see all that happiness you could have, forget about it". Its the same principle as stripping away someones free will. Their body, let them have fun with it until they make the horrible mistake of children. Although some morals are good like Dont Kill People, Help The Needy, they are things that you dont need to be taught from a bible to have. Morality is taught by environment. This is true because in the Roman Era, it was more than morally justified to watch someone get shredded by lions, it was entertainment.

What if I'm wrong and there really is a god? Is he going to send me to hell? Why should he, I'm a good person. Why should having a mentality that forces me to apply science to everything bar me from entering the pearly gates. Do all people outside of Christianity (I believe those people are called heathens or pagans) get thrown to Hell?

I would never believe in God because of that 'maybe' factor. Because if God really does send all Pagans to Hell, I'm pretty sure that in creating the entire universe he learned how to weed out people in the maybe factor. Honestly, in Highschool in college I dabbled in the arts of Wiccan Magycks, but just for fun. It even dissappointed me when nothing would happen, although I never anticipated results.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Christian Morality? Christianity teaches a few moralities that I think is completely a waste of time, such as no sex before marriage. Thats like telling someone "You see all that happiness you could have, forget about it".

While "no sex before marriage" might not be a particulary sensible guideline today, it was a very good principle throughout most of history. In a society without penicillin and effective prophylactics, sex is a much more serious buisness than in our society.

[EdipisReks]

about Mary being a virgin, i read somewhere that this was actually a mistranslation, kinda like how moses was believed to have horns during the Renaissance. i don't remember where i read that, though...

[BobM]

I wish a wasn't too lazy to fine a site for this, but yes, there is some debate on the translation of the word as "viriginity".

I'm probably mangling this horribly, but basically the word could also be "maiden/young lady"

[imagineNoReligion]

Translation of Virgin link:

http://www.2think.org/hii/virgin.shtml

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Do Christians actually believe that there is a God who is as real as I am right now as I'm typing this?
Yes, I believe God is real right now

Do they believe that Heaven is just as real of a place as Kentucky? Because I, personally, believe that everything in the Bible that doesn't sound like it could happen naturally, most likely did not happen.
Yes, Heaven is a real place. It was not created naturally. If one takes a materialist or naturalist point of view then I would surmise that heaven cannot exist. However materialism or naturalism is a precept and not a conclusion arrrived through evidence.
Do they believe that Mary was truely a virgin? I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a real person but I am not convinced that Mary was a virgin. Keep in mind in those days you were considered tainted if you were an unwed mother, so what better to say than this a child of devine creation. I know that today its possible for a virgin to give birth, but only when artificially insiminated which obviously is a modern day creation.
I believe that Mary was virgin. The conception of Jesus was a supernatural event. If the God of the Bible is real then He can create supernatural events that violate physical laws. Again, by placing forth the idea that maybe Mary lied is assuming a materialist or naturalist point of view, that Mary could not have been a virgin with child therefore she concieved Jesus with a man.
Do they believe in any sort of afterlife? Why would you believe in an afterlife? I dont think that everything that is unknown has some form of higher meaning behind it. What if, and this may sound crazy, what if when you died you sorta stayed dead and you didnt go anywhere because you were decaying.
The Bible speaks of an afterlife quite a bit. If one studies the oldest known cultures you'll see they have a concept of "God" and the afterlife. Obviosuly the concept of "God" was very diverse as it is today but it was there from the earliest known writings. What purpose or advantage would believing in an afterlife have it it didn't exist. God created man in His own image. This refers to God's spiritual nature. Man is made up of a physical and spiritual beings coexisting in one body. This is one of the fundamental principles of Christianity, the dual nature of man.
What good is religion or Christianity for that matter? All I see Christianity is good for is maybe just a little bit of entertainment value like Lord of the Rings. I bet you could find a few fanatics who believe everything written in Lord of the Rings was a factual account.
To a Christian, Christianity is more than just a "religion". It's not about being a "good person" or being "moral" or "helping others". The major principle is about having a relationship with God. God has revealed Himself to man and desires a relationship with people. So Christians seek the personal relationship with God.
Christian Morality? Christianity teaches a few moralities that I think is completely a waste of time, such as no sex before marriage. Thats like telling someone "You see all that happiness you could have, forget about it". Its the same principle as stripping away someones free will. Their body, let them have fun with it until they make the horrible mistake of children. Although some morals are good like Dont Kill People, Help The Needy, they are things that you dont need to be taught from a bible to have. Morality is taught by environment. This is true because in the Roman Era, it was more than morally justified to watch someone get shredded by lions, it was entertainment.
The whole no sex before marriage concept is a bit misunderstood. God created sex. He is not some cosmic party-pooper who wants to keeps us from enjoying ouselves. But He knows and we've come to realize that when sex is abused there are terrible consequences. We supposed live in the most sexually educated society and have access to all types of contraception and the rates of teen pregnancies and STD cases remain incredibly high. How can this be? If sex has no consequneces and everyone uses contraceptions then why the major health issues?

I don't think the Romans threw people to the loins on moral grounds. The Romans were hedonistic and they enjoyed watching people being mutilated and killed by wild animals. To them it was a form of entertainment that satisfied their blood lust. Have you ever watched ultimate fighting on TV lately. It is incredibly violent and many fighters get seriously hurt. The more bloody and violent the better TV ratings.
What if I'm wrong and there really is a god? Is he going to send me to hell? Why should he, I'm a good person. Why should having a mentality that forces me to apply science to everything bar me from entering the pearly gates. Do all people outside of Christianity (I believe those people are called heathens or pagans) get thrown to Hell?
Appling science does get anyone "thrown into hell", as far I know. I get asked the "How can God send good people to hell?" question a lot. I see this way. If a person spends their entire life denying God, having nothing to do with Him, mocking Him, etc., why would that person want to spend all of eternity with Him I can not think of a more severe and hostile punishment than that.

[Martin]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I can not think of a more severe and hostile punishment than thatI can. Eternal suffering in a lake of fire, for one.

[c4ts]

If a person spends their entire life denying God, having nothing to do with Him, mocking Him, etc., why would that person want to spend all of eternity with Him I can not think of a more severe and hostile punishment than that.

Not all people who have nothing to do with God mock or deny Him. Denial is not the same ignoring. Certainly, one who denies can ignore, but so can someone who is tolerant.

What about the good people who are indifferent toward your religion? Do they diserve to go to Hell? Are those who are compassionate and moral without the need for your particular form of spiritual assistance worthy of the most terrible punishments imaginable? Are good-natured atheists who tolerate your beliefs, the ones who spend their lives doing good things rather than mocking and hating your beliefs, are they sinners too? Or do you deny that such people exist, despite their presence on this very board?

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yahweh

Do they believe that Mary was truely a virgin? I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a real person but I am not convinced that Mary was a virgin. Keep in mind in those days you were considered tainted if you were an unwed mother, so what better to say than this a child of devine creation. I know that today its possible for a virgin to give birth, but only when artificially insiminated which obviously is a modern day creation.

The story of Jesus' birth comes to us from Matthew and Luke. (Mark - the first Gospel - starts off with Jesus already grown) Matthew and Luke were written somewhere around 60 years after Jesus is said to have died. Tales of virgin births were common in those days, especially when speaking of someone who was a hero. Many gods were born of virgins.

The kicker is - in Isaiah - there is talk of a young girl who will give birth to a boy named Emmanuel. Matthews' agenda was to write a gospel that would be accepted by the Jews. So he took the OT and found any semblance of a prophesy and put it into his Gospel. He took a mistranslation of 'young girl' to 'virgin' and ran with it! (and BTW Jesus was never known as Emmanuel)

Moreover, the Messiah was prophesized as being born in Bethleham, so Matthew MADE him born in Bethleham. (Even though Jesus was traditionally know as "Jesus of Nazereth". Check out the contorted (and different) ways Matthew makes Jesus be born in Bethleham and Luke makes Jesus be born in Bethleham.

Matthew also misunderstood Jewish double-speak and had Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys! :-D

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by BobM
I wish a wasn't too lazy to fine a site for this, but yes, there is some debate on the translation of the word as "viriginity".

I'm probably mangling this horribly, but basically the word could also be "maiden/young lady"
The Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virgin_Mary) entry on Mary refers to the almah/parthenos controversy, but doesn't suggest overwhelming scholarly support for the "mistranslation" theory.

Here are a couple of links to arguments on the other side:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT
http://www.jfjonline.org/pub/issues/09-01/almah.htm (actually, this one seems to come down somewhere in the middle)

It'd be interesting to do a brief survey of the academic literature to get a better sense of the current state of scholarly opinion on this issue, but the sources probably aren't easily accessible online.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Do Christians actually believe that there is a God who is as real as I am right now as I'm typing this?

Yes, most Christians believe God is very real. They believe He interacts in their lives too. They communicate with Him through prayer and feel that He speaks back. I think God exists, but I don't know if He really interacts or not. There were times in my life that I believed God interacted, but now
I question everything


Do they believe that Heaven is just as real of a place as Kentucky? Because I, personally, believe that everything in the Bible that doesn't sound like it could happen naturally, most likely did not happen.

Yes, they believe it is very real. I am hopeful it is real.

Do they believe that Mary was truely a virgin? I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a real person but I am not convinced that Mary was a virgin. Keep in mind in those days you were considered tainted if you were an unwed mother, so what better to say than this a child of devine creation. I know that today its possible for a virgin to give birth, but only when artificially insiminated which obviously is a modern day creation.

Yes, they believe very strongly in the virgin birth.

Do they believe in any sort of afterlife? Why would you believe in an afterlife? I dont think that everything that is unknown has some form of higher meaning behind it. What if, and this may sound crazy, what if when you died you sorta stayed dead and you didnt go anywhere because you were decaying.

Yep, they believe in Heaven and Hell. They beleive we are made up of Spirit, soul and body. The body decays in death, but the soul and spirit goes to be with God....or goes to Hell if they have been very naughty while alive.

What good is religion or Christianity for that matter? All I see Christianity is good for is maybe just a little bit of entertainment value like Lord of the Rings. I bet you could find a few fanatics who believe everything written in Lord of the Rings was a factual account.

Christianity gives people hope. Hope for a better place after death. Hope for a better life while on earth. Most Christians can site real changes in their lives due to becoming a Christian. Some will even tell of *miracles* that occurred. I have not lived a charmed life as a Christian so I can't join in.

Christian Morality? Christianity teaches a few moralities that I think is completely a waste of time, such as no sex before marriage. Thats like telling someone "You see all that happiness you could have, forget about it". Its the same principle as stripping away someones free will. Their body, let them have fun with it until they make the horrible mistake of children. Although some morals are good like Dont Kill People, Help The Needy, they are things that you dont need to be taught from a bible to have. Morality is taught by environment. This is true because in the Roman Era, it was more than morally justified to watch someone get shredded by lions, it was entertainment.

I don't believe that all Christians are full of high morals, and I don't believe that only christians have any morals. I think that not having sex before marriage is a great thing. There's too much disease out there...as well as teen pregnancies. Abstinence is good thing to promote, but should never be enforced.

What if I'm wrong and there really is a god? Is he going to send me to hell? Why should he, I'm a good person. Why should having a mentality that forces me to apply science to everything bar me from entering the pearly gates. Do all people outside of Christianity (I believe those people are called heathens or pagans) get thrown to Hell?

Most Christians would say that God would definitely send you to Hell. To deny God's existence is a pretty big deal to most Christians. Some christians will concede that those who have never even heard of Jesus or God would not be sent to Hell. A few believe that only the truly wicked will go to Hell...this is where I stand. There are some Christians........ those who belong to the *1st United Pentecostal* denomination...who believe that only they ahve the *real* truth and only they will go to Heaven. They believe that all Christians who believe in the *Trinity* are going to Hell. So, they condemn other Christians to Hell...you can imagone how harsh they are towards unbelievers.

[Skeptical Greg]

Ruby, Your post includes a lot of :

" Christians believe this, or Christians believe that.... "

It seems that " Christian " is not a very well defined concept..:confused:

At least in your mind..

[Ossai]

LCBOY
However materialism or naturalism is a precept and not a conclusion arrrived through evidence. The only evidence we have points to materialism. Do you have any evidence to counter this?

What purpose or advantage would believing in an afterlife have it it didn't exist.
1. Advertise a product better = get more money, or in this case converts.
2. Promise the masses that all their suffering will be rewarded later to keep them quiet now.
Shall we keep going?

If a person spends their entire life denying God, having nothing to do with Him, mocking Him, etc., why would that person want to spend all of eternity with Him I can not think of a more severe and hostile punishment than that. Because the only alternative presented is even worse.

Ossai

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Ruby, Your post includes a lot of :

" Christians believe this, or Christians believe that.... "

It seems that " Christian " is not a very well defined concept..:confused:

At least in your mind..

Nope, I don't think it is at all. It's insane really. I keep telling my hubby that we need to start our own church due to our own personal beliefs not being completely satisfied by our current non-denominational church.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yahweh

Do they believe that Mary was truely a virgin? I'm pretty sure that Jesus was a real person but I am not convinced that Mary was a virgin. Keep in mind in those days you were considered tainted if you were an unwed mother, so what better to say than this a child of devine creation. I know that today its possible for a virgin to give birth, but only when artificially insiminated which obviously is a modern day creation.

The story of Jesus' birth comes to us from Matthew and Luke. (Mark - the first Gospel - starts off with Jesus already grown) Matthew and Luke were written somewhere around 60 years after Jesus is said to have died. Tales of virgin births were common in those days, especially when speaking of someone who was a hero. Many gods were born of virgins.

The kicker is - in Isaiah - there is talk of a young girl who will give birth to a boy named Emmanuel. Matthews' agenda was to write a gospel that would be accepted by the Jews. So he took the OT and found any semblance of a prophesy and put it into his Gospel. He took a mistranslation of 'young girl' to 'virgin' and ran with it! (and BTW Jesus was never known as Emmanuel)

Moreover, the Messiah was prophesized as being born in Bethleham, so Matthew MADE him born in Bethleham. (Even though Jesus was traditionally know as "Jesus of Nazereth". Check out the contorted (and different) ways Matthew makes Jesus be born in Bethleham and Luke makes Jesus be born in Bethleham.

Matthew also misunderstood Jewish double-speak and had Jesus ride into Jerusalem on two donkeys! :-D

Evidence please? How do you know that Matthew's agenda was to "write a gospel that would be accepted by the Jews"? Is there a personal diary or letters of Matthew claiming this? Do we have first hand accounts from people who heard Matthew claim this?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by c4ts


Not all people who have nothing to do with God mock or deny Him. Denial is not the same ignoring. Certainly, one who denies can ignore, but so can someone who is tolerant.

What about the good people who are indifferent toward your religion? Do they diserve to go to Hell? Are those who are compassionate and moral without the need for your particular form of spiritual assistance worthy of the most terrible punishments imaginable? Are good-natured atheists who tolerate your beliefs, the ones who spend their lives doing good things rather than mocking and hating your beliefs, are they sinners too? Or do you deny that such people exist, despite their presence on this very board?

Can you define what a "good person" is? EVERY person is capable of performing acts of kindness, compassion, and sacrafice but EVERY person is capable of performing acts of cruelty, causing physical or emotional pain. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been mean, or rude on mocked anyone? Have you ever lied, or cheated? Have you ever held malice or anger toward another person? Have you caused someone to suffer emotionally? I know I have many times. If a person does these things how can they honestly say they are a "good person"?

I don't deny "good-natured atheists" exist. One of my closest friends is an atheist. She is one of the most warmhearted people I have ever known. I would trust her with my life. We have helped each other through very diffcult personal situations. Our friendship is based on respect and love for each other, even though our personal beliefs are quite different. Do you know any "good natured christians"?

You are correct that not all people who want nothing to do with "God" mock or deny Him. That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was trying to understand why someone who "denies" God would want to spend all of eternity with Him? As for sinners, ALL men are "sinners", including Christians.

I enjoy this board because people challenge me to think about what I truly believe (especially you, triadboy! Please keep the challenges coming.) I respect everyone's right to have their views even though I may not agree with them...

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by Ruby


Nope, I don't think it is at all. It's insane really. I keep telling my hubby that we need to start our own church due to our own personal beliefs not being completely satisfied by our current non-denominational church.

That's what I like to see, some truth in advertising. (Emphasis mine)

;)

[EdwardG]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I don't deny "good-natured atheists" exist. One of my closest friends is an atheist. She is one of the most warmhearted people I have ever known. I would trust her with my life.

Does this ever cause you to speculate about God's purpose in damning this person?

[thaiboxerken]

I was trying to understand why someone who "denies" God would want to spend all of eternity with Him? As for sinners, ALL men are "sinners", including Christians.

To "deny" a god, wouldn't one have to believe in one first? Atheists don't dislike or hate your god, they simply don't believe in it.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LCBOY
As for sinners, ALL men are "sinners", including Christians.


I find this the most repellant, horrid idea in Christianity. It casts all human beings as inherently "bad" when the vast majority of people are not. If people were inherently "bad" we would never have survived as a species.

The idea of sin is intended to control people by making them feel guilty about choices that do not necessarily hurt others. It's a "blame the victim" mentality that crushes the spirit of those too weak to stop themselves from normal human behaviour.

Feeling bad because you've "sinned" while doing clearly normal things like swearing, or being proud, or masturbating, or one of the many victimless "sins" is like the woman who is abused by her husband but blames herself. The world would be a better place without such an idea.

[thaiboxerken]

The world would be a better place without such an idea.

Yea, it's the christian guilt-trip idea that they want to plant into all people. They want us to believe that the only reason humans are on earth is to grovel forgiveness to a god for simply existing. Oh, and you don't deserve all of your income, so you better give the church 10% at least.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Ruby


Nope, I don't think it is at all. It's insane really. I keep telling my hubby that we need to start our own church due to our own personal beliefs not being completely satisfied by our current non-denominational church.

Ruby, what would be the basis for your new church? How would you know that your take is actually the correct one? For a long time, I found myself picking and choosing and deciding different things about my faith to make it fit the all inclusive loving God that was being preached. But, I realized that just because you want something to be doesn't mean it is. Would I prefer that there is a loving God who cares about me and watches me and has a place for me to live happily for ever after? Of course I do, but what reason is there to believe one faith over another without proof?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
about Mary being a virgin, i read somewhere that this was actually a mistranslation, kinda like how moses was believed to have horns during the Renaissance. i don't remember where i read that, though...

Using virgin as an adjective there is a rendering
'unsullied or spoiled by human activity', such as a virgin forest.
I knew a unitarian minister who argued scholastically that people who exhibited aesthetic levels of devotion were regarded as virgins in that context without regard to sexual activity.
While it is still a theistic argument it at least remains in the realm of real science.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Evidence please? How do you know that Matthew's agenda was to "write a gospel that would be accepted by the Jews"? Is there a personal diary or letters of Matthew claiming this? Do we have first hand accounts from people who heard Matthew claim this?

Matthew is the gospel especially concerned with showing OT prophesies fulfilled in the NT.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind

Ruby, what would be the basis for your new church? How would you know that your take is actually the correct one?

Oh boy, let's see.......our church would have a kickass praise and worship team.....a rock group really..........who would never resort to cheerleadng tactics. We'd also have a choir to sing hymns when the mood hit. We'd teach against paying tithes. We would NEVER ask for money;(my current Pastor does not ask for money either, although the church itself does collect tithes and offerings.) There are too many things to type out here...but there is a lot we'd do different. I would not claim that our church was the right one. I don't believe in a right church...although I do believe some have teaching that is messed up. There is not a perfect church.

My current church that I attend is the closest to ideal for us in this area. It has a strong teaching on men and women being equal, and women being able to hold positions of authority in the church. That is something you will not find in too many churches around here. My Pastor is also strongly against manipulation tactics...especially when it comes to money. I have a terrific and unique Pastor. There's just things in it that I don't like...nothing to do with my Pastor or what he actually teaches/preaches.


For a long time, I found myself picking and choosing and deciding different things about my faith to make it fit the all inclusive loving God that was being preached. But, I realized that just because you want something to be doesn't mean it is. Would I prefer that there is a loving God who cares about me and watches me and has a place for me to live happily for ever after? Of course I do, but what reason is there to believe one faith over another without proof?

Well, I honestly don't feel sure that God is as loving and caring as I have been taught. I have a very jaded view on living happily ever after. Life can be Hell.

My hubby is too busy working as an Engineer to become a preacher. He is also not the preacher type. I work hard as homemaker and have no interest in preaching. When I tell my hubby that we ought to start our own church, it is merely in jest. There's not really any chance of us ever starting a church. I don't think our point of view is the ultimate right one. I do think there are some things that Christians have totally misunderstood about what certain passages of scripture are talking about. We might be totally messed up in our thinking. I just know that it makes us more comfortable to believe as we do. :)

[Loki]

Ruby,

I just know that it makes us more comfortable to believe as we do.
I understand what you're saying here, but let me assure you that the same "comfort level" is achievable by thinking "muslim", or "hindu" or "atheist". No, really, it is. Doesn't mean you should change you beliefs, but *does* mean you should not fear a change in belief!

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
I understand what you're saying here, but let me assure you that the same "comfort level" is achievable by thinking "muslim", or "hindu" or "atheist".

Absolutely not.

[Loki]

Christian,

Okay, okay ... I can't prove it IS, and you can't prove it ISN'T. But come to my place for a few weeks, meet the people, then tell you still think this way.

(PS. I ain't paying for your airfare, by the way!)

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
(PS. I ain't paying for your airfare, by the way!)

:( :( :(

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Loki wrote:
I understand what you're saying here, but let me assure you that the same "comfort level" is achievable by thinking "muslim", or "hindu" or "atheist".

Absolutely not.

You don't believe that the followers of other religions and atheists are sincere in their beliefs and get comfort from them?

[Yahweh]

I'd like to think everyone who contributed and answered that list of questions that I had made. Thank you.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Christian
Loki wrote:
I understand what you're saying here, but let me assure you that the same "comfort level" is achievable by thinking "muslim", or "hindu" or "atheist".

Absolutely not.

Typical answer of a religious supremecist. This is equivalent to saying that no one can enjoy the color red as much as the color yellow.

I'm very comfortable being an atheist. I was comfortable being a christian, until I started to apply critical thinking to my christian beliefs.... then I wasn't comfortable again until losing that christianity.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Ipecac


I find this the most repellant, horrid idea in Christianity. It casts all human beings as inherently "bad" when the vast majority of people are not. If people were inherently "bad" we would never have survived as a species.

The idea of sin is intended to control people by making them feel guilty about choices that do not necessarily hurt others. It's a "blame the victim" mentality that crushes the spirit of those too weak to stop themselves from normal human behaviour.

Feeling bad because you've "sinned" while doing clearly normal things like swearing, or being proud, or masturbating, or one of the many victimless "sins" is like the woman who is abused by her husband but blames herself. The world would be a better place without such an idea.

Again, no one has yet to define a "good person" or a "bad person". Whether one finds the idea of sin "repellant and horrid" is besides the point. The question is does the concept of "sin" decribe the world accurately or not? I believe it does. If the world was filled with mostly "good people" then why is human history filled with such bloodly violence, terror and suffering. Also, I don't see how a woman who is a victim of domestic violence has committed sin? This logic simply escapes me.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LCBOY
......If the world was filled with mostly "good people" then why is human history filled with such bloodly violence, terror and suffering. ................



Genesis Chapter 1
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Again, no one has yet to define a "good person" or a "bad person". Whether one finds the idea of sin "repellant and horrid" is besides the point. The question is does the concept of "sin" decribe the world accurately or not? I believe it does. If the world was filled with mostly "good people" then why is human history filled with such bloodly violence, terror and suffering. Also, I don't see how a woman who is a victim of domestic violence has committed sin? This logic simply escapes me.

Define sin. Is masturbation a sin? How about swearing? How about lusting after a beautiful woman you see in the street? Eating too much? Being proud of your job, your accomplishments, your family? Wanting a better house or car like your neighbor's? All of these things have been designated as sinful by the Bible.

The Biblical bar for sin is so low that by its definitions, everyone is a sinner. People are defined as a sinner for things that hurt no one. This is absurd and wrong.

My point about the abuse victim is to make a comparison with such women and Christians. Often an abused wife will believe she is responsible for the abuse. "I'm not behaving correctly or he wouldn't beat me. If only I had been better, I wouldn't have gotten this punishment." Christians exhibit the exact same misplaced guilt, blaming themselves for letting down a "loving" god who is going to torture them forever for failing to live up to impossible standards.

Clearly the world is filled with mostly "good" people. It's an imperfect example but look at prison populations. I think we can reasonably say that the majority of people in prison are those the society considers "bad" in that presumably they've broken some law. (Caveat: There is, of course, some percentage of law breakers who don't go to jail. And some who are innocent).

What percentage of any population is in prison? A couple of percent? In the US, it's less than 5%. This means that somewhere around 95% of the citizenry are, more or less, law-abiding. They haven't broken the codes of conduct that society considers to define good and bad.

If a majority of people were "bad", tending towards violence, we simply would not have survived as a species. We are not as strong as many animals. We are smart but exponentially smarter in groups. This means that people who got along better, survived.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Diogenes




Genesis Chapter 1
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Yes, but happened afterward? You conveniently left that part out. :D Do you what this passage means? What is it's spiritual significance?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Yes, but happened afterward?

Oh, you mean the part about:

" All these people ( I created ) are disgusting, so I'm going to destroy them all in a cruel way, and let one idiot and his family have a shot at repopulating the world.." ( which didn't turn out so good either...)

Or were you thinking of something else?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Yes, but happened afterward? You conveniently left that part out. :D Do you what this passage means? What is it's spiritual significance?

Hey everybody! Let's play the interpretation game!

I say that God created man in his own image symbolically. Like God, man is capable of both creation and terrible destruction.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by c4ts


Hey everybody! Let's play the interpretation game!

I say that God created man in his own image symbolically. Like God, man is capable of both creation and terrible destruction.

The part that always bothers me:

If it doesn't make sense, it must be symbolic..

If it does make sense, it must not be symbolic, 'cause if it was symbolic, well .... it wouldn't make sense....

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Loki
Ruby,


I understand what you're saying here, but let me assure you that the same "comfort level" is achievable by thinking "muslim", or "hindu" or "atheist". No, really, it is. Doesn't mean you should change you beliefs, but *does* mean you should not fear a change in belief!

Oh, I totally agree. That is one thing I have come to see evidence of in this world. I resent the idea that only Christians are truly happy.....which brings me to another reason to start my own church!!! :D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Define sin. Is masturbation a sin? How about swearing? How about lusting after a beautiful woman you see in the street? Eating too much? Being proud of your job, your accomplishments, your family? Wanting a better house or car like your neighbor's? All of these things have been designated as sinful by the Bible.

While most Christians agree on murder, adultery, stealing etc., being sin, they don't agree in other areas that are unclearly stated in the bible. I don't believe masturbation or swearing are sins, but other Christians might think otherwise. There is nothing clear cut in the bible to speak against maturbation or swearing.


My point about the abuse victim is to make a comparison with such women and Christians. Often an abused wife will believe she is responsible for the abuse. "I'm not behaving correctly or he wouldn't beat me. If only I had been better, I wouldn't have gotten this punishment." Christians exhibit the exact same misplaced guilt, blaming themselves for letting down a "loving" god who is going to torture them forever for failing to live up to impossible standards.

There is definitely some of this thinking that goes on with certain christians, but most do not think this way. This is not the way God intends for people to think. While feeling guilt for murder or adultery is a good thing, it is not healthy to feel continuous guilt for losing your temper, or using bad language, or other little things. To God, they are forgotten. We are not supposed to live in guilt and fear.

I used to attend a 1st United Pentecostal church. They teach that it is wrong/sin for a woman to wear pants, shorts, make-up or jewelry. Dresses must be long with sleeves on or below the elbow. I had a pretty dress that had sleeves about two inches above the elbow. I wore it a lot until my Pastor preached from the pulpit on how wrong it was to wear a dress that had sleeves above the elbow. I felt such guilt. I felt awful. I stopped wearing the dress. This was not the heart of God, but He had been misrepresented to me by a legalistic church org.

Later on, I got out of this church. I dressed as I liked after that and attended an non-denominational church. I stopped living in so much fear and guilt. I stopped worrying that everything little thing in my life was sin and that I was terribly rotten. I stopped beating myself.

I don't have to go to God groveling in repentance. I am supposed to hold my head up.

[Preston]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Christian Morality? Christianity teaches a few moralities that I think is completely a waste of time, such as no sex before marriage. Thats like telling someone "You see all that happiness you could have, forget about it".


Back when those laws were written, the average age of marriage was 12. They couldn't forsee the change in society, and thus, the laws couldn't adapt.

Heck, the whole New Testament was about changing things around from the vengeful hebrew war-god of the Old Testament "Yahweh", to a softer version that wouldn't kill you for eating shellfish or wearing multifabric clothing.

Change is something that you will most always encounter in a human construct. But in a perfect being, it never happens.

I think it's rather obvious why all the change occurred.

[Boo]

Ruby,

If I may, I have a question. Why do you feel it necessary to have/attend a church?

The reason I ask is that personally, I never found a church that didn't want me to believe exactly as they did. Questions and discussion were Discouraged. I found strength through personal study and prayer. Church, when I did attend became a social event or a chance to enjoy ceremony ( I still love Midnight Mass in the Catholic Church).

I am now in the process of questioning faith and belief on a personal level.

I am curious as to what benefits you receive from attending, besides social.

Thanks.

Boo

[thaiboxerken]

There is nothing clear cut in the bible to speak against maturbation or swearing.

I guess masturbation is ok as long as you don't spill your seed on the ground, if that happens, then you'll invoke the wrath of god on yourself.

"Gen.38:9-10 "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." "



Oh, mythologies are so funny.

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
You don't believe that the followers of other religions and atheists are sincere in their beliefs and get comfort from them?

I do believe they feel extremely comfortable (why else would they be what they are), but I don’t believe one chooses to be a Christian from a random card in the cookie jar.

My point is that Ruby (I think, I may be wrong here) has chosen Christianity because she believes it is her best choice.

Thaiboxerken wrote:
Typical answer of a religious supremecist. This is equivalent to saying that no one can enjoy the color red as much as the color yellow.

Discrimination is real; we all practice it. Are you an atheist based on a random choice?


I'm very comfortable being an atheist. I was comfortable being a christian, until I started to apply critical thinking to my christian beliefs.... then I wasn't comfortable again until losing that christianity.

Based on your answer, you are not only an atheist because it makes you feel more comfortable, you are one because it is the rational choice (as you imply). And please note that your response *is* the elitist one. As I’ve heard many times, atheists believe they are closer to the truth than Christians.

I find it hypocritical that you call me a supremacist (based on my preference) when your view is that I have made an inferior choice intellectually.


Ruby wrote:
Oh, I totally agree. That is one thing I have come to see evidence of in this world. I resent the idea that only Christians are truly happy.....which brings me to another reason to start my own church!!!

Resent it all you want. The point is you have chosen Christianity If it is all the same to you, why not choose Buddhism?

If you don’t consider it the best choice, what’s the point?

There is something very special to Christianity. We Christians cannot escape it. According to Christianity, it not the best choice, it is the only choice.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Boo
Ruby,

If I may, I have a question. Why do you feel it necessary to have/attend a church?

The reason I ask is that personally, I never found a church that didn't want me to believe exactly as they did. Questions and discussion were Discouraged. I found strength through personal study and prayer. Church, when I did attend became a social event or a chance to enjoy ceremony ( I still love Midnight Mass in the Catholic Church).

I am now in the process of questioning faith and belief on a personal level.

I am curious as to what benefits you receive from attending, besides social.

Thanks.

Boo

I tend to ask myself all the time why it is I am attending church. I am not a faithful church goer. I miss a lot of services. My main reason for going is the social aspect.That's sad, but true.:(

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Christian

Ruby wrote:
Oh, I totally agree. That is one thing I have come to see evidence of in this world. I resent the idea that only Christians are truly happy.....which brings me to another reason to start my own church!!!

Resent it all you want. The point is you have chosen Christianity If it is all the same to you, why not choose Buddhism?

If you don’t consider it the best choice, what’s the point?

There is something very special to Christianity. We Christians cannot escape it. According to Christianity, it not the best choice, it is the only choice.

I wish that choice did not disappoint so much and leave me asking so many questions. For now, it's does seem the most logical choice even if I feel disappointed. There are certain things that I cannot get away from. I cannot stop believing that God created this earth and I can't stop believing that Jesus existed and was God in flesh. All else, I question.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Ruby


I tend to ask myself all the time why it is I am attending church. I am not a faithful church goer. I miss a lot of services. My main reason for going is the social aspect.That's sad, but true.:(

What's sad is that I suspect the majority of church goers in Protestant churches attend for the social exchange and sense of belonging, yet so many of them are unwilling to admit the truth that you do.

You deserve a lot of credit for being intellectually honest about it. They don't.

Unfortunately, so many of those who attend for social reasons also suffer the consequence of the brainwashing and indoctrination that inevitably occurs from the dogma taught in sermons and Sunday School services.

To me, that is one of the greater harms done by church going.

AS

[triadboy]

There is something very special to Christianity. We Christians cannot escape it.

Yes, I agree. It is a mythology - undeniably and blatently similar to numerous older mythologies - but somehow (through faith) the participants of Christianity are blinded to this fact - and so believe their myth to be history.

Many Christians HAVE escaped it.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


What's sad is that I suspect the majority of church goers in Protestant churches attend for the social exchange and sense of belonging, yet so many of them are unwilling to admit the truth that you do.

You deserve a lot of credit for being intellectually honest about it. They don't.

Unfortunately, so many of those who attend for social reasons also suffer the consequence of the brainwashing and indoctrination that inevitably occurs from the dogma taught in sermons and Sunday School services.

To me, that is one of the greater harms done by church going.

AS

My hubby and I usually come away from a church service picking it to bits in criticism and sarcasm. Most of our Pastor's teachings are great because it never comes across as "preaching" and he say a lot of things to undermine *religious* ideas. However, he does let others preach or teach and he does allow others to speak or pray or whatever. We invariably disagree or get upset by what others say or teach.

My hubby won't even go to the mens meeting and ministry events because the man who was put in charge is not someone we can look up to as a leader in the church.

Yep, I think many Christians go to church for a sense of belonging, but many do love church for the reason of being able to worship in a group setting.....especially charismatics. I have spent most of my Christian walk in charismatic churches where people go to church to see *signs and wonders* and to see *God really show-up*. :(

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
There is definitely some of this thinking that goes on with certain christians, but most do not think this way. This is not the way God intends for people to think.

. . .

To God, they are forgotten. We are not supposed to live in guilt and fear.

See, this is where it all fell apart for me. How do you know what God intends for people to think? The Bible is subject to thousands of different interpretations so no help there. Ministers tell you what God's will is, but how do you know they're right? They have no special pipeline to god.

So it's ALL interpreted by humans and communicated to you by others. I don't trust that they know the truth any more than I did. I certainly don't trust a primitive, superstitious people who lived thousands of years ago to have understood the truth.

When you realize it's all a human mythology, there's no reason to believe it.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Ipecac wrote:
You don't believe that the followers of other religions and atheists are sincere in their beliefs and get comfort from them?

I do believe they feel extremely comfortable (why else would they be what they are), but I don’t believe one chooses to be a Christian from a random card in the cookie jar.

My point is that Ruby (I think, I may be wrong here) has chosen Christianity because she believes it is her best choice.

. . .

There is something very special to Christianity. We Christians cannot escape it. According to Christianity, it not the best choice, it is the only choice.

Puh-lease. Most people, the overwhelming majority, don't choose their religion, they are born into it. Or their community, state, country practices it and when they decide they want religion, they go with what's easily accessible. People in America who decide they want to start going to church most often try out different protestant denominations. It would be the remarkable individual who sampled different religions in order to choose.

If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a muslim. If you were born in Japan, likely a Buddhist. Your "choice" is most definitely a random card from the cookie jar.

People who follow other religions can be just as happy and comfortable with their religion as you claim Christians are. Arguing otherwise is just ignoring their own claims in favor of your sense of the superiority of Christianity.

[CapelDodger]

From Christian:
I do believe they feel extremely comfortable (why else would they be what they are), but I don’t believe one chooses to be a Christian from a random card in the cookie jar.
How does that square with the fact that the vast majority of believers choose the religion of their parents and society? If that isn't random, what is?

And please note that your response *is* the elitist one. As I’ve heard many times, atheists believe they are closer to the truth than Christians.
And Christians don't believe they are closer to the truth? So how is one position more elitist than the other?

There is something very special to Christianity. We Christians cannot escape it.
Christianity is no more special than any other set of superstitions and myths.

[thaiboxerken]

Discrimination is real; we all practice it.

Yes, but supremecy isn't appreciated. You are very arrogant in assuming that christianity gives more comfort than any other belief system. And your claim is purely inevident.

Are you an atheist based on a random choice?

I didn't choose to be atheist, I just am because I stopped believing in a god.


Based on your answer, you are not only an atheist because it makes you feel more comfortable, you are one because it is the rational choice (as you imply). And please note that your response *is* the elitist one. As I’ve heard many times, atheists believe they are closer to the truth than Christians.

Hardly, I'm atheist because there is no evidence of a god. Not believing because there is no evidence IS the most rational choice. I apply the same skepticism of UFO's to gods and pixies. That's rationality, not supremecy. Also, skeptics and atheists don't claim truth, we simply don't believe your claims.


I find it hypocritical that you call me a supremacist (based on my preference) when your view is that I have made an inferior choice intellectually.

You didn't choose to be christian, you were simply convinced that the mythologies are true.



There is something very special to Christianity. We Christians cannot escape it. According to Christianity, it not the best choice, it is the only choice.

You admit that you didn't choose to be christian in this statement.

Beliefs are not choices.

[Preston]

Originally posted by Ruby


I tend to ask myself all the time why it is I am attending church. I am not a faithful church goer. I miss a lot of services. My main reason for going is the social aspect.That's sad, but true.:(

"See? That's what I mean. People don't go to church to feel spititual, they go to church and feel bored."

- Bartleby, Dogma

[Loki]

Ruby,

With the greatest of respect to your husband, I like your style!

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
Puh-lease. Most people, the overwhelming majority, don't choose their religion, they are born into it. Or their community, state, country practices it and when they decide they want religion, they go with what's easily accessible. People in America who decide they want to start going to church most often try out different protestant denominations. It would be the remarkable individual who sampled different religions in order to choose.

Yes, I understand the position. To you, only atheist don’t have the herd mentality and have been freed from the chains of ignorance. You really can’t fathom the idea that people become Christian out of deep personal conviction based on rational thoughts.

If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a muslim. If you were born in Japan, likely a Buddhist. Your "choice" is most definitely a random card from the cookie jar.

You are coming to the wrong conclusion here. You are correct to say that geography affects religious beliefs, but you are leaving out choice. Saudi’s, by law, have little choice. Japanese have lots more choice and, without looking at any statistics, I bet the Christian population in Japan is much higher than in Saudi Arabia.

People who follow other religions can be just as happy and comfortable with their religion as you claim Christians are. Arguing otherwise is just ignoring their own claims in favor of your sense of the superiority of Christianity.

I never argued this. I agree with the statement. Please read my posts again.

CapelDodger wrote:
How does that square with the fact that the vast majority of believers choose the religion of their parents and society? If that isn't random, what is?

Yes, but that statistic has nothing to do (does not prove we don’t choose our religion) with choice. Christianity is the largest religion in the planet, logically it will happen that most believers will choose the religion of their parents. The sample is not good to show what you want to suggest. Same for Islam, (I think) the second largest. And, add that most Muslims, by law, don’t have a chance to choose anything else.

And Christians don't believe they are closer to the truth? So how is one position more elitist than the other?

Yes, but this truth has been arrived at by revelation, by a gift. Atheist believe they are closer to the truth by superior mental abilities. That is why it is elitist. Atheist believe only the masses (which have been indoctrinated by their parents) fall for the nonsense of religion. Truly enlightened minds are free from this societal chains.

Christianity is no more special than any other set of superstitions and myths.

It is the most powerful and relevant force in history throughout history. You can deny this, but it is inescapable.


Thaiboxerken wrote:
Yes, but supremecy isn't appreciated. You are very arrogant in assuming that christianity gives more comfort than any other belief system. And your claim is purely inevident.

First of all, I have never said or is it my position that Christianity gives more comfort than any other set of beliefs. Second, discrimination (e.g. I like blonds better than brunettes) is not supremacist or elitist, it is discriminatory ( the normal good kind). When I choose Christianity, it is because I clearly believe is the best choice, why else would I chose it?

I didn't choose to be atheist, I just am because I stopped believing in a god.

This is word games.

Hardly, I'm atheist because there is no evidence of a god. Not believing because there is no evidence IS the most rational choice. I apply the same skepticism of UFO's to gods and pixies. That's rationality, not supremecy. Also, skeptics and atheists don't claim truth, we simply don't believe your claims.

Clearly you don’t see the implications of what you saying. You are saying that, you are intelligent enough to understand and come to the conclusion that there is no God. This means that whoever believes in God(s) is not as intelligent as you are. This is what is elitist. To you, it is matter, not of what makes you feel better, but a matter of what is rational.

Which brings me to another point. Most atheist I’ve talked to agree that Christians are happier than atheists. As I recall (in a thread), this was because (like drug addicts) Christians escape reality and go in this trip to feel happy (or a similar argument). The atheist prefers (that’s what they said) the truth (which can be painful) to lies that make you happy.

You didn't choose to be christian, you were simply convinced that the mythologies are true.

I understand you feel superior intellectually to actually say this.

You admit that you didn't choose to be christian in this statement.

You are giving a totally different interpretation to my statement. You are philosophizing about free will. My statement is simply an emphasis on our choice.

[thaiboxerken]

I bet the Christian population in Japan is much higher than in Saudi Arabia.

Christianity in Japan is less than 4%. What is it in Saudi? People don't choose their beliefs, they are convinced in one way or another.

Yes, but that statistic has nothing to do (does not prove we don’t choose our religion) with choice.

It doesn't "prove" it, but it is a big evidence for the arguement.

Yes, but this truth has been arrived at by revelation, by a gift.

No, most christians are christians because their parents brainwashed them.

Atheist believe they are closer to the truth by superior mental abilities. That is why it is elitist. Atheist believe only the masses (which have been indoctrinated by their parents) fall for the nonsense of religion. Truly enlightened minds are free from this societal chains.

No, not all atheists believe this. You have to understand that atheism is not a belief system or philosophy, is is simply the state of not having a god or gods. Atheism does not teach anything. Christianity does.

Clearly you don’t see the implications of what you saying. You are saying that, you are intelligent enough to understand and come to the conclusion that there is no God.

No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in any gods presented to me so far because there is no evidence. When I say that there are no gods, it's not an absolute term. I will very much believe in pixies and gods, if there is evidence provided for them, but until then, I'll just say there aren't any. I will not change my life choices based on things that I don't believe exist.

This means that whoever believes in God(s) is not as intelligent as you are. This is what is elitist. To you, it is matter, not of what makes you feel better, but a matter of what is rational.

No, there are many intelligent theists and deists, it's just a fact that there is no evidence associated with their beliefs in gods. Because there is no evidence associated with that belief, it is irrational. This doesn't mean that the belief is bad or valueless.

My favorite color is yellow, that's an irrational belief.

I understand you feel superior intellectually to actually say this.

No, just stating opinions based on evidence. There is too much evidence to support the assertion that christianity is a myth, and too little evidence to suggest otherwise.

You are giving a totally different interpretation to my statement. You are philosophizing about free will. My statement is simply an emphasis on our choice.

Beliefs are not choices. Try believing, truly believing, as a hindu for one day. If you can become Hindu for one day successfully, I'll change my mind.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
Yes, I understand the position. To you, only atheist don’t have the herd mentality and have been freed from the chains of ignorance. You really can’t fathom the idea that people become Christian out of deep personal conviction based on rational thoughts.

You are coming to the wrong conclusion here. You are correct to say that geography affects religious beliefs, but you are leaving out choice. Saudi’s, by law, have little choice. Japanese have lots more choice and, without looking at any statistics, I bet the Christian population in Japan is much higher than in Saudi Arabia.


Most children are the same religion as their parents. Do you think the kids chose that particular religion or just followed what their parents (and their church) taught? How many parents take their children to different churches of different religions and say, "Okay, kids, there are all the religions. What is your choice?" The answer is vanishingly close to zero.

Do you seriously believe that Christianity is somehow comprised of millions of people who looked at all the world's religions and chose among them? And to go the next step based on your Saudi Arabia example, that Islam is primarily chosen because it's the law?

Sure, some people look around and choose their religion out of the thousands of available religions. But it's a tiny percentage that do this. Most people in the western world are Christians of some sort because that's what their culture and family have been historically. Most people in the Middle East are Muslim for the same reason.

You seem to be claiming that Christianity has some sort of clear indication that it's the one true religion and that all those who are Christians have looked at all religions and come to Christianity by choice. If this is your position, it is not remotely supported by any evidence whatsoever.

As far as this:

And Christians don't believe they are closer to the truth? So how is one position more elitist than the other?

and your response:

Yes, but this truth has been arrived at by revelation, by a gift. Atheist believe they are closer to the truth by superior mental abilities. That is why it is elitist. Atheist believe only the masses (which have been indoctrinated by their parents) fall for the nonsense of religion. Truly enlightened minds are free from this societal chains.

Are you kidding? Have you met any Christians? I was a Christian for over 30 years and I've met and still know many of them. More Christians than I know atheists. The number who would say that they arrived at the truth by revelation is tiny. Most people I know who are Christians would say they're Christian for social reasons. I can imagine only a few claiming they had a revelation. I think most of them are honest about how they came to Christianity.

How did you come to Christianity? Did you choose it with full information of the world's religions or were you raised in it?

The rest of your answer demonstrates that you don't really understand atheists.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Most children are the same religion as their parents. Do you think the kids chose that particular religion or just followed what their parents (and their church) taught? How many parents take their children to different churches of different religions and say, "Okay, kids, there are all the religions. What is your choice?" The answer is vanishingly close to zero.

Do you seriously believe that Christianity is somehow comprised of millions of people who looked at all the world's religions and chose among them? And to go the next step based on your Saudi Arabia example, that Islam is primarily chosen because it's the law?

Sure, some people look around and choose their religion out of the thousands of available religions. But it's a tiny percentage that do this. Most people in the western world are Christians of some sort because that's what their culture and family have been historically. Most people in the Middle East are Muslim for the same reason.

You seem to be claiming that Christianity has some sort of clear indication that it's the one true religion and that all those who are Christians have looked at all religions and come to Christianity by choice. If this is your position, it is not remotely supported by any evidence whatsoever.

As far as this:



and your response:



Are you kidding? Have you met any Christians? I was a Christian for over 30 years and I've met and still know many of them. More Christians than I know atheists. The number who would say that they arrived at the truth by revelation is tiny. Most people I know who are Christians would say they're Christian for social reasons. I can imagine only a few claiming they had a revelation. I think most of them are honest about how they came to Christianity.

How did you come to Christianity? Did you choose it with full information of the world's religions or were you raised in it?

The rest of your answer demonstrates that you don't really understand atheists.

Ipecac,

You make a valid point. I would agree that the major of people are a part of their faith because of their parents or culture. However, (and I'll use Christians as an example) I would say that a large majority of Christians that are are "raised Christian" do at one point in life question the validity or truthfulness of their faith. I know of a lot of christians that have gone through a spiritual crisis in their life having doubts. These are the people that read, study, and research. Some stayed Christians, some didn't.

As for myself, I was not raised in a Christian home. I was an agnostic/atheist until the age of 30. I was more of an agnostic in that I couldn't prove deductively God didn't exist but I decided that if God did exist he didn't have much influence on the world. I lived my life on the assumption or precept that God didn't exist.

Most people in "Muslim countries" are Muslim, but not all of them. Even in Saudi Arabia there are Saudis who are devout Christians. I have the deepest respect and admiration for Christians who live in countries that persecute them violently, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, etc. These people have to meet in secret just to pray. They have to hide their Bibles for fear of being discovered. To these Christians their faith is just not a "head knowledge" of believing in Jesus Christ, but a personal faith the is the driving force in their lives. They risk persecution, violence, even death but they continue to follow Christ. A lot of them are disowned by their family and friends yet they still believe. Many times I ask myself, if I were in their shoes would I still follow Christ?

Most Christians, Muslims, Jews are what I call "cultural" Christians, or "cultural" Muslims, or "cultural" Jews. The identify with their faith but usually it doesn't really play a large part of their lives. I know many Christians whe rarely go to church, never pray (unless they need help!), and never read the Bible but they still call themselves "Christian". They identify with being "Christian" because they do not know anything else.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Ipecac,

You make a valid point. I would agree that the major of people are a part of their faith because of their parents or culture. However, (and I'll use Christians as an example) I would say that a large majority of Christians that are are "raised Christian" do at one point in life question the validity or truthfulness of their faith. I know of a lot of christians that have gone through a spiritual crisis in their life having doubts. These are the people that read, study, and research. Some stayed Christians, some didn't.

As for myself, I was not raised in a Christian home. I was an agnostic/atheist until the age of 30. I was more of an agnostic in that I couldn't prove deductively God didn't exist but I decided that if God did exist he didn't have much influence on the world. I lived my life on the assumption or precept that God didn't exist.

Most people in "Muslim countries" are Muslim, but not all of them. Even in Saudi Arabia there are Saudis who are devout Christians. I have the deepest respect and admiration for Christians who live in countries that persecute them violently, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, etc. These people have to meet in secret just to pray. They have to hide their Bibles for fear of being discovered. To these Christians their faith is just not a "head knowledge" of believing in Jesus Christ, but a personal faith the is the driving force in their lives. They risk persecution, violence, even death but they continue to follow Christ. A lot of them are disowned by their family and friends yet they still believe. Many times I ask myself, if I were in their shoes would I still follow Christ?

Most Christians, Muslims, Jews are what I call "cultural" Christians, or "cultural" Muslims, or "cultural" Jews. The identify with their faith but usually it doesn't really play a large part of their lives. I know many Christians whe rarely go to church, never pray (unless they need help!), and never read the Bible but they still call themselves "Christian". They identify with being "Christian" because they do not know anything else.

LCboy,

When you decided to become a Christian, did you sample different religions? Did you try out Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism before you joined a church?

I appreciate your point but I think what you've said is true of all religions. There are minority religions in every country of the world and many of them are persecuted by the majority. Muslims in some western countries undoubtedly feel pressured or even persecuted. China often cracks down on all religion. Do I need to even mention Jews?

Christianity isn't special with regards to this type of persecution and its adherents don't have a monopoly on living with the persecution while upholding their beliefs.

As far as this:

I would say that a large majority of Christians that are are "raised Christian" do at one point in life question the validity or truthfulness of their faith.

Nearly everyone questions their beliefs at some point. But question it enough to drop their faith? Some do, certainly. But a majority? I don't think so.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac

See, this is where it all fell apart for me. How do you know what God intends for people to think? The Bible is subject to thousands of different interpretations so no help there.

This is my dilemna and frustration. Still, if God exists, he does not hold back those who have a wrong interpretation. He is supposed to see the heart. That's what matters, IMHO.


Ministers tell you what God's will is, but how do you know they're right? They have no special pipeline to god.

Ah, the "Psychic hotline to God"...that's what I call it! :D My Pastor usually tells us to figure out on a personal basis what God's will is for us. If my Pastor started saying what God's will was for us, I'd probably leave.

So it's ALL interpreted by humans and communicated to you by others.

Yes, but the scriptures talk about "working out your own salvation" and everyone being "convinced in His own mind". While Pastors or preachers are supposed to teach and give some guidance, they are not supposed to be Lording it over us, or saying "Thus says the Lord" to us. There might be some legalistic people in christian circles who miscommuncate, but that does not mean that all of Christianity is like that. There are those of us who do "make up our own minds" and "work out our own salvation." I don't listen to every word a preacher says and come away thinking i just heard soemthing straight from God whether I like it or not. I come away weighing what I heard up against what I know of scripture, (and generally my skepticism too), and seeing if it fits the way I see things. If I reach a different conclusion than what was taught to me, that does not mean I am right or they are wrong......if God is omniscient, then He knows who's *right*, but it does not matter to him.......He looks at the heart. Even those in the UPC chucrh org. who presented extremely legalistic ideas to me are not "lost" and bound for "hell". They taught what they did in all sincerity.

I don't trust that they know the truth any more than I did. I certainly don't trust a primitive, superstitious people who lived thousands of years ago to have understood the truth.
When you realize it's all a human mythology, there's no reason to believe it. [/B]

I can understand how you feel. I really have no desire to *witness* about my faith. I am not on here as an *apologetic*...even though one could argue that I have just done a bit of that. Therefore, I am not going to attempt to prove that christianity is not "human mythology". I can only say that i understand how you feel that way.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Puh-lease. Most people, the overwhelming majority, don't choose their religion, they are born into it. Or their community, state, country practices it and when they decide they want religion, they go with what's easily accessible. People in America who decide they want to start going to church most often try out different protestant denominations. It would be the remarkable individual who sampled different religions in order to choose.

You are probably right. I was not born into my religion. At least, I wasn't raised a Christian. My mom had agnostic type beliefs. My dad was atheist....and had a strong beleif in evolution. I was taught evolution growing up. I did hear about God through school. One of my teachers would read bible stories sometimes, but I was never taught that it was the only truth and I was never taught a salvation message.

I grew up believing that I could choose what I wanted. I ventured out into some New Age things. I was drawn to things in Paganism and Spritualism. It was only when I had a big scare after my "Spirit guide" turned scary that I turned to Christianty. At the time, I had a choice between going to a Mental hospital or going to God. I chose God. I ended up totally freed of the terrible scare I went through.

People who follow other religions can be just as happy and comfortable with their religion as you claim Christians are. Arguing otherwise is just ignoring their own claims in favor of your sense of the superiority of Christianity. [/B]

I agree with you. That's why I believe that people of other beliefs are "saved" too. I can't see anyone in Hell, but truly evil people.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Loki
Ruby,

With the greatest of respect to your husband, I like your style!

:D Sometimes, I think "I am nuts"...lol!!

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Ipecac


LCboy,

When you decided to become a Christian, did you sample different religions? Did you try out Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism before you joined a church?

I appreciate your point but I think what you've said is true of all religions. There are minority religions in every country of the world and many of them are persecuted by the majority. Muslims in some western countries undoubtedly feel pressured or even persecuted. China often cracks down on all religion. Do I need to even mention Jews?

Christianity isn't special with regards to this type of persecution and its adherents don't have a monopoly on living with the persecution while upholding their beliefs.

As far as this:



Nearly everyone questions their beliefs at some point. But question it enough to drop their faith? Some do, certainly. But a majority? I don't think so.

In college I had a muslim roommate. I was so fascinated with his beliefs. We would talk for hours and he even took me to his mosque. I read and studied Islam and even serious considered becoming muslim. No, I did not research EVERY single "religion". I don't think anyone can do that. However, I was not looking for "religion", especially not Christianity. In a sense it found me. Through a series of highy improbable events I was lead to a church. I was never a "religious" person. From time to time Christians would share their faith with me (even when I didn't want them to, thoses pesky christians!) but I didn't really listen.

Any person that is "persecuted" for their faith is "special" to me, not just Christians.

Whether a large number of people who question their drop their faith is unknown. What is the percentage? 5%? 10% 25%?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Ipecac,
You make a valid point. I would agree that the major of people are a part of their faith because of their parents or culture. However, (and I'll use Christians as an example) I would say that a large majority of Christians that are are "raised Christian" do at one point in life question the validity or truthfulness of their faith. I know of a lot of christians that have gone through a spiritual crisis in their life having doubts. These are the people that read, study, and research. Some stayed Christians, some didn't.

My hubby fits that category. He was raised in a Christian/cult community. From birth, He was instilled with messed up beliefs that did not reflect true Christianity, but he was still presented with some basic beliefs that Christians hold. After he got out of cult, he went through many years of pain, and questioning God. He studied and did all sorts of research. He found the evidence for God to be too overwhelming to deny. He found so much to corroborate the existence of Jesus that he could not turn his back on Him.

I have a close friend who was Christian many years, but after many disappointments, gave up and became an atheist. Sometime later, she could not shake some facts about Christianity. She ended up turning back to God, and she feels so happy to have done so. She was miserable being an atheist.

Most atheist, from what I see online, are very happy and content. Whether they made a choice or not. As a member of the 1st United Pentecostal church many years ago, I was taught that no one was truly happy unless they belonged to the UPC org.

As for myself, I was not raised in a Christian home. I was an agnostic/atheist until the age of 30. I was more of an agnostic in that I couldn't prove deductively God didn't exist but I decided that if God did exist he didn't have much influence on the world. I lived my life on the assumption or precept that God didn't exist.

Wow! I was raised in an agnostic/atheist household too. I heard about God through school, but ran away from God. I was an agnostic who had beliefs in spiritualism. I was this way until I was 27. I became a christian while in a desperate state. Due to having been taught evolution and had an upbringing with very very little *Christian* influence, I had many questions and doubts. I did some research and study, but it was probably biased study back then.....books written by Christians without seeing the opposing argument. It has really only been the last three years that I have looked at all evidence.....and I am still doing so due to my skepticism and frustration with so much in Christianity. No matter what, I can't get away from believing in who Jesus was/is. What evidence compelled you to be a Christian? I guess I should not ask that as it will derail this thread.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
This is my dilemna and frustration. Still, if God exists, he does not hold back those who have a wrong interpretation. He is supposed to see the heart. That's what matters, IMHO.

Ah, the "Psychic hotline to God"...that's what I call it! :D My Pastor usually tells us to figure out on a personal basis what God's will is for us. If my Pastor started saying what God's will was for us, I'd probably leave.



When I was a Christian, this is pretty much exactly what I believed. It was all personal and up to each individual. Each person is judged by their heart, not by their religious beliefs. It made me feel much better about being a Christian.

But then I realized that the church wasn't teaching this, I was just making it up. The Bible certainly doesn't support such a belief.

It seems you place a lot of faith in the scriptures. Doesn't this require you to believe that the Bible is written by god? How do you deal with the inconsistencies, the god-ordered violence, the skewed morality? How do you deal with the historical problems with the Bible?

You definitely have some critical bones in your body, so I submit to you, what evidence could you or your husband come up with for Christianity that was too overwhelming to ignore? I suspect it was feeling, coincidence, or something else but nothing tangible. That's usually how these things are.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LCBOY
In college I had a muslim roommate. I was so fascinated with his beliefs. We would talk for hours and he even took me to his mosque. I read and studied Islam and even serious considered becoming muslim. No, I did not research EVERY single "religion". I don't think anyone can do that. However, I was not looking for "religion", especially not Christianity. In a sense it found me. Through a series of highy improbable events I was lead to a church. I was never a "religious" person. From time to time Christians would share their faith with me (even when I didn't want them to, thoses pesky christians!) but I didn't really listen.

Any person that is "persecuted" for their faith is "special" to me, not just Christians.

Whether a large number of people who question their drop their faith is unknown. What is the percentage? 5%? 10% 25%?

I would just point out that there are tens of thousands of religions in the world. You closely examined one or two. Not trying to denigrate your experience, but I think you proved my point.

Then you were "lead" to a church. By whom?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
My hubby fits that category. He was raised in a Christian/cult community. From birth, He was instilled with messed up beliefs that did not reflect true Christianity, but he was still presented with some basic beliefs that Christians hold. After he got out of cult, he went through many years of pain, and questioning God. He studied and did all sorts of research. He found the evidence for God to be too overwhelming to deny. He found so much to corroborate the existence of Jesus that he could not turn his back on Him.

He was in a Christian cult. He broke free but later readopted the beliefs of the cult? (I assume he didn't readopt their entire belief system, just the base Christian beliefs). Doesn't this raise a few alarms?

If someone was a hard core Scientologist but broke away and then years later decided that alien emgrams from billions of years ago are the source of his problems, wouldn't you suspect he hadn't fully broken free of the cult's beliefs?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ruby:
He found the evidence for God to be too overwhelming to deny. Can we expect the book any time soon?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac


When I was a Christian, this is pretty much exactly what I believed. It was all personal and up to each individual. Each person is judged by their heart, not by their religious beliefs. It made me feel much better about being a Christian.

But then I realized that the church wasn't teaching this, I was just making it up. The Bible certainly doesn't support such a belief.

My Pastor does teach this, and that is what sets him apart from other Pastors. He is the most *unreligious* Pastor in town. I do see scripture as talking about a personal relationship that is up to each individual.

It seems you place a lot of faith in the scriptures. Doesn't this require you to believe that the Bible is written by god? How do you deal with the inconsistencies, the god-ordered violence, the skewed morality? How do you deal with the historical problems with the Bible?

I don't believe the bible was written by God. It was written by men who believed in God. I am at a point of questioning whether the bible is truly inspired. I definitely have a problem with all the violence etc. It is one thing that keeps me questioning all the time. Still, I do use the bible to fall back on to weigh certain things presented by other Christians. If the bible is the *Book* for Christians, then they should be studying it out and not twisting it and taking things out of context.

You definitely have some critical bones in your body, so I submit to you, what evidence could you or your husband come up with for Christianity that was too overwhelming to ignore? I suspect it was feeling, coincidence, or something else but nothing tangible. That's usually how these things are.

My hubby would have to come on here and say what it was for him that made convincing arguments. Even though he is not a fundamentalist...to other christians, he does have some stronger beliefs in areas that I do not. I do not have any evidence to show.....and don't think I have claimed to have any. I don't believe in paying attention to coincidence. I don't see miracles or feel God move or anything. I steer away from *feeling* things as I am too skeptical to see them as real. I find far too much influence goes on from the mind and emotions with christians, and they are too prone to call it God.

Sorry that I can't give you more than that! That's just where I am right now. :(

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Originally posted by Ruby:
Can we expect the book any time soon?

Nope! He's too busy!:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac

He was in a Christian cult. He broke free but later readopted the beliefs of the cult? (I assume he didn't readopt their entire belief system, just the base Christian beliefs). Doesn't this raise a few alarms?

Nope. I don't use the same definition that you do when it comes to the word "cult". However, there have certainly been times in the past that I have felt concern.....instances when I have seen Christian leaders exert strong influence over my hubby that I considered very wrong. We attend an unusual church where the Pastor does not exert any sort of influence or act like he's a mouth piece for God.

If someone was a hard core Scientologist but broke away and then years later decided that alien emgrams from billions of years ago are the source of his problems, wouldn't you suspect he hadn't fully broken free of the cult's beliefs?

Is Scientology a cult?? Just kidding. Oh goodness, I was not aware that the Scientologist believed that. My answer is yes.

It's really ok with me if you want to say that my hubby is still in a cult...even if it's not the same as the one he was raised in. Each to his own opinion!!:)

[Yahzi]

Ruby
I became a christian while in a desperate state.
Contracts signed under duress are not binding, for a reason.

Now that you have escaped that desparate state, you are naturally reluctant to abandon the beliefs that got you through it. While that explains a lot psychologically, it hardly stands as a rational basis for continuing those beliefs, or converting others.

It's great that it made you happy: as long as you are ready to abandon it when it stops making you happy.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Ruby

Contracts signed under duress are not binding, for a reason.

Now that you have escaped that desparate state, you are naturally reluctant to abandon the beliefs that got you through it. While that explains a lot psychologically, it hardly stands as a rational basis for continuing those beliefs, or converting others.

I really have no interest in converting others.

[quote]It's great that it made you happy: as long as you are ready to abandon it when it stops making you happy.

Being a Christian, on the whole, does not make me happy. It is giving up most of my fundamental beliefs that has brought me some happiness and freedom. I expect to have times of unhappiness. That's a part of life for us all. So, being unhappy would not cause me to leave my faith as I would expect to be unhappy at times, no matter what I believe.

[Ipecac]

Ruby, you are way too rational and honest to be a Christian! :D

I think Yahzi makes a great point. You sound like you're ready and willing to decide it's all bunk, but may feel an obligation.

This armchair philosophizing is entirely free, however, so keep that in mind.


To address another point, if you decide that the Bible isn't the inspired word of god, then where does Jesus come in? Seems to me to fall out of the picture entirely.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Ruby, you are way too rational and honest to be a Christian! :D

I think Yahzi makes a great point. You sound like you're ready and willing to decide it's all bunk, but may feel an obligation.

This armchair philosophizing is entirely free, however, so keep that in mind.


To address another point, if you decide that the Bible isn't the inspired word of god, then where does Jesus come in? Seems to me to fall out of the picture entirely.

I go back and forth on everything. I am an oscillating fan!! It's not easy being a skeptic and a Christian. I fight witnin myself...and some of this makes me frustrated. I can only say that for now, I can't stop believing in God or Jesus. I see the bible as a guidebook, but not something to be worshipped. Some of the OT stories do seem far fetched.

There is some extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed. There is also extra-biblical evidence for the existence of the apostles. These things help to keep me believing. Although, I do question the accuracy of the sources for this evidence.

[Loki]

Ruby,

God is omniscient, then He knows who's *right*, but it does not matter to him.......He looks at the heart.
And isn't that the 'heart' of the matter? I can choose to 'not believe' in Jesus, the bible, Noah, etc - but if

(a) god does exist;
(b) god *does* 'judge the heart'
(c) I strive to live me life in an honest and 'positive' way

then god will accept me? So the whole "you must believe in Jesus" thing is really just a device that the Catholic (originally) church inserted to try and boost/maintain membership? What we do and who we are is more important that what we think on the topic of Jesus? You're not sounding very christian!!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Loki
Ruby,


And isn't that the 'heart' of the matter? I can choose to 'not believe' in Jesus, the bible, Noah, etc - but if

(a) god does exist;
(b) god *does* 'judge the heart'
(c) I strive to live me life in an honest and 'positive' way

then god will accept me?

Yes. I can't believe that a loving God would send any *good* person to Hell. I don't mean that you have to be perfectly moral. We all have bad habits or tendencies to get angry or *misbehave*....some misbehaving can be fun anyway!:D

If someone looks at the evidence for God and just can't see or accept that He exists, how fair is it to send them to a horrible dark and lonely place for eternity?

So the whole "you must believe in Jesus" thing is really just a device that the Catholic (originally) church inserted to try and boost/maintain membership? What we do and who we are is more important that what we think on the topic of Jesus? You're not sounding very christian!!

I'm not feeling very *Christian* either!!:rolleyes:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Ruby
Yes. I can't believe that a loving God would send any *good* person to Hell.

Once you get past believing in hell -- the shackles just fall away.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
There is some extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed. There is also extra-biblical evidence for the existence of the apostles. These things help to keep me believing. Although, I do question the accuracy of the sources for this evidence.

Ruby,

If the Bible isn't true, then Jesus's existence is pretty much irrelevant. If he did exist and the Bible's not true, there's no reason at all to believe Jesus was divine; he may have existed but was just a man. And why would you continue to worship just a man?

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Do they believe that Heaven is just as real of a place as Kentucky? Because I, personally, believe that everything in the Bible that doesn't sound like it could happen naturally, most likely did not happen.



I haven't read the multiple pages of this thread, so someone might have covered this alread...

But lots of Kentuckians would say you're confused. Heaven is a place in Kentucky.;)

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ruby
There is some extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed.

I would love to hear of one.

[Boo]

There is some extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed.

There is written record by Josephus whom lived during the time of Jesus. The historical fact of a man by the name Jesus has been well established by other sources as well, including Romans of the time.

The debate is more of was/is he the true Messiah, son of God, etc.


As for the bible, if you thinkf of it as an oral tradition that was written down after many,many centuries and in particular the old testament as an oral history of a people, it can actually make for some interesting reading.


Boo

[Fade]

There is written record by Josephus whom lived during the time of Jesus.

False.

Scholars today have widely accepted that "Josephus'"writings on Jesus were inserted after Josephus was long gone by a Christian. The writing is not in the style of Josephus, and appears in the middle of another piece of writing.

The historical fact of a man by the name Jesus has been well established by other sources as well, including Romans of the time.


A man with name X, especially being that X (In this case Yeshua) is a common name means nothing. There is no evidence, at all, that this particular messiah was an actual person. More than likely, Jesus is an amalgam of various Peace Preachers and Wise Men, who was given the life of what amounts to Mithra.

[Boo]

After a little internet research, I'ld say the jury is still out on the historical fact of a rabbi named Yeshoua. Call it a theory that has yet to be proved or disproved.


Boo

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fade

Jesus is an amalgam of various Peace Preachers and Wise Men, who was given the life of what amounts to Mithra.

That hits the nail on the head. Especially since Paul was from Tarsus - the hotbed of Mithrasim.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Ruby,

If the Bible isn't true, then Jesus's existence is pretty much irrelevant. If he did exist and the Bible's not true, there's no reason at all to believe Jesus was divine; he may have existed but was just a man. And why would you continue to worship just a man?

Despite many of the Christian fundamentalists teachings that I no longer believe in, I can't stop believing in Jesus being exactly who he claimed to be. If I truly believed Him to be just a man, then I'd stop believing in Him.

This stance defies all my logic and reason, and bugs me greatly. I just can't let go.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ruby
There is some extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed.

I would love to hear of one.

Here's a few.

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the comtempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. . . . For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. . . . it became a body."

"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. . . . He draws himself down to death through life. . . . eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."


Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, `They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the `Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."


Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD), mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."




Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

"Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him."




Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):

"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we--that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection."

"For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, `Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.' And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them."




Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):

"Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope."




Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:

"The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."




(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:

"He must needs be manifested in the flesh. . . . He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. . . . He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. . . . But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree."



Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:

"For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land."

"For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot."

"Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead . . . yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that `a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.'"

"For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. Do christians actually think about this "evidence" critically?

Tacticus on christians is about christians, no one denies that christians exist or that they believe in jesus christ.

The Josephus claim has been disputed successfully and is believed to be false by most scholars.

The rest are second-hand stories, at the most, and probably just hearsay about the myths.

I wonder if people will use Pat Robertson as evidence of jesus' existence in a few hundred years.

I'm sure the other skeptics here can post the URL links to essays and articles that show the uncredibility of these "evidences" of jebus.

[Ipecac]

Ruby, not one of those was a contemporary of the time Jesus supposedly lived. All were written well after the time of his "death" and so all are suspect.

If you believe that Jesus was exactly what he claimed to be, then how can you discount any of the Bible? If Jesus was god and knew that the Bible was to be the primary method of dissemination of his word, how could he fail to guarantee that it was a perfect expression? Seems to me that if Jesus existed and was the son of god, you should take the Bible as literally as possible.

Ipecac

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fade
[B]

False.

Scholars today have widely accepted that "Josephus'"writings on Jesus were inserted after Josephus was long gone by a Christian. The writing is not in the style of Josephus, and appears in the middle of another piece of writing.

Not all scholars have agreed. There is still great doubt that the passages are interpolations. However, it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilty that they were interpolations.

What do we do with all the other extra-biblical accounts of Jesus by other historians etc.? Do we say they are interpolations too?

If they are, I want to know, but it has to be proven for me to see it as fact.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fade
[B]

False.

Scholars today have widely accepted that "Josephus'"writings on Jesus were inserted after Josephus was long gone by a Christian. The writing is not in the style of Josephus, and appears in the middle of another piece of writing.

Here's a website that talks about the Josephus writings not having interpolations. I know it's a biased source, but so would sites that say the interpolations are real. Therefore, I must look at both!!

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2000/r&r0001a.htm

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Fade
False.

Scholars today have widely accepted that "Josephus'"writings on Jesus were inserted after Josephus was long gone by a Christian. The writing is not in the style of Josephus, and appears in the middle of another piece of writing.

A man with name X, especially being that X (In this case Yeshua) is a common name means nothing. There is no evidence, at all, that this particular messiah was an actual person. More than likely, Jesus is an amalgam of various Peace Preachers and Wise Men, who was given the life of what amounts to Mithra.
Fade,

For a survey of scholarly opinion (with citations) on both the Josephus references and the "historical Jesus", refer to this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11486&pagenumber=3).

The upshot is that the majority of recent scholarship both assigns some degree of authenticity to the Josephus references, and favors some version of an individual, historical Jesus.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LOL. Do christians actually think about this "evidence" critically?

Tacticus on christians is about christians, no one denies that christians exist or that they believe in jesus christ.

The Josephus claim has been disputed successfully and is believed to be false by most scholars.

The rest are second-hand stories, at the most, and probably just hearsay about the myths.

I wonder if people will use Pat Robertson as evidence of jesus' existence in a few hundred years.

I'm sure the other skeptics here can post the URL links to essays and articles that show the uncredibility of these "evidences" of jebus.

Would you mind leaving me a link if no one else does? I want to see all evidence pro and con.....it's been awhile since I delved into all this. The last I did, I came out more convinced of Jesus than before. I can't say the same thing will happen this time, but it's hard to imagine that there is any convincing arguments to disprove Jesus existed and that He was who He said He was.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Ruby, not one of those was a contemporary of the time Jesus supposedly lived. All were written well after the time of his "death" and so all are suspect.

If you believe that Jesus was exactly what he claimed to be, then how can you discount any of the Bible? If Jesus was god and knew that the Bible was to be the primary method of dissemination of his word, how could he fail to guarantee that it was a perfect expression? Seems to me that if Jesus existed and was the son of god, you should take the Bible as literally as possible.

Ipecac

I do take some of the bible literally...but some is obviously metaphorical....and most is only applicable to the culture of the time it was written. I see as a guidebook. I see it as historical. The jury is still out on whether it is truly divinely inspired. It does not have to be inspired, IMHO, for the accounts of Jesus to be real.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
I do take some of the bible literally...but some is obviously metaphorical....and most is only applicable to the culture of the time it was written. I see as a guidebook. I see it as historical. The jury is still out on whether it is truly divinely inspired. It does not have to be inspired, IMHO, for the accounts of Jesus to be real.

So how do you decide which is literal and which is metaphorical? Jesus is supposed to have said that the only way to heaven is through him. Doesn't that contradict your earlier stated view that god judges your heart?

Once you start picking and choosing, it becomes clear that people are going to come to different conclusions. This drastically reduces its value as a guidebook as people can take a very liberal view of it (as you do) or a very literal view (as most fundamentalists). The Bible can be used to promote both pacifism and tolerance all the way to burning the infidels.

If Jesus is god, then surely he would know that the Bible, whether divinely inspired or not, would be interpreted by humans as an expression of His will. If so, shouldn't he have taken some steps to make sure that expression was clear?

The scenario suggested by you, Jesus is god, the Bible is man made and not divinely inspired, leads to the conclusion that god purposefully did not guarantee that the Bible was a good, consistent guidebook. And that makes him rather unworthy of worship, I say.

[Bentspoon]

There was a short thread going regarding the comfort one finds in their religion. I should point out that I find it quite comforting to "not believe". The reason is that I don't need reasons. I don't need to know why the best person I know got cancer, why the good die young sometimes. Why my brother's house caved in (he is the best parent I have ever seen). If I had a belief in a supreme being I would have to constantly fret over why???
Life is unfair and I don't have to rationalize why the beloved Father let it happen.

As for the virgin birth. If it smells like .................. a legend, then it is a legend.

Truly, if Jesus was indeed a real historical figure (this is quite debatable), his only real history according to the bible, started when he was "discovered" by John the Baptist. From that point to the crucifixion spans a total of about 3 years.

So what do we have: 3 years of adult life and a rather extraordinary birth. Where is the teenage Jesus. Where is the young man Jesus. Man that is a big chunk of life to omit when supposedly we have a history of his birth and death.

It makes no sense ..... unless ...... one accepts that the birth story was tacked on as an afterthought. I mean you gotta have a great birth story that doesn't involve geese or bulls. So this one is obviously made up. The astrologers (not so wise men) obviously got no indication from the stars of anything factual. I am sorry folks - I don;t care what the good book says, astrology is bunk, always has been and always will be. The Bethlehem star thing is obvious legend. And of course there are no virgin births.

This is typical of the era. The bible and the other ancient books tell their truths on a "great wave of a myth". It was the way to sell the population on the concepts presented. It was how great men were made. It is how concepts were taught. If you don't understand this about the ancient tomes you cannot properly interpret them.

So, in my opinion, based on the bible itself, the virgin birth and everything surrounding that story is complete and utter myth. It was generated because no one knew where Jesus came from. He "appeared" to John.

The tower of babel is a truth told on the wave of a great myth. Does anyone here believe there was a tower of Babel as told in the Bible? I can't imagine.

Noah? Sodom etc? The exodus?

All myths to express some underlying principle.

Bentspoon

[Fade]

After a little internet research, I'ld say the jury is still out on the historical fact of a rabbi named Yeshoua. Call it a theory that has yet to be proved or disproved.

The same can be said of, literally, any person ever. Without any (and I do mean any) actual verifiable data amounting to "evidence for historical Jesus" one can reasonbly conclude what I have earlier said. One would assume that such an important person who wandered the earth performing miracles would have been written and spoken about far more than he did.

But, like all religions, the magical man at the beginning just never existed. Later, the idea of the magical man is respoken, and summarized in text. Religion forms from these ideas. Every so often, a leader of some sort (In this instance Constantine) decides to take this little-known cult and make it his state religion. Christianity got lucky. He could have just as easily chosen any other cult.

Here's a website that talks about the Josephus writings not having interpolations. I know it's a biased source, but so would sites that say the interpolations are real. Therefore, I must look at both!!

Ruby, you're a sweetheart, really. A conclusion doesn't automatically assume bias.

I have concluded that gravity exists.
Me writing an essay about the effects of gravity doesn't mean I am biased, it means I am accurate.

I have, myself, tried to find good, scholarly sources that are putting forth records of Jesus' historicity, but I have not found a single one. What I see are people who must dive into apologetics to be consistent with their belief structures. The actual, physical existence of Jesus is central to Christianity. Without him having been a real, living person, the entire basis of Christianity falls apart. No living god equals no salvation equals your life is a lie. That position is intolerable to those who follow the belief.

Therefore, I will ignore those who have a stake in the claim, and trust those for whom the historicity of Jesus is an issue of scholarship, not personal interest. They Josephus' writings were tampered with, I believe them. I don't happen to read/write Aramaic, Greek, Latin, or any other language of the time, so I can't really do any first hand research :\

[Loki]

bentspoon,

Life is unfair and I don't have to rationalize why the beloved Father let it happen
Not that it makes much difference, but I prefer to say that "life is neutral..." Really, the universe doesn't actually care one way or the other about my happiness - that's my responsibility.

[Bentspoon]

Not that it makes much difference, but I prefer to say that "life is neutral..." Really, the universe doesn't actually care one way or the other about my happiness - that's my responsibility.

Life is neutral.

Yeah, saying life is unfair is like saying that there is some conciousness to it.

I stand corrected for "life is neutral" is really more to my point

Thanks, Loki

Bentspoon

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac


So how do you decide which is literal and which is metaphorical? Jesus is supposed to have said that the only way to heaven is through him. Doesn't that contradict your earlier stated view that god judges your heart?

Once you start picking and choosing, it becomes clear that people are going to come to different conclusions. This drastically reduces its value as a guidebook as people can take a very liberal view of it (as you do) or a very literal view (as most fundamentalists). The Bible can be used to promote both pacifism and tolerance all the way to burning the infidels.

If Jesus is god, then surely he would know that the Bible, whether divinely inspired or not, would be interpreted by humans as an expression of His will. If so, shouldn't he have taken some steps to make sure that expression was clear?

The scenario suggested by you, Jesus is god, the Bible is man made and not divinely inspired, leads to the conclusion that god purposefully did not guarantee that the Bible was a good, consistent guidebook. And that makes him rather unworthy of worship, I say.

These are all questions that I am asking myself these days. I am a bit stuck as far as giving answers go. I'm still trying to understand and figure things out!:(

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Fade

Ruby, you're a sweetheart, really.

Ah, thanks!! That makes me feel good. Maybe I can go to bed now and get some sleep....it's to early for me to be up right now!! :D :rolleyes:

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
These are all questions that I am asking myself these days. I am a bit stuck as far as giving answers go. I'm still trying to understand and figure things out!:(

In my last days as a Christian, I was a bit stuck too.

But once I admitted to myself that the most likely scenario, indeed the only scenario which made any sense at all, was that Christianity was made up by human beings, just like all other religions, and thus not true, it all fell away. And I've been much happier since.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Fade
I have, myself, tried to find good, scholarly sources that are putting forth records of Jesus' historicity, but I have not found a single one. What I see are people who must dive into apologetics to be consistent with their belief structures. The actual, physical existence of Jesus is central to Christianity. Without him having been a real, living person, the entire basis of Christianity falls apart. No living god equals no salvation equals your life is a lie. That position is intolerable to those who follow the belief.

Therefore, I will ignore those who have a stake in the claim, and trust those for whom the historicity of Jesus is an issue of scholarship, not personal interest. They Josephus' writings were tampered with, I believe them. I don't happen to read/write Aramaic, Greek, Latin, or any other language of the time, so I can't really do any first hand research :\
Probably no one in this forum is in a position to conduct original, first-hand research into these matters. It is possible, however, to draw conclusions about the current state of professional expert opinion.

I don't wish to beat a dead horse - I realize I've already stated what I've about to repeat here - but it apparently bears repeating:

1. The majority position within the scholarly community is that a historical Jesus probably existed. Not, of course, a miracle worker who did everything attributed to him in the Gospels, but a distinct individual to whom the religious mythology refers.

2. The majority position within the scholarly community is that some of Josephus' references to a historical Jesus are probably genuine, and other parts reflect later interpolation.

As I previously mentioned, these matters were discussed at great length in the thread I linked to in my earlier post, with a considerable degree (even for this forum) of reference to external, scholarly, non-Internet-based literature.

The fact that most experts hold these views doesn't mean they're correct, and even if correct, they certainly don't provide a sufficient basis (albeit a necessary one) to lend credence to Christian dogma. On the other hand, it doesn't benefit the discussion not to be aware of the positions actually held by those for whom, as you say, "the historicity of Jesus is an issue of scholarship".

[Yahweh]

Its been a while since I've posted on this thread (even though I was the one that started it).

Here is what I have to say about Christianity:
The Bible should NOT be taken literally. Its just a bunch of stories and mythology that teach us to be and how to moral loving people. Example: No one thinks that there was really a race between a turtle and a bunny, but it has moral signficance (pace yourself, dont rush in and do too much too fast). Remember, the bible was written at a time where people had no explanation for seemingly unknown occurences (like when it rains or when there are long periods of time where it doesnt rain). In a since the bible was written by primitive man with primitive ideas.

The bible is taken literally because its taught to children at a very young age where they take in just about anything (They actually believe in Santa Clause and magic). And its from that age that the bible is instilled in them and repeatedly reinforced as being a factual historical account. I think that it would be better that we didnt that David slayed Goliath, but we teach that even the unexpected "underachiever" can conquer what seems to be impossible... but hey, how many times have you made thrown something that landed in an unexpected way (once in 5th grade I threw a toothpick at a classmate and it hit him between the front 2 teeth so it could "stand on its own").

It was mentioned far too many times on this thread about "elitist" style thinking. Well, I think its perfectly logical to put to question anything of the supernatural. And yes, I do think that I have better founded beliefs than others because I use nothing but logic and science. And if that makes me "an elitist" then I could care less. No, I dont think I have superiority over others because I'm an atheist.

I was raised in religious home. From the beginning I was the classic skeptic. I never for a second believed that god was any more real than Santa Clause (and I cant decide if its spelled with an 'e' on the end or not). But I very much remember kids who believed that Santa was just as real as themselves... I'd like to see them travel back in time and try to convince their younger selves that Santa doesnt exist. This is unrelated but thats another thing, I dont believe we will ever be able to reverse time, time is constant and relative but it always flows in one direction.

I could care less if Jesus was an existing character in history. I will go ahead and say that yes, I think its likely Jesus existed, but no, Jesus had no more purpose for living than I do.

Here a common question: If god is real, why is there so much evil in the world? Well, I'm a philosopher and I say that if there is a god then why is it a prerequisite to wish that evil never exists. Having evil in a world does not bar you from your godly status... science does.

Christianity as well as many other religions are faith based. They dont exactly have scientific and logical reasoning to back up their beliefs. Atheism is not a faith, science is the bible of atheists. And I believe that because people are constantly looking for answers and for the most part people wont eat bulls---, science will eventually take over and dominate religion. Remember when people were absolutely convinced that the earth was flat and everything in the universe revolved around the earth, good old science was there to set people straight (it took a little time but it happened).

If you havent taken the time to read all that just read this part: Christianity shouldnt be taken so seriously. Its a moral tool that got a little out of hand (as far as half the planet being some denomination of Christianity or monotheism). The supernatural doesnt exist because science says it cant.

[Yahweh]

People are too quick to say that their religion is the correct one. Personally I would say "Show me a little evidence that your religion is more correct over others" and if they dont respond back with something scientifically and logically plausible then I would think that they are a little.... wrong. Personally, I like it when I see people criticize weird religions. I like when I see a Christian tell someone who honestly believes that drinking blood is vital for them to live they will go to hell because they have stupid "immoral" beliefs. I think that Christianity is no more valid of a religion than Vampirism. However, atheism with its little books of ecology, philosophy, science, physics, chemistry, biology, and evolution is a little more realistic because its has all these facts and numbers that make them far more true than believing that you can "use you sang (psychic) vampire magicks to feed off the 'life energy' of a person or animal".

I specifically chose Vampirism to be my example because I know how taboo that can be to some people. Alot of people dismiss it because its just so weird but honestly if from childhood you were taught to drink a shotglass of blood every 2 weeks or else you'll feel weak then you would honestly believe that if you missed your 'feeding' on the last fullmoon (because those come around every 2 weeks) then you would feel physically weak (the placebo effect). Just like people who honestly have no question to the existance of god. Thats one of the reasons I like agnostics because they think like philosophers, they think that we cannot apply one finite answer to the ultimate unknown question "What happens after we die".

[Preston]

Originally posted by Ruby

This stance defies all my logic and reason, and bugs me greatly. I just can't let go.

If one examines human psychology, one will readily see that this is an inherent trait of human psychology called "memes".

Religious beliefs, such as Christianity (http://www.christianitymeme.org/) for instance, are classic examples of a meme.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Its been a while since I've posted on this thread (even though I was the one that started it).

Here is what I have to say about Christianity:
The Bible should NOT be taken literally. Its just a bunch of stories and mythology that teach us to be and how to moral loving people. Example: No one thinks that there was really a race between a turtle and a bunny, but it has moral signficance (pace yourself, dont rush in and do too much too fast). Remember, the bible was written at a time where people had no explanation for seemingly unknown occurences (like when it rains or when there are long periods of time where it doesnt rain). In a since the bible was written by primitive man with primitive ideas.
You miss the whole idea behind intepretation. People ask how do we interpret the Bible? Well the key element is it depends the type of book you are reading. The Bible is made up of many different types of literary genre:

Historical
Biographical
Poetry
Proverbial
Prophetic
Epistles
Combination of several types

No one reads the entire Bible LITERALLY. This would not make any sense. The literary genre will guide one in interpreting Scripture. When I first became a Christian I learned about techniques to studying the Bible. I learned the principles of hermeneutics, studying the Bible is a systematic manner. I have learned a great deal and truly enjoy reading and studying the Bible this way.

Primitive man with primative ideas? I don't believe that we are humans are any smarter than ancient man. We do have more knowlege. But that has accumulated over thousands of years but we are not smarter. Our accumulated knowledge stands on the shoulders of many people of the past.The Great Pyramids of Giza still stand today. I can't image anything that we will build today will stand for that long. I have no doubt that a person living in the year 2750 AD will think WE are very primitive with primitive ideas.The bible is taken literally because its taught to children at a very young age where they take in just about anything (They actually believe in Santa Clause and magic). And its from that age that the bible is instilled in them and repeatedly reinforced as being a factual historical account. I think that it would be better that we didnt that David slayed Goliath, but we teach that even the unexpected "underachiever" can conquer what seems to be impossible... but hey, how many times have you made thrown something that landed in an unexpected way (once in 5th grade I threw a toothpick at a classmate and it hit him between the front 2 teeth so it could "stand on its own").Not all Christians start at a young age. I was 30 years old when I became a Christian. I was quite the agnostic/atheist in college. I just couldn't understand how Chrisitans could believe the things they tried to tell me. But I didn't listen. (Oh, the arrogance of youth!)It was mentioned far too many times on this thread about "elitist" style thinking. Well, I think its perfectly logical to put to question anything of the supernatural. And yes, I do think that I have better founded beliefs than others because I use nothing but logic and science. And if that makes me "an elitist" then I could care less. No, I dont think I have superiority over others because I'm an atheist.
You are correct that it is perfectly logical to put to question to anything of the supernatural. I've done this myself many times. When I look at the universe with it's incredible complexity, from the structure of DNA to the human brain to the incredible diversity of life on earth to the process of fusion in stars, I can't help what think how did this all came about? Does it make sense to take the position that it all came about through mindless natural processes. I say no. I realize that most of the good people on this this board would disagree with me and that's ok. You state you believe that you have better founded beliefs but then you state that you don't think you are superior? I was a little confused by that.
I could care less if Jesus was an existing character in history. I will go ahead and say that yes, I think its likely Jesus existed, but no, Jesus had no more purpose for living than I do.I'm not sure what you mean by this. Jesus did have a purpose. He stated He had a purpose. You may argue that His purpose was unecessary or pointless or useless but I don't know how one can declare that another person has no purpose?
Here a common question: If god is real, why is there so much evil in the world? Well, I'm a philosopher and I say that if there is a god then why is it a prerequisite to wish that evil never exists. Having evil in a world does not bar you from your godly status... science does.I do not understand how the existence of evil disproves the existence of God? There is evil in the world because man has a tendency to be selfish, greedy, violent, and agressive.Christianity as well as many other religions are faith based. They dont exactly have scientific and logical reasoning to back up their beliefs.
True for your first statement and not true for the second. To a Christian, faith isn't about having faith that God exists but having faith in that we trust Him to guide us in our lives. It is true that that I cannot "prove" that God exists in a deductive manner but but swayed me were many strong inductive arguements. Inductive arguements are logical arguements.
Atheism is not a faith, science is the bible of atheists. And I believe that because people are constantly looking for answers and for the most part people wont eat bulls---, science will eventually take over and dominate religion. Remember when people were absolutely convinced that the earth was flat and everything in the universe revolved around the earth, good old science was there to set people straight (it took a little time but it happened).Science is a tool used by atheists AND non-atheists. It's a tool used to describe the physical universe. I am sure that "good ole science" will one day prove some our cherished beliefs wrong. In a few century the scientists will no doubt chuckle at what we believe to be true today. Does it bother that they will call us primitive?
If you havent taken the time to read all that just read this part: Christianity shouldnt be taken so seriously. Its a moral tool that got a little out of hand (as far as half the planet being some denomination of Christianity or monotheism). The supernatural doesnt exist because science says it cant. [/B]I take the Bible seriously but with serious joy and wonder. If one assumes that supernatual cannot exist then of course that is what one will conclude from science. Science doesn't say the supernatural cannot exist. It is only people's precepts and assumptions that proclaim that the supernatural cannot exist.

[Preston]

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events.

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress....

- Albert Einstein

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac


In my last days as a Christian, I was a bit stuck too.

But once I admitted to myself that the most likely scenario, indeed the only scenario which made any sense at all, was that Christianity was made up by human beings, just like all other religions, and thus not true, it all fell away. And I've been much happier since.

I know it sounds nuts, but I don't have the faith to drop my belief in Christianity.

I find it more plausible and reasonable to believe in a Creator than to believe that the world came into being on it's own...by chance. That requires a level of faith that I don't have.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LCBOY

You miss the whole idea behind intepretation. People ask how do we interpret the Bible? Well the key element is it depends the type of book you are reading. The Bible is made up of many different types of literary genre:

Historical
Biographical
Poetry
Proverbial
Prophetic
Epistles
Combination of several types

No one reads the entire Bible LITERALLY. This would not make any sense. The literary genre will guide one in interpreting Scripture. When I first became a Christian I learned about techniques to studying the Bible. I learned the principles of hermeneutics, studying the Bible is a systematic manner. I have learned a great deal and truly enjoy reading and studying the Bible this way.

You are right. I think the UPCI comes close to following the bible literally...but they are very legalistic. They take passages out of context like crazy.

You are correct that it is perfectly logical to put to question to anything of the supernatural. I've done this myself many times. When I look at the universe with it's incredible complexity, from the structure of DNA to the human brain to the incredible diversity of life on earth to the process of fusion in stars, I can't help what think how did this all came about? Does it make sense to take the position that it all came about through mindless natural processes. I say no.

Yep, I say "no" too. I can't get my logic around the world coming into being by pure chance. My logic might be messed up, but at least I'm not alone!:D

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ruby,

I know it sounds nuts, but I don't have the faith to drop my belief in Christianity.

I find it more plausible and reasonable to believe in a Creator than to believe that the world came into being on it's own...by chance. That requires a level of faith that I don't have.

What does that have to do with believing in Christianity? There are thousands of creation stories out there. What makes you think the Christian one is correct?

Besides, atheism doesn't require you to have faith that the World came into being on its own. I certainly have no such belief. I am perfectly happy to admit that I simply don't know how it came to be.

If you really can't wrap your mind around the idea that the Universe could exist without some sort of supreme being to create it, that's fine. But don't tie yourself down to an entire belief system just because it provides the only creation myth you are familiar with.

Sometimes you just have to have the courage to say "I don't know", and move on.

Dr. Stupid

That is why you have to believe in something that is so nebulous, no one can pin down. ;)

-Who

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/historicaljesus.html





Other Sources
There are some (not many) non-gospel sources which refer to Jesus, and which Christians say prove the historical existence of Jesus. These are the writings of:


Flavius Josephus - c90CE

Suetonius - c120CE

Tactitus - 110CE

Pliny - c110CE

Thallus - cited in c300CE

Talmud - 200-500CE

'Acts of Pilate'

The Josephus passage is among the most celebrated as proving that Jesus existed:


"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities XVIII 63f)

At first glance, this appears to be a very good source for the historical existence of Jesus. However, Josephus was a Jew, and remained a Jew. For him to say that Jesus was 'the Christ' and was resurrected from the dead, would have had him a Christian, not a Jew, and he would have been banned from the synagogues, as were all the others who said Jesus was the messiah. Futhermore, up until the 4th Century there are no mentions of Josephus having written about Jesus in this way. None of the Christian Church Fathers mentioned Josephus as having written about Jesus in this way, if he had done so, Justin Martyr and Origen among others would have been glad to use it as ammunition in their disputes with the Jews. They did not, however, no mention of it at all. Origen actually said that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus. Most scholars do not believe Josephus wrote this passage, but that it is a later addition by Christian scribes - Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too."

Suetonius wrote:


"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome". Life of Claudius (XXv.4)

Again there are a number of questions raised about this passage. Firstly, Suetonius is talking about "Chrestus" - but he spelt "Christians" correctly later in his book, which makes you wonder whether he was actually talking about Jesus at all, and not some other person, especially as 'Chrestus' is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name. He also seems to imply that there was someone called Chrestus in Rome in 49CE when the expulsion occurred. This makes him a very dubious source indeed.

Tactitus wrote that:


"Consequently ... Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations. Called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberias at the hands of the Procurator Pontius Pilatus, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for a moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City." Annals (XV.44.2-8)

in his account of the burning of Rome. Again this piece of Tactitus' writing, besides not being by an eyewitness, has a big question mark hanging over its authenticity. This particular piece is not quoted before the 15th Century, and when it was quoted, there was supposed to be only one copy of the 'Annals' in the world, made in the eighth century (600 years after Tactitus' death). Also, Tactitus could not have been using Roman records of Jesus' death (if there were any) because he prefers to Pilate as a Procurator, when in fact he was a Prefect. Again we must discount this passage.

[Loki]

LCBOY,

No one reads the entire Bible LITERALLY. This would not make any sense
Try telling that to "Christian". He's spent nearly two years here claiming pretty much exactly this. And he's quite intelligent, well read, and articulate. (Oh, and wrong!)

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
Does it make sense to take the position that it all came about through mindless natural processes. I say no.

This is the crux of God belief. It is a position of personal incredulity. You maintain the hatred for nature the ancients held.

"I remember hearing a marvelous talk by Daisetz Suzuki in Ascona, Switzerland. It was, I think, his first talk there at the Eranos Foundation, and here was this group of Europeans in the audience and there was a Japanese man (he was about ninety-one year old at the time), a Zen philosopher. He stood with his hands on his side, and he looked at the audience and said: 'Nature against God. God against nature. Nature against man. Man against nature. Man against God. God against man. Very funny religion'"

Joseph Campbell
as quoted in The Hero's Journey

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY

No one reads the entire Bible LITERALLY.

Isn't this the reason we have so many factions within Xianity? Some take it literally - some don't....and there a numerous shades in between.

Not too long ago, you would have been killed by Xians for that statement.

[Yahzi]

No, they do not believe that God is real. We had a thread about that before, and it basically turns on what you mean by belief.

If you mean belief as in "expect," then no, the vast majority of Christians do not expect to go to heaven, in the same sense that they expect to go to work tommorrow.

If you mean belief as in "hope," then yes, they do hope it turns out to be real. They really, sincerely hope it is real, even if every action they take demonstrates that they don't expect it to be real.

Think of a lottery ticket: do the people who buy the tickets expect to win? No, they hope to win, which is why they don't quit their job. Once they do win, they expect to collect the prize money, which is why they quit their jobs after winning and not before. However, if you tell a lottery ticket holder that he cannot win, he will get quite angry with you, even while he acts in ways that demonstrates he does not expect to win.

[Yahzi]

LCBOY

No one reads the entire Bible LITERALLY.

My dad says he does. He explains my inability to read it and achieve the same understanding to the fact that I don't have "spiritual discernment."


When I look at the universe with it's incredible complexity, from the structure of DNA to the human brain to the incredible diversity of life on earth to the process of fusion in stars, I can't help what think how did this all came about?

Me too. But if you don't find the scientific explanation convincing, why would you find a bronze age myth convincing?

A far more rational response would be: "That's an interesting question, and we don't know the answer."

An irrational response would be, "I find your carefully constructed scientific answer non-compelling, and thus I beleive this bronze age goat herder myth instead."

I do not understand how the existence of evil disproves the existence of God?
Not understanding an argument does not count as refuting it.

There is evil in the world because man has a tendency to be selfish, greedy, violent, and agressive.
Children have these tendencies. Would that justfiy allowing evil in kindergarten? If your kindergarten teacher simply allowed the children to run wild, implementing their most base impulses, would you accept this as an excuse? If the teacher argued that the children needed to have free will, would you accept that?

Yet God, who is supposed to be an authority over man, allows the Holocaust.

It is possible to reconcile the existance of God with the existance of evil, but only by postulating that God is either indifferent or irresponsible or outright wicked or impotent or ignorant. But one cannot reconcile the notion of a God who knows of evil, who has the power to stop evil, who has the will to stop evil, and yet evil remains.


To a Christian, faith isn't about having faith that God exists but having faith in that we trust Him to guide us in our lives.

To the audience: this was actually the standard view for most of Christian history. LCBOY is like a living anachronism.


It is true that that I cannot "prove" that God exists in a deductive manner but but swayed me were many strong inductive arguements. Inductive arguements are logical arguements.

But even more, stronger inductive arguments failed to convince you of the scientific explanation of the origins of the world. Let us be honest: the logical strength of the arguments is not the issue.


I am sure that "good ole science" will one day prove some our cherished beliefs wrong.

Sigh. Another one for Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong." How many times must we explain the error in this statement?

Science doesn't say the supernatural cannot exist.
It doesn't say it cannot exist: it merely says it does not exist.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
To a Christian, faith isn't about having faith that God exists but having faith in that we trust Him to guide us in our lives.

You better check your definition of Christianity. Christianity is the belief that god appeared on earth in human skin...was crucified and resurrected (the tired old dying God-Man myth). His death and resurrection paid for the sins we all inherited by (get this) ADAM! (because that wench Eve ate the banana - it WAS a banana right?). Now, the only way anybody can get into heaven is to believe those events were historically true and dedicate your life to the dead guy. That's what xians MUST have faith in, otherwise they will take the A Train to hell.

If it was just faith that God is guiding your life, you could be a Hindu or a Muslim or a Zoroastrian or a Jew or an Eskimo or a...

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Ruby,

What does that have to do with believing in Christianity? There are thousands of creation stories out there. What makes you think the Christian one is correct?

Besides, atheism doesn't require you to have faith that the World came into being on its own. I certainly have no such belief. I am perfectly happy to admit that I simply don't know how it came to be.

If you really can't wrap your mind around the idea that the Universe could exist without some sort of supreme being to create it, that's fine. But don't tie yourself down to an entire belief system just because it provides the only creation myth you are familiar with.

Sometimes you just have to have the courage to say "I don't know", and move on.

Dr. Stupid

This is important stuff, and needs to be repeated here.

1. It's okay to say, "I don't know." You don't have to make stuff up or believe stuff that can't be proven. Once people didn't know what thunder was, so they made up stories about gods up in the sky being angry. Guess what, they were wrong. It would have been better for them to have simply said, "We don't know what causes that noise, let's try to find out."

2. People mostly believe what they were taught to believe from childhood. As Stimpy says, "...the only creation myth you are familiar with..." There are plenty of other creation myths all over the world, most having nothing at all to do with a guy named Jesus, or a guy named Noah, or a guy named Moses, or ribs, or arks. Why just settle on the one you first learned? Sounds like just another easy cop-out excuse for not thinking to me! You do realize that the majority of people on Earth DO NOT follow or believe in the xian myth, don't you? Are they all just unlucky because they didn't get born into the country with the right myth?

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wolfgirl
Once people didn't know what thunder was, so they made up stories about gods up in the sky being angry. Guess what, they were wrong. It would have been better for them to have simply said, "We don't know what causes that noise, let's try to find out."

Nicely stated. And to continue:

Who should step up to the plate to explain what that noise is and why the gods are angry? The Shaman of the tribe, who in later years became the priest of the community.

This earthly position of holy authority is the biggest joke in the world today.

[Ipecac]

Ruby,

I was going to post in reply to your last message but several others have made the same points I was going to make and probably made them better than I would have.

You don't have to have "faith" to abandon your Christian beliefs. You just have to have intellect and honesty.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[b]Ruby,



What does that have to do with believing in Christianity? There are thousands of creation stories out there. What makes you think the Christian one is correct?

I can't really answer that question until I study all the religions of the world. In the meantime, the little bit I do know of other religions does not make as much sense to me as Christianity.

Besides, atheism doesn't require you to have faith that the World came into being on its own. I certainly have no such belief. I am perfectly happy to admit that I simply don't know how it came to be.

That would be scary for me. I could not live with that notion.....but that's just me...my personality.

If you really can't wrap your mind around the idea that the Universe could exist without some sort of supreme being to create it, that's fine. But don't tie yourself down to an entire belief system just because it provides the only creation myth you are familiar with.

Sometimes you just have to have the courage to say "I don't know", and move on.

Dr. Stupid

I don't know if I fully accept the creation story as laid out in the bible. I still have much to study.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by wolfgirl


This is important stuff, and needs to be repeated here.

1. It's okay to say, "I don't know." You don't have to make stuff up or believe stuff that can't be proven. Once people didn't know what thunder was, so they made up stories about gods up in the sky being angry. Guess what, they were wrong. It would have been better for them to have simply said, "We don't know what causes that noise, let's try to find out."

2. People mostly believe what they were taught to believe from childhood. As Stimpy says, "...the only creation myth you are familiar with..." There are plenty of other creation myths all over the world, most having nothing at all to do with a guy named Jesus, or a guy named Noah, or a guy named Moses, or ribs, or arks. Why just settle on the one you first learned? Sounds like just another easy cop-out excuse for not thinking to me! You do realize that the majority of people on Earth DO NOT follow or believe in the xian myth, don't you? Are they all just unlucky because they didn't get born into the country with the right myth?

Hi,

I am not sure if you were posting this to me or not, but I'll respond just in case! :D

It's okay to say, "I don't know."

Yes, I know this. In many of my posts, I have said things like "I don't know". I am open and honest about how I feel, and when I don't understand.

You don't have to make stuff up or believe stuff that can't be proven.

I'm not in the habit of making things up. What are you refering to? The fact that I do believe in God is certainly something I can't prove. I have never claimed to be able to.

Once people didn't know what thunder was, so they made up stories about gods up in the sky being angry. Guess what, they were wrong. It would have been better for them to have simply said, "We don't know what causes that noise, let's try to find out."

This is what I am trying to do. I am looking for answers. Reading tons of books, and posting on here.

People mostly believe what they were taught to believe from childhood. As Stimpy says, "...the only creation myth you are familiar with..."

My mother was agnostic. My dad was atheist. I was raised without any sort of religion. As a teen, and into my 20's, I was interested in any religion other than christianity. I was very fond of Spiritualism. I became a Christian when I was 27. I became a skeptic in my 30's.

There are plenty of other creation myths all over the world, most having nothing at all to do with a guy named Jesus, or a guy named Noah, or a guy named Moses, or ribs, or arks. Why just settle on the one you first learned?

As I said, it was NOT the first story that I learned. I am assumig you have not read any of my posts before as you keep saying things that don't pertain to me. Perhaps you meant to post this to someone else?

I have never blindly accepted Jesus. I was too much of skeptic. I did study...it's been a long time now. I do look at current info when I have time. I have seen nothing to shake my belief in Jesus...but I have seen things to question. As for Noah, Moses, the Ark etc., it is possible those stories are not accurate or even true. It is also possible that they are true. My hubby is reading into this at the moment.....and I've got about ten books on other subjects I am trying to read. I don't have time to painstakingly research every religion in the world.....although I did many years ago. If I can get a few mins here or there, I will do some more research.

You do realize that the majority of people on Earth DO NOT follow or believe in the xian myth, don't you?

Duh!!! Yes, of course!!! :rolleyes:

Are they all just unlucky because they didn't get born into the country with the right myth?

No, of course not. What sort of a God would reject people who sought after him through whatever religion was available. Personally, religion sucks!! And yes, I still hold to a *religion*, but I hate the *religious* crap in this world.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
That would be scary for me. I could not live with that notion.....but that's just me...my personality.


I find this interesting. The number of things unknown to you (or anyone) is presumably infinite. Many of these unknown things are of vastly more practical importance to you. Given human limitations, you will never know these things in your life.

Why would not knowing why or how the universe exists be of such importance that you would choose to believe ancient myths rather than just say "I don't know?"

How would your life change in either event? Whether the universe was created by a god or a giant taco, your life still goes on the same.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Ruby,

I was going to post in reply to your last message but several others have made the same points I was going to make and probably made them better than I would have.

You don't have to have "faith" to abandon your Christian beliefs. You just have to have intellect and honesty.

Does that mean I am a lying idiot if I don't abandon my Christian beliefs?:confused: :(

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac


I find this interesting. The number of things unknown to you (or anyone) is presumably infinite. Many of these unknown things are of vastly more practical importance to you. Given human limitations, you will never know these things in your life.

Why would not knowing why or how the universe exists be of such importance that you would choose to believe ancient myths rather than just say "I don't know?"

How would your life change in either event? Whether the universe was created by a god or a giant taco, your life still goes on the same.

Wait a min...I think the world really was created by a giant taco!!:D

I guess I could not live without answers and without hope.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ruby,

What does that have to do with believing in Christianity? There are thousands of creation stories out there. What makes you think the Christian one is correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't really answer that question until I study all the religions of the world. In the meantime, the little bit I do know of other religions does not make as much sense to me as Christianity.

Even without knowing anything about any other religions, the question still remains as to why you make the leap from believing that something must have created the Universe, to believing that the "something" was the God described in the Bible, and that Christianity is true. There is an awful lot more to Christianity than just the belief that some being created the Universe. Why do you believe all that extra stuff?

Besides, atheism doesn't require you to have faith that the World came into being on its own. I certainly have no such belief. I am perfectly happy to admit that I simply don't know how it came to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be scary for me. I could not live with that notion.....but that's just me...my personality.

I hope you can understand how irrational believing something is true, just because you are frightened by the notion that it is false, is. It is also extremely dangerous.

Incidentally, which notion is it that terrifies you? Is it the notion that the World came into being on its own? Or is it the notion of not knowing whether it did or not?

I don't know if I fully accept the creation story as laid out in the bible. I still have much to study.

That is a good start. Now the question is, why do you accept any of it at all? Why do you even entertain it as a likely possibility?

I guess I could not live without answers and without hope.

What you have to ask yourself is whether wrong answers are better than no answers at all. I can answer any metaphysical or religious question you could possibly ask, and my answers are pretty much guaranteed to be at least as accurate as any of those provided by Christianity. Of course, I will not try to deceive you into believing that those answers are anything more than products of my imagination.

As for hope, you don't need religion or faith for that.

Dr. Stupid

[calladus]

Originally posted by Ipecac


So how do you decide which is literal and which is metaphorical? Jesus is supposed to have said that the only way to heaven is through him. Doesn't that contradict your earlier stated view that god judges your heart?

Once you start picking and choosing, it becomes clear that people are going to come to different conclusions. This drastically reduces its value as a guidebook as people can take a very liberal view of it (as you do) or a very literal view (as most fundamentalists). The Bible can be used to promote both pacifism and tolerance all the way to burning the infidels.


Originally posted by Ruby


These are all questions that I am asking myself these days. I am a bit stuck as far as giving answers go. I'm still trying to understand and figure things out!:(

Ruby,

This is one of the things that started my deconversion. I realized that Christians in general treated their religion, and the bible, as a sort of 'all you can eat buffet.'

Take a portion of this, a portion of that, a double helping of dessert, and ignore the stuff that doesn't taste good.

If you need to interpret, or exclude parts of the bible to make it palatable, then obviously the bible is not a good guide for you.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
Does that mean I am a lying idiot if I don't abandon my Christian beliefs?:confused: :(

No indeed! See, you seem to have both intellect and honesty.

Therefore . . . :)

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by triadboy
This is the crux of God belief. It is a position of personal incredulity. You maintain the hatred for nature the ancients held.


I have a hatred of nature? Wow!!! Is there any purpose for this statement? Are you trying to make an intelligent arguement here? I don't understand how you can assert this with any confidence that it is true without every meeting me in person or knowing anything about me. All I can say that I am awed by nature and the incredible beauty and serenity it exudes.

[Loki]

LCBOY,

I have a hatred of nature? ...
Personally, I'd say christians "underestimate" nature, rather than hate.

All I can say that I am awed by nature and the incredible beauty and serenity it exudes.
Yet you don't believe that nature is capable of being the 'creator' of that beauty and serenity. Nature is a process, not an object.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
My dad says he does. He explains my inability to read it and achieve the same understanding to the fact that I don't have "spiritual discernment."
I don't think your dad reads everything in the Bible literally. Ask him to read the following:

Isaiah 40
30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;
31 but those who hope in the LORD
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint.

If one reads this literally, does that mean that people who have hope in the LORD they will grow wings and fly in the air? This is obvious figure of speech, a commonly used literary construct used in all sorts of writing.


Me too. But if you don't find the scientific explanation convincing, why would you find a bronze age myth convincing?

A far more rational response would be: "That's an interesting question, and we don't know the answer."
You are confusing science with materialism and naturalism. Science is about extrapolating modes of function in nature, ie. Creb Cycle, photosynthesis, planetary motion, fluid dynamics, celestial mechanics, etc. from direct evidence and experimentation. Science is about discovering how things work, now in the present. Postualting some myth about a primordial cosmic egg that expanded into the universe several billion years ago all on its own without an intelligence, cause or reason is no more scientific than the "bronze age goad herder myth".


Not understanding an argument does not count as refuting it. Well, it wasn't much of arguement. They didn't explain how the existence of evil forced the conclusion (in a deductive way) that God doesn't exist.


Children have these tendencies. Would that justfiy allowing evil in kindergarten? If your kindergarten teacher simply allowed the children to run wild, implementing their most base impulses, would you accept this as an excuse? If the teacher argued that the children needed to have free will, would you accept that?

Yet God, who is supposed to be an authority over man, allows the Holocaust.
What would you have him do? A lot of people state this old arguement but they never respond with what should have God done? If there is no God and man is in control why did other countries do nothing to stop Germany?

It is possible to reconcile the existance of God with the existance of evil, but only by postulating that God is either indifferent or irresponsible or outright wicked or impotent or ignorant. But one cannot reconcile the notion of a God who knows of evil, who has the power to stop evil, who has the will to stop evil, and yet evil remains.
I don't see it that way at all. If God wanted to rid the world of evil he could. But if he did that how many people would be left. I'd say zero. Let me ask you this. Have you ever had an evil thought? Have you ever been mean to someone, caused someone emotional pain? Have you ever stolen something, (pencil/pens from work, used a work computer for personal use, this is stealing). God has much higher standards than man does. You only seem to think that evil is killing, raping, destroying large cities and causing others great physical pain. But evil is much more than that. The thing is that "evil acts" are a product one's inner person. Ask your dad about this. I'm sure he will have interesting insights to share with you.

To the audience: this was actually the standard view for most of Christian history. LCBOY is like a living anachronism. How is following historic Biblical Christian essentials an anachronism?


But even more, stronger inductive arguments failed to convince you of the scientific explanation of the origins of the world. Let us be honest: the logical strength of the arguments is not the issue.


Sigh. Another one for Asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong." How many times must we explain the error in this statement?Since I am fairly new to this forum please be patient with me. If you can explain the "error in this statement" I would greatly appreciate it. I really would like to know. Where can I read Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong"?


It doesn't say it cannot exist: it merely says it does not exist. As I stated earlier, science doesn't say the supernatural (God) cannot exist, materialism and naturalism do. Materialism and naturalism are not science but philosophy...

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Loki
LCBOY,


Personally, I'd say christians "underestimate" nature, rather than hate.


Yet you don't believe that nature is capable of being the 'creator' of that beauty and serenity. Nature is a process, not an object.

I believe that nature is a created "object" that is substained by many many complex biological processes. That is one reason I am so awed by nature's Creator, it shear complexity and beauty. When I see art or hear music that moves me I am moved by its beauty. But I am moved more by the "creator" of the art and music. I can appreciate and marvel at the talents of these "creators" to channel something that is a part of them and create a physical manifestation of what they have inside of themselves. :p

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
Postualting some myth about a primordial cosmic egg that expanded into the universe several billion years ago all on its own without an intelligence, cause or reason is no more scientific than the "bronze age goad herder myth".

Your hatred for nature rears its ugly head again. You don't deserve to walk in the woods. Turn in your liederhosen! ;-)

I think one of the ideas that sparked the Big Bang was that the universe if expanding. If this film is reversed, the universe collapses into a 'singularity' as Hawkings calls it. Something caused the rapid expansion we see. Something caused the echo we hear. (You can actually see the echo as 'snow' on your TV set.) Men who have spent their lives studying this event can ascertain how the universe reacted seconds after the explosion!

How did the explosion happen? No one knows. But you seem to believe bronze-age goat-herders - even though they knew nothing of science, astrophysics, etc.

The Hindus have a better chance of being right then Xians. They believe the universe slams back on itself and the explosion re-occurs! That's not bad!

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
I believe that nature is a created "object" that is substained by many many complex biological processes.

Globs of matter spun off and globbed up at a good distance from the sun, so that water is not burned off. This fortunate bit of luck is why we are alive. It's probably happened on millions of other planets too. There was no creator - just chance.

I love hearing: "Everything is just too perfect! There has to be a god!"

If we intelligent tapeworms living in an ammonia atmosphere with 1600 mph winds - it would be "too perfect!"

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I don't see it that way at all. If God wanted to rid the world of evil he could. But if he did that how many people would be left. I'd say zero. Let me ask you this. Have you ever had an evil thought? Have you ever been mean to someone, caused someone emotional pain? Have you ever stolen something, (pencil/pens from work, used a work computer for personal use, this is stealing). God has much higher standards than man does. You only seem to think that evil is killing, raping, destroying large cities and causing others great physical pain. But evil is much more than that. The thing is that "evil acts" are a product one's inner person. Ask your dad about this. I'm sure he will have interesting insights to share with you.

Here we go. Man is evil. We should bow down before a god who has every right to sentence us to eternal torture for a single thought or deed. Thank you, god, for tolerating our horrible evilness. :rolleyes:

"God has much higher standards". Is that why he ordered the Hebrews to slaughter other tribes? Is that why he wiped out every man, woman and child except Noah and his family? Is that why he slaughtered Job's family in order to prove a point?

Higher standards indeed.

[Yahzi]

LCBOY
I don't think your dad reads everything in the Bible literally. Ask him to read the following:
You don't have to convince me. I know you are right. The point is, my dad doesn't, and he isn't going to be convinced by any of your silly heretical logic.

Besides, he'd just say that if you don't understand that passage, it's because you lack spiritual discernment.

Postualting some myth about a primordial cosmic egg that expanded into the universe several billion years ago all on its own without an intelligence, cause or reason is no more scientific than the "bronze age goad herder myth".
Actually, it is, because that theory fits the evidence better. Naturalism is scientific now. The "God of the Gaps" is dead. Dude, you really need to catch up on the last millenia. :)

The unkowns in science still leave room for a god; just not a god of any consequence. Not a personal, caring, god. Quark glue, maybe: Prince of Peace, definitely not. In this sense, Naturalism has finally become scientific supported, even though a weasel could still finesse the defintions. (More on this below)

What would you have him do? A lot of people state this old arguement but they never respond with what should have God done? If there is no God and man is in control why did other countries do nothing to stop Germany?
What would you have your kindergarten teacher do? Is it too much to ask that God do what kindergarten teachers do? If you had knowledge of a crime - if you witnessed it - wouldn't you at the very least be morally required to report the crime to the appropriate authorities so they could at least prevent the criminal from repeating his crime? We aren't even asking God to intervene - He could just file a timely report with the police, and we'll take care of the rest. But he doesn't even do that. He sits on high, watches everything, and does nothing. Given that we have defined him to have the power to do anything, the fact that he does nothing conclusively shows that something is missing. Either He does not care, does not know, or cannot act. It is logically impossible that He should desire to stop evil, be able to stop evil, be aware of evil, and yet not stop evil.

And in case you didn't notice, other countries did do something to stop Germany. No thanks to God or his Vicar. Plus, in case you missed it, Man is not in control. We do not possess infinite power or knowledge.

I don't see it that way at all. If God wanted to rid the world of evil he could. But if he did that how many people would be left. I'd say zero.
So you are saying that if a kindergarten teacher wants to rid her classroom of evil, she won't have any students left? Our choices are between a kindergarten room of savage animals, or none at all? Would you accept this as a defense from a kindergarten teacher? No? Then why do you accept it as a defense of God?

How dense can you be? All we are asking from God is exactly what we would ask from anybody else. If you know of evil, and you can do something about it, or tell someone who can, then you do. All we are asking is that God be held to the same moral standard we hold ourselves to.

You only seem to think that evil is killing, raping, destroying large cities and causing others great physical pain. But evil is much more than that.
You can be the one to explain to a rape victim that God watched her get raped and allowed her to get raped because he wanted to protect people's rights to steal pencils.

An ordinary person might suggest that perhaps God could intervene in cases of signficant evil, and refrain from acting in cases of insignficant evil. An ordinary person might assume that God is capable of making distinctions that even children are capable of. An ordinary person might think that God could allow people to make their own mistakes without making other people pay for them.

How is following historic Biblical Christian essentials an anachronism?
Because nobody else does. Look up the word anachronism: it is painfully apparent that you do not understand what it means. :rolleyes:

Where can I read Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong"?
Go to www.google.com, type in Asimov Relativity Wrong, and hit "Search." Click on the very first link. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As I stated earlier, science doesn't say the supernatural (God) cannot exist, materialism and naturalism do. Materialism and naturalism are not science but philosophy...
Not anymore. Darwin put the last nail in the coffin, and Dennet et. al. hammered it home. Admittedly this is a recent development (the last 10 years, if you want to be picky), so it is not improbable that you missed it.

Basically, the work done in neurology is explaining where our personalities come from. It is showing how consciousness is physically based. Darwin destroyed the last of the four classic arguments for God (teleology), and the modern neuroscientists are tidying up the edges (one could have reasonably argued that even though our physical bodies are from nature, our mental experiences are inexplicable from a purely physical standpoint. Shaeffer in fact argued exactly this. Sadly he died in the 60s, before Dennet and Crick and the gang got around to demolishing this refinement of the teleological argument).

So in the sense that everyone understand Naturalism, science is now supporting it. One could refine the argument a bit and claim that God is quark glue, but since nobody cares about quark glue, nobody is going to bother. Once it is established that we - our personalities, our selves - are a product of nature, then Naturalism wins by default. It might not be the case that everything is a product of nature, but it is the case that everything we care about (i.e. ourselves) is.

[triadboy]

LCBOY
Actually, it is, because that theory fits the evidence better. Naturalism is scientific now. The "God of the Gaps" is dead.

If there is still a gap in knowledge, your god will be there to explain it. However, the god of the gap is being exposed more and more, until hopefully he disappears.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by triadboy
Your hatred for nature rears its ugly head again. You don't deserve to walk in the woods. Turn in your liederhosen! ;-)


sigh :rolleyes:

triadboy,

What's with the insults, dude? ;)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[b]Ruby,



Even without knowing anything about any other religions, the question still remains as to why you make the leap from believing that something must have created the Universe, to believing that the "something" was the God described in the Bible, and that Christianity is true. There is an awful lot more to Christianity than just the belief that some being created the Universe. Why do you believe all that extra stuff?

What extra stuff do you mean?



I hope you can understand how irrational believing something is true, just because you are frightened by the notion that it is false, is. It is also extremely dangerous.

I am not known for being irrational...but whatever! Why do you say it's dangerous?

Incidentally, which notion is it that terrifies you? Is it the notion that the World came into being on its own? Or is it the notion of not knowing whether it did or not?

The idea that something so complex could come together like magic without a creator is one thing I find scary. I may as well start believing in John Edward or Sylvia brown. The idea that life just happened by chance seems without point and meaning. I need point and meaning.



What you have to ask yourself is whether wrong answers are better than no answers at all.

I have been doing this for months already.

Thanks for post. Sorry my answers are short. I have my baby in lap....feeding him a bottle.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by calladus

Ruby,

This is one of the things that started my deconversion. I realized that Christians in general treated their religion, and the bible, as a sort of 'all you can eat buffet.'

Take a portion of this, a portion of that, a double helping of dessert, and ignore the stuff that doesn't taste good.

That's one reason I don't take the bible as seriously as some Christians.

If you need to interpret, or exclude parts of the bible to make it palatable, then obviously the bible is not a good guide for you.

You make a good point. :)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Ruby
What extra stuff do you mean?

The Ten Commandments, the Virgin Birth, the numerous contradictory behavioral guidelines, the need to tithe, the world view, the pending Apocalypse, etc. From what you've said, it sounds to me like you'd be more suited to Deism than Christianity.

I am not known for being irrational...but whatever! Why do you say it's dangerous?

Why is it dangerous to hold irrational beliefs? I would say you've been on this board long enough to have seen many examples of why irrational beliefs can hurt and even kill. Homeopathy, dowsing, talking to the dead, alternative cancer cures, belief in a psychic. These can cause monetary, emotional and physical harm. Christianity certainly has its share of victims.

The idea that something so complex could come together like magic without a creator is one thing I find scary. I may as well start believing in John Edward or Sylvia brown. The idea that life just happened by chance seems without point and meaning. I need point and meaning.

Well, it's not magic. It's nature.

I've never really understood the idea that without a creator life loses point and meaning. Why? How is your life any different today if the universe was created by chance, by god, or by a giant banana? What would you do differently?

The fact is, even if we know exactly how the universe started, we will likely never know what happened beforehand. How did it all come into being in the first place? But that's our lot. To lose hope because there are mysteries is to misunderstand the very nature of human existence.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Ruby
Hi,

I am not sure if you were posting this to me or not, but I'll respond just in case! :D

I was sort of replying "in general" to those who hold your (or similar) beliefs, not necessarily to you in particular. You just happened to be the one here! No personal offense meant! :)

Originally posted by Ruby
I'm not in the habit of making things up. What are you refering to? The fact that I do believe in God is certainly something I can't prove. I have never claimed to be able to.

YOU aren't making things up; my claim is that religious concepts in general have been made up to explain things that people couldn't otherwise explain. As real explanations came along, however, the religions remained, for reasons that are unfathomable to me.

Originally posted by Ruby
My mother was agnostic. My dad was atheist. I was raised without any sort of religion. As a teen, and into my 20's, I was interested in any religion other than christianity. I was very fond of Spiritualism. I became a Christian when I was 27. I became a skeptic in my 30's.

As I said, it was NOT the first story that I learned.

But xianity, I assume, is the religion that is most common in the culture you live in, correct? Just because you weren't taught it at home, doesn't mean that you weren't exposed to it on a regular basis. Society generally assumed everyone is xian, so we're constantly bombarded with xian images, xian saying, etc. "In God We Trust" on our money, "God Bless America" all over the place, people saying "We're all praying for such-and-such." We're surrounded by it, so it's what we're most familiar with. I was raised in a home that was nominally xian, but didn't go to church or pray at meals or anything like that. I just accepted it because it was "the norm" to do so. It's comfortable to be xian because almost everyone else is.

Originally posted by Ruby
I have never blindly accepted Jesus. I was too much of skeptic. I did study...it's been a long time now. I do look at current info when I have time. I have seen nothing to shake my belief in Jesus...but I have seen things to question. As for Noah, Moses, the Ark etc., it is possible those stories are not accurate or even true.

But isn't all xianity based on the Bible? If you don't believe much of it, why are you a xian? Just because you like the idea of that nice guy, Jesus, being the messiah? If everything else in the book is a fable, why must you assume that that one part is true?

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Ruby
I guess I could not live without answers and without hope.

Yet you've admitted that xianity hasn't provided that many answers for you; you're questioning much of it. There are tons of things that we don't have answers for, and may never have. We get along just fine without them. Why would you rather have answers that you may not even agree with than just accept that you don't know something?

And I, being an extremely optimistic person, have as much hope as anyone. All except for that one about life after death. Which I think is a huge explanation for why religions exist - because people can't bear the thought that this is it; that once they're dead, it's all over, end of story, please exit the train. So rather than accepting that possibility, they buy into a story about this great place they're going to go afterwards. It's soothing. But I'd rather not live my life believing in a fairy tale just because it's soothing. To each his own, you might say, and I tend to agree. Except that xianity tries to tell other people how to live, not just its followers.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Ruby
The idea that life just happened by chance seems without point and meaning. I need point and meaning.

First of all, I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you, Ruby; I'm really not!

Having said that...;)

You can't argue that something is, because you need it. You need point and meaning, therefore there must be point and meaning? That's not really an argument at all, now, is it?

My life has plenty of point and meaning, without any gods at all. The point of my life is to enjoy it as much as possible while I'm here, while trying not to hurt anyone along the way. The meaning in my life comes from those that I love and our interactions. I don't have to know how the world began to have those things.

Sorry to have to say this, but many of your arguments seem to stem from your own personal fears and needs. You're afraid to live without a god; you need a god to explain the world to you; you need a god to give your life meaning. None of those things mean that such a thing exists, only that you want and need it to.

Hey, I want and need a million bucks! Does that mean I have it?

:D

[Dancing David]

Hey Ruby, you are still way cool!

I think that it os okay to pick and choose in the bible! Calling oneself a Xian should mean that one follows the taechings of Yeshuah, that means there is a lot of stuff he did not say that you can exclude.

Kind of ironic that sceptics would say someone should take the whole bible.

You go girl! We may pray to different names but the answer is the same.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hey Ruby, you are still way cool!

I think that it os okay to pick and choose in the bible! Calling oneself a Xian should mean that one follows the taechings of Yeshuah, that means there is a lot of stuff he did not say that you can exclude.

Kind of ironic that sceptics would say someone should take the whole bible.

You go girl! We may pray to different names but the answer is the same.

If you can exclude some of it, how do you know what to keep? Seems to me that if you can yourself a Christian, which is a bible based religion, you can't pick and choose.

Really, how do you know what to exclude?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Really, how do you know what to exclude? Well, you start by excluding the patently false bits. Like where pi is defined to be exactly 3.

But then you come to the contradictions, in which case which half of the contradiction you exclude is largely a matter of taste and reason. You exclude the parts that violate the letter or spirit of the rest of the Bible more.

What you have left, you abide by.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ipecac


If you can exclude some of it, how do you know what to keep? Seems to me that if you can yourself a Christian, which is a bible based religion, you can't pick and choose.

Really, how do you know what to exclude?

And are you some sort of moral authority on what constitutes belief here. Belief is different from rational reality. Why do you support the fundamentalist creed , are you one?
There is nothing wrong with keeping what you like the great pragmatist the buddha said 'be ye lamps unto yourselves.' It applts to the bible of course.
When I was a chistian I took only the words attributed to Jesus and thrw the rest away, still I was a christian because I followed the teachings of christ.I never liked paul or peter and I certainly found the gos of the OT to be a bloody tyrant.

Your argument is like saying all scientists must be A, no scientsis can be something other than A. The body of science can be picked and choosed from, and frequently is.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And are you some sort of moral authority on what constitutes belief here. Belief is different from rational reality. Why do you support the fundamentalist creed , are you one?
There is nothing wrong with keeping what you like the great pragmatist the buddha said 'be ye lamps unto yourselves.' It applts to the bible of course.
When I was a chistian I took only the words attributed to Jesus and thrw the rest away, still I was a christian because I followed the teachings of christ.I never liked paul or peter and I certainly found the gos of the OT to be a bloody tyrant.

Your argument is like saying all scientists must be A, no scientsis can be something other than A. The body of science can be picked and choosed from, and frequently is.

Huh?

Isn't the bible the word of god? If it is, how can you exclude any of the word of god? If it isn't, then why follow it at all? Kind of like living according to the tenets of Moby Dick.

If you are picking and choosing what to believe from the bible, then you should just admit you're making it all up. If you want to do this, fine, I have no problem with it. But it doesn't make you a Christian.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ruby,

Even without knowing anything about any other religions, the question still remains as to why you make the leap from believing that something must have created the Universe, to believing that the "something" was the God described in the Bible, and that Christianity is true. There is an awful lot more to Christianity than just the belief that some being created the Universe. Why do you believe all that extra stuff?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What extra stuff do you mean?

Seriously?

How about any of the following:

That God created man in his image.
That God cares about mankind in any way.
That man has a soul, which will survive the death of the body.
That there is a Heaven and Hell where our souls will go after we die.
That God has any kind of moral code he/she/it wishes us to follow.
That Jesus was a real person, and the son of God.
That Jesus rose from the dead, and in doing so atoned for the sins of mankind.

and so on. Those are the elements which even the most moderate Christians I know of believe, and none of them are in any way implied by the conclusion that the Universe must have a creator of some sort.

I hope you can understand how irrational believing something is true, just because you are frightened by the notion that it is false, is. It is also extremely dangerous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not known for being irrational...but whatever! Why do you say it's dangerous?

It is dangerous to you, and to others around you, for two reasons:

1) The most common tactic amongst con men (including cult leaders) is to convince you that what they are saying is true by making you desperately want it to be true. The fact that you consider wanting something to be true to be an acceptable reason to believe it is, makes you extremely vulnerable to this kind of deception.

2) This type of belief criteria can easily lead to serious delusions about the World, particularly if you find yourself in a prolonged emotionally stressful situation. Essentially what you are doing is nothing more than wishful thinking. When what you want to be true is not what is true, this can lead to some very serious problems. You may think that as long as you confine yourself to this type of belief only when the belief is untestable, that it is safe, but it is not. Your very ability to reliably judge evidence and come to conclusions, is strongly influenced by your beliefs. The kind of delusional worldview that I am talking about usually involves an attachment to conspiracy theories, so that you find yourself rationalizing even the most impossible beliefs through a convoluted set of conspiracies and ad-hoc explanations. This is particularly a problem when you consider that subtle encouragement of such thinking is also often a major component of the types of cons I was describing above.

To put it simply and bluntly, rational thought is pretty much your only defence against being deliberately deceived. When you adopt irrational thought patterns, you make yourself vulnerable.

Incidentally, which notion is it that terrifies you? Is it the notion that the World came into being on its own? Or is it the notion of not knowing whether it did or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea that something so complex could come together like magic without a creator is one thing I find scary. I may as well start believing in John Edward or Sylvia brown. The idea that life just happened by chance seems without point and meaning. I need point and meaning.

Who said anything about it coming together like magic? Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it was magical, or that some God had to do it. All sorts of things we currently understand were once thought of as being magical, and attributed to Gods.

As for meaning, meaning comes from philosophy, not mythology. Think about it... Even if you accept all of the mythology of the Bible as being true, that does not give any meaning to your life, or to the Universe in general. What gives it meaning is your decision to embrace the values described therein. It is our values which give our lives meaning, and which are the source of our conceptions of morality and right and wrong. It doesn't make any difference whether you attribute those values to your religion, philosophy, tradition, or whatever. Ultimately, they are learned from your family and community.

Dr. Stupid

[calladus]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hey Ruby, you are still way cool!

I think that it os okay to pick and choose in the bible! Calling oneself a Xian should mean that one follows the taechings of Yeshuah, that means there is a lot of stuff he did not say that you can exclude.

Kind of ironic that sceptics would say someone should take the whole bible.

You go girl! We may pray to different names but the answer is the same.

We have a Charismatic preacher who comes onto our campus free speech area fairly often to preach against the evils of drinking and sex. He preaches against drinking, because Jesus himself was not a drinker. (according to this guy.)

My point is, is it true that you exclude all the things that Jesus didn't say or do? If so, do you still watch TV? Drive a car?

Admit it - you are using your own judgement to interpret what Jesus meant. How can you know your judgement is valid?

Did Jesus ever accidentally mis-speak? Everyone does sooner or later - maybe it got into text and became canon? How does this skew your judgement?

( "What? you mean I said 'camel' through the eye of a needle? Oh, sorry, I mis-spoke. I MEANT rope! How silly of me."
- Jesus )

[Loki]

calladus,

Did Jesus ever accidentally mis-speak? Everyone does sooner or later - maybe it got into text and became canon? How does this skew your judgement?
It's even worse than this. Since Jesus (assuming he existed in approximately the form described in the NT) didn't actually write anything down, we only have other people's recollections of what Jesus said/did. Imagine the gospel writers busily working on the first draft, and remembering that terrible incident involving Jesus, the two young female swedish exchange students, and the bouncer from 'Club Jerusalem'. "Better not put that bit in" they decide. Just how much that Jesus said/did actually made it into the NT anyway??

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Huh?

Isn't the bible the word of god? If it is, how can you exclude any of the word of god? If it isn't, then why follow it at all? Kind of like living according to the tenets of Moby Dick.

If you are picking and choosing what to believe from the bible, then you should just admit you're making it all up. If you want to do this, fine, I have no problem with it. But it doesn't make you a Christian.

See, this is like the believers putting words in the mouths of atheists , it is a lazy form of argument when the believers do it. It is even lazier and more ironic when sceptics do it.

I ain't no Xian no more, never was babtised before I had beer poured on me in a pagan ritual.

So what's your point ? Everything is made up , all words, all science, all concepts, they have no real meaning outside of what we attribute to them, huh?

If Ruby wants to call herself a christian and pick and choose in the bible why should I be so narrow mineded as to hold her to a fundamentalsit standard. She is who she is, she says she is a christian, and maybe she is closer to Yeshua than many a fumblementalist.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Dancing David
See, this is like the believers putting words in the mouths of atheists , it is a lazy form of argument when the believers do it. It is even lazier and more ironic when sceptics do it.

So what's your point ? Everything is made up , all words, all science, all concepts, they have no real meaning outside of what we attribute to them, huh?

If Ruby wants to call herself a christian and pick and choose in the bible why should I be so narrow mineded as to hold her to a fundamentalsit standard. She is who she is, she says she is a christian, and maybe she is closer to Yeshua than many a fumblementalist.

I don't believe I was putting words in anyone's mouth.

My point is that Ruby calls herself a Christian but apparently rejects most of what defines a Christian. Kind of like calling yourself a Trekkie when you hate the shows, the characters, and the setting, but darnnit if that Captain Kirk guy isn't cute.

I'm pointing out the inconsistency of choosing to live life by the teachings of one man, whom she has made it clear she believes was god, but not believing in the truth of the only book in which this guy appears. If the bible isn't the word of god, then how can you believe in the divinity of Jesus?

Of course, lots and lots of "Christians" do this. I don't think they're being consistent either.

[Dancing David]

But you could call yourself a Trekkie and only like certain episodes.

What defines someones religion is the label they apply to thems elves, I prefer a polythiestic apporach, so I call myself pagan. Some would call me satanist, devil worshiper and bound for hell.

It's the label that we apply to ourselves that makes the label.

And as I stated before alot of the Bible is not attributes to Christ, so when I did follow that path i threw out what Paul and Peter wrote and pretty much only took the words attributted to Jesus. But I was a Xian at the time.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Dancing David
But you could call yourself a Trekkie and only like certain episodes.

What defines someones religion is the label they apply to thems elves, I prefer a polythiestic apporach, so I call myself pagan. Some would call me satanist, devil worshiper and bound for hell.

It's the label that we apply to ourselves that makes the label.

And as I stated before alot of the Bible is not attributes to Christ, so when I did follow that path i threw out what Paul and Peter wrote and pretty much only took the words attributted to Jesus. But I was a Xian at the time.

I understand what you're saying.

Ruby is at a point where she is at least questioning her beliefs. I was at the same stage a couple of years ago. She calls herself a Christian but is clearly picking and choosing what to believe from the bible. That's fine, but since Christianity is indisputably a bible based religion, she is rejecting much of what makes one a Christian, regardless of what she calls herself.

I'm trying to point out to her that in rejecting some of it, the rational thing to do is examine the parts she does believe in and ask herself why she believes those and not the others. When I did that, the whole thing fell apart because I realized I was making it all up.

She can certainly pick and choose and call herself whatever she wants. I hope that by pointing out the inconsistency, she may question that which she does believe.

Ruby seems to be a rational person. I hope this discussion helps her with her questioning.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac
[B]

The Ten Commandments, the Virgin Birth, the numerous contradictory behavioral guidelines, the need to tithe, the world view, the pending Apocalypse, etc. From what you've said, it sounds to me like you'd be more suited to Deism than Christianity.

The ten commandments were given to the Jews as law. As a gentile, I follow them as a guideline in life, but not so sure I always keep them all....and that's ok......so long as I'm not murdering or stealing. Honestly, I don't even read the commandments. I live my life by certain morals and values or convictions....as we all do.

I don't believe in tithing. That was something only meant for the levitical tribe. It was never meant for the New Testament church....and even if it was, most gentiles would be exempt due to only farmers having to give a tithe. Even Jesus did not tithe...as far as I know...since he was from the tribe of Judah, and not a Levite. Paul and the other apostles did not take tithes either. They only took "gifts" if they were offered to them...but never asked for any. The earliest record of ecclesiastical tithing was in the 6th century. It was set up by man, not God.

I love to give and help people in need. I don't mind helping in my church...but I won't pay tithes.

I don't really believe in an impending apocalypse either. I lean towards the "preterist" view. I don't believe in the Rapture nonsense.

Forgive me, I must run for now. I have dinner to prepare. I will repond to rest of post after dinner!!!!



:)

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ipecac

Why is it dangerous to hold irrational beliefs? I would say you've been on this board long enough to have seen many examples of why irrational beliefs can hurt and even kill. Homeopathy, dowsing, talking to the dead, alternative cancer cures, belief in a psychic. These can cause monetary, emotional and physical harm. Christianity certainly has its share of victims.

On that count, I could not agree with you more.



I've never really understood the idea that without a creator life loses point and meaning. Why? How is your life any different today if the universe was created by chance, by god, or by a giant banana? What would you do differently?

I guess I'd eat a bunch of bananas every day!:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by wolfgirl


I was sort of replying "in general" to those who hold your (or similar) beliefs, not necessarily to you in particular. You just happened to be the one here! No personal offense meant! :)

Oh, ok, sorry to misunderstand!:D



YOU aren't making things up; my claim is that religious concepts in general have been made up to explain things that people couldn't otherwise explain.

You are correct to say this from a certain point of view. I think that scripture itself has been twisted and made to say whatever the religious hierarchy want it to say.


But xianity, I assume, is the religion that is most common in the culture you live in, correct?

It is now. I live in the bible belt. :(

Just because you weren't taught it at home, doesn't mean that you weren't exposed to it on a regular basis. Society generally assumed everyone is xian, so we're constantly bombarded with xian images, xian saying, etc. "In God We Trust" on our money, "God Bless America" all over the place, people saying "We're all praying for such-and-such." We're surrounded by it, so it's what we're most familiar with. I was raised in a home that was nominally xian, but didn't go to church or pray at meals or anything like that. I just accepted it because it was "the norm" to do so. It's comfortable to be xian because almost everyone else is.

I grew up in England and did have some encounters with those who taught bible stories, but I never went to church, and I never heard the term "Christian". I never heard of anyone praying over anyone. No one in my family prayed over a meal or even mentioned God. The church of England was stiff, reserved, and completely non-evangelising when I was there. I was not even aware of people "living for Christ". I never heard about Jesus or the resurrection or that "He died for our sins". The only bible story that I remember being told was "The Good Samaritan" by a teacher in school. It was not taught as a bible witness. In fact, I don't think I even knew it came from the bible.

I was exposed to Christianity when I came to America at fifteen, and a friend insisted I needed to get baptised or I'd end up in Hell. That scared me, but not enough to get baptised. I ventured off into Spiritualism and looking at other beliefs.


But isn't all xianity based on the Bible? If you don't believe much of it, why are you a xian? Just because you like the idea of that nice guy, Jesus, being the messiah? If everything else in the book is a fable, why must you assume that that one part is true?

I don't think the whole bible is a fable. I do think that not all the bible can be taken literally or be applied to today's standards.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by wolfgirl

Yet you've admitted that xianity hasn't provided that many answers for you; you're questioning much of it. There are tons of things that we don't have answers for, and may never have. We get along just fine without them. Why would you rather have answers that you may not even agree with than just accept that you don't know something?

I feel I am close to having answers. I am not feeling quite as hopeless of late. Some good things are happening...........slowly, but there's great hope. You are right, there are questions that will never be answered. This is where I must learn to put things to rest. I am trying!:(

And I, being an extremely optimistic person, have as much hope as anyone. All except for that one about life after death. Which I think is a huge explanation for why religions exist - because people can't bear the thought that this is it; that once they're dead, it's all over, end of story, please exit the train.

Oh my goodness, that's exactly what my dad always said. I had to smile reading that. He has been dead almost three years now and I miss him terribly.

So rather than accepting that possibility, they buy into a story about this great place they're going to go afterwards. It's soothing. But I'd rather not live my life believing in a fairy tale just because it's soothing. To each his own, you might say, and I tend to agree. Except that xianity tries to tell other people how to live, not just its followers.

Well, I don't believe anyone has the right to tell another how to live, but you are right, it happens. Even with me being a liberal Christian, I can get "witnessed" to about the error of my ways if I'm not careful who I talk to. Thankfully, that would not happen in my church. :D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by wolfgirl

First of all, I'm sorry if I seem to be picking on you, Ruby; I'm really not!

And I didn't think you were!!http://home.att.net/~rubywife/ybeer.gif

Having said that...;)
You can't argue that something is, because you need it. You need point and meaning, therefore there must be point and meaning? That's not really an argument at all, now, is it?

It's just me typing out loud my own crazy feelings! :eek:

My life has plenty of point and meaning, without any gods at all. The point of my life is to enjoy it as much as possible while I'm here, while trying not to hurt anyone along the way. The meaning in my life comes from those that I love and our interactions. I don't have to know how the world began to have those things.

You have a very healthy attitude! I know I need to step back and see myself as a worthy presence in this world with lots of meaning to my life. I have struggled with this concept for years. I am a social phobic with a panic and anxiety disorder. I am also bi-polar. (oh dang it, now I've stuck my foot in my mouth) I do believe that life should be enjoyed and lived to it's fullest. I am not waiting for some "Rapture" to rescue me away from things. I want to live!!!!!

I've just got to learn how to do it.

I have conquered many hurdles in my life. I learned to drive 6 yrs ago (in my 30's) and got my license. That was a BIG thing for me. I used to be terrified of learning to drive and refused to do it. I can go to social events, although I can be very quiet and shy. I married a wonderful understanding husband who has done much to help me. Still, there's much I want and need to do.


Sorry to have to say this, but many of your arguments seem to stem from your own personal fears and needs. You're afraid to live without a god; you need a god to explain the world to you; you need a god to give your life meaning. None of those things mean that such a thing exists, only that you want and need it to.

That's fairly accurate.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hey Ruby, you are still way cool!

I think that it os okay to pick and choose in the bible! Calling oneself a Xian should mean that one follows the taechings of Yeshuah, that means there is a lot of stuff he did not say that you can exclude.

Kind of ironic that sceptics would say someone should take the whole bible.

You go girl! We may pray to different names but the answer is the same.

http://home.att.net/~rubywife/yhballbounce2dp.gif

[Yahweh]

... somehow picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe might appear a little flawed. Then again, it might be neccessary to assume "hey, maybe the story of Noah's Ark was a metaphor for something" or "hey, maybe there wasnt a talking snake that told the only 2 humans on the face of this massive massive planet earth to eat a forbidden magic apple". Then again, I remember how picking and choosing which parts of the Bible could lead to the formation of cults and psychotic intepretations of God (did you ever see Children of the Corn).

[triadboy]

I just want to know what parts they believe is true

[Finella]

Originally posted by triadboy
I just want to know what parts they believe is true

Triadboy....::shakes head::

Didn't you learn anything from our exchange? Please don't make me come over there...!!

Grrr. :)

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Ruby
I grew up in England and did have some encounters with those who taught bible stories, but I never went to church, and I never heard the term "Christian". I never heard of anyone praying over anyone. No one in my family prayed over a meal or even mentioned God. The church of England was stiff, reserved, and completely non-evangelising when I was there. I was not even aware of people "living for Christ". I never heard about Jesus or the resurrection or that "He died for our sins". The only bible story that I remember being told was "The Good Samaritan" by a teacher in school. It was not taught as a bible witness. In fact, I don't think I even knew it came from the bible.

I was exposed to Christianity when I came to America at fifteen, and a friend insisted I needed to get baptised or I'd end up in Hell. That scared me, but not enough to get baptised. I ventured off into Spiritualism and looking at other beliefs.


It's so interesting to me that England (and much of the rest of Europe, too, I believe) is so much less xian than we are here. My husband is from England, too, and his mother, brother, sister and nephews still live over there. We go to visit sometimes; hopefully, next summer we'll be headed that way. Whereabouts in England are you from? His family lives in Leicestershire.

Anyway, my mother-in-law and brother-in-law are atheists just like us, while my sister-in-law is undecided. She laughs at some of the fundamentalist nonsense when she's over here.

Originally posted by Ruby
I don't think the whole bible is a fable. I do think that not all the bible can be taken literally or be applied to today's standards.

I just can't comprehend the whole "picking and choosing" thing, myself. It seems as though people just choose to rationalize the parts that either say something that we now know to be impossible, or say something that they just don't want to believe, by saying those parts weren't meant to be taken seriously. But the other parts, the parts they like, were. I just can't wrap my head around the concept of believing parts of a book and not others. Not a book that is supposed to be divinely inspired. That's the key.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by triadboy
I just want to know what parts they believe is true

It's dynamic, they will change their religion to suit their needs at the time.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Triadboy....::shakes head::

Didn't you learn anything from our exchange?



But you still never answered the query.

Name something related in the bible you think really happened.

And it's not fair to say, "I don't care about the events in the bible - all I care about is my love for Jebus."

[Finella]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Triadboy....::shakes head::

Didn't you learn anything from our exchange?



But you still never answered the query.

Name something related in the bible you think really happened.

Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthians. Sheesh.

And it's not fair to say, "I don't care about the events in the bible - all I care about is my love for Jebus."

You obviously forgot what I spent about three pages posting to you in direct answer to your query, since I never said "All I care about is my love for Jesus."

Again, you're not willing to try to meet me halfway, so I can't explain it any more clearly to you.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Paul wrote two letters to the Corinthians. Sheesh.

Touche - you are correct. Corinthians is actually 6 letters. Corinthians I is nearly intact. Corinthians II is 5 other letters spliced together...AND there is another Corinthians letter mentioned in Corinthians I that has never been discovered. But you are correct in naming these letters as something that actually happened in history.

Do these letters make you think? The community of Corinth took the dying-god myth Paul preached to them and went hog wild with it. Paul had to write these letters to actually dampen the enthusiasm.

You obviously forgot what I spent about three pages posting to you in direct answer to your query, since I never said "All I care about is my love for Jesus."

You seem to be favor the NT and I would imagine you respect Paul greatly. One great eye-opener would be to jot down the things Paul says about Jesus the man. It may surprize you.