EPTChristianity and Faith - Page 7
| Blogs > plbro81 |
Oh boy, a religion thread <_< Remember to keep discussion civil. I'll be monitoring this heavily - empyrean. | ||
|
blankspace
United States292 Posts
| ||
|
bode927
United States164 Posts
That's a great thing to have. However, as a Christian, I know that Peter writes in the Bible that we should be ready to give reason for the hope that we have. That's why I have read many books, watched many debates, and listened to many lectures on the topic. When conversations like these arise, I am able to defend and discuss my faith with almost anyone | ||
|
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
The stage you're going through is not uncommon so don't worry about it. Even Jesus told us not to worry! | ||
|
FakePlasticLove
United States357 Posts
1. Believe in God 2. Believe in Jebus 3. Don't go to church (organized religion sucks anyways) 4. Do good things / don't do sin ez life. No need to carry around a thousand year old book to guide you in today's society. No need to revolve your entire life around faith. Just live your life to the fullest. But hey, at least you are not a muslim of ye weak faith. Imagine the inner mind battles. brb stoning homos > democracy User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Maliris
Northern Ireland2557 Posts
| ||
|
pyaar
United States423 Posts
1. The Gospels provide internal evidence that the writers themselves were either eyewitnesses of the events or interviewers of eyewitnesses. 2. The Gospels are full of irrelevant details that have no needed meaning for the story of Jesus. There are places all over where it says things like "early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark"... now if these books were written just as stories, and not eyewitness accounts, why would they include this type of information? 3. The Gospels are full of self-destructive details. Such as when they all write that the empty tomb was first discovered by a woman. In that time, a woman was not considered a credible source... So if they were making this up, and they wanted their information to be credible, why would they all make the first eyewitness to the empty tomb a woman? 4. Mostly, the Gospels give the same basic account of Jesus' life. If they were written individually, where did the consistency come from? However, they also contain minor discrepancies, displaying evidence that they were not all written from the same original writing. 5. The Gospels just are not written in a literary format that would be considered as a legendary writing format. Writers in this day did not often write fiction in this way. It was not until much later that that particular writing style was invented. 6. What motives would these writers have for making up stories about Jesus? They died painful deaths for what they wrote and believed in. Why would they die for a lie? 7.There are many archaeological findings to corroborate what the Gospels have written. There have been no archaeological findings that contradict conclusively what the Gospels have written. So you see, it looks to me like the Gospels are reliable as historic documents. They record very clearly a man named Jesus, who claimed to be, and did acts to show that he was God. Vergil's personification of rumor in Aeneidos Liber Quartus: + Show Spoiler + She flourishes by speed, and gains strength as she goes: first limited by fear, she soon reaches into the sky, walks on the ground, and hides her head in the clouds. Earth ... bore her last, a monster, vast and terrible, fleet-winged and swift-footed, ... who for every feather on her body has as many watchful eyes below, as many tongues speaking, as many listening ears. If you've ever played the game "telephone" at a summer camp or something then you already understand how terribly distorted information can become when passed from one individual to another. We're fortunate to live in an age where misinformation is much less of a concern, but in a world where a person seldom ever traveled more than a few miles beyond his birthplace it's easy to understand how something could quickly get out of hand, especially when supernaturally charged. With this in mind, examine the facts about the gospel. Even many Christian scholars agree with the consensus that they were written decades after the events they describe took place. Furthermore, scholars reject that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses (John is attributed to a collection of authors and Matthew is thought to have been based off of Mark. Mark and Luke are not even traditionally held to be eyewitness accounts). If we can trust that the majority opinion of scholars on this subject, which has been researched extensively, then it is clear that the gospels must have been based off of secondhand information, which is a terrible source if truthfulness is important at all. It's naive to believe that there could not have been changes to the narrative of Jesus along the way. Don't forget, also, that even after the gospels were originally written, they were handed down through two millennia through repeated copies. The oldest manuscripts we have are from a few centuries after these books were written. Your points are so trivial or questionable that they can't make up for the glaring problems I've just discussed. Your base your discussion below on the assumption that all four gospels are perfect accounts of the life of Jesus, but in light of all this I think you really should reexamine that thought. I might raise some additional points: why do hardly any sources outside of the Bible even mention such a monumental figure as Jesus? One of the only references to him from a secular writer is in a book by Tacitus, but even the authenticity of this reference is heavily disputed. Also, why did nobody take note of the awe-inspiring things the Bible says happened when Jesus died, like the darkness, the resurrection of the holy, the tearing of the temple curtain, and the earthquake? I simply can't find myself very convinced that the gospel accounts can be taken as legitimate. edit: I can't help but comment on this: Also, it's really impossible to argue with evolution as it's a fact. Evolution is accepted as a theory, which is held to be true by science unless contradictory evidence surfaces. Of course, much of what we can and have observed overwhelmingly confirms evolution, but there is no way to know that we will not have more knowledge in the future. Galilean relativity, established in 1632, was accepted until Einstein advanced his theory of special relativity in 1905. The people in the 17th century couldn't have fathomed in their wildest dreams modern developments like nuclear clocks, which we have used to test the ramifications of special relativity. | ||
|
bode927
United States164 Posts
On June 23 2011 14:37 pyaar wrote: Vergil's personification of rumor in Aeneidos Liber Quartus: + Show Spoiler + She flourishes by speed, and gains strength as she goes: first limited by fear, she soon reaches into the sky, walks on the ground, and hides her head in the clouds. Earth ... bore her last, a monster, vast and terrible, fleet-winged and swift-footed, ... who for every feather on her body has as many watchful eyes below, as many tongues speaking, as many listening ears. If you've ever played the game "telephone" at a summer camp or something then you already understand how terribly distorted information can become when passed from one individual to another. We're fortunate to live in an age where misinformation is much less of a concern, but in a world where a person seldom ever traveled more than a few miles beyond his birthplace it's easy to understand how something could quickly get out of hand, especially when supernaturally charged. With this in mind, examine the facts about the gospel. Even many Christian scholars agree with the consensus that they were written decades after the events they describe took place. Furthermore, scholars reject that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses (John is attributed to a collection of authors and Matthew is thought to have been based off of Mark. Mark and Luke are not even traditionally held to be eyewitness accounts). If we can trust that the majority opinion of scholars on this subject, which has been researched extensively, then it is clear that the gospels must have been based off of secondhand information, which is a terrible source if truthfulness is important at all. It's naive to believe that there could not have been changes to the narrative of Jesus along the way. Don't forget, also, that even after the gospels were originally written, they were handed down through two millennia through repeated copies. The oldest manuscripts we have are from a few centuries after these books were written. Your points are so trivial or questionable that they can't make up for the glaring problems I've just discussed. Your base your discussion below on the assumption that all four gospels are perfect accounts of the life of Jesus, but in light of all this I think you really should reexamine that thought. I might raise some additional points: why do hardly any sources outside of the Bible even mention such a monumental figure as Jesus? One of the only references to him from a secular writer is in a book by Tacitus, but even the authenticity of this reference is heavily disputed. Also, why did nobody take note of the awe-inspiring things the Bible says happened when Jesus died, like the darkness, the resurrection of the holy, the tearing of the temple curtain, and the earthquake? I simply can't find myself very convinced that the gospel accounts can be taken as legitimate. Yeah, except when we play telephone these days, we remember that we have computers, phones, voice recorders, camera's, etc. Also, a very high percentage of our society can read and write. Keep in mind that their entire society revolved around keeping accurate logs of what people said, and reciting it with accuracy later. Comparing that to telephone just does not work. Think about it. Early century Christians were crucified, killed, murdered, and were just the Roman's scapegoats for blame. If that was you, would you not give up your made up convictions to escape that? I know I would. Why didn't they? it says this in 1 Corinthians 15: 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. Why would paul claim that most of the eyewitnesses were still living if there were no eyewitnesses... Seems a little elaborate for a telephone game scam. Also, there are at least 3 independent sources outside the 4 Gospels where the historical Jesus is specifically mentioned. Josephus, Tacitus, and Paul are those three, all independent from the Gospels. Parts of tacitus's writing on Jesus is in question you are correct, but not its entirety. Your statements about it being handed down for millenia are inaccurate. Most modern translations use the oldest manuscripts of which there are thousands of copies. Through the use and study of those manuscripts, the text is considered some 90+% completely accurate, with an additional 8% considered dependable. This leaves only a small percentage in question. Also, for my points to be valid, I do not need the ENTIRE 4 gospels to be completely perfect, just reliable enough to be used for historical information. Keep in mind that the manuscripts for the NT Gospels are far earlier and more numerous than for any other comparitively aged document by plato, aristotle, alexander the great, etc. | ||
|
Preppy038
1 Post
Christian faith is not blindly believing. It is a personal relationship with God that is possible through the Holy Spirit. The personal relationship is built through experiences. But i guess you are also having a hard time 'experiencing the existence of God'. I too went through the same thought process that you are going through. I have a background in the life sciences where evidence is regarded as a requisite for truth and this thinking doesnt really apply explicitly to God (not everyone has seen God in His true form). Especially as I prayed, i also felt like my prayers werent being answered. But there is something you have to grasp about prayers and answers. God does not always answer our prayers in the way we expect. Some people hear the words of God as if He is whispering to them. Some people dont (in fact many of us probably dont). Some people hear the words of God when someone says to them the right words at the right moment. Some people experience the existence of God through other people's testimonies. Some people experience God as they look at their past and how they came to the place they're at right now. If you still feel unsure about your prayers being unanswered. You should try keeping a prayer book for specific prayer requests that you have made. Its important that your prayers are specific and not generic because if it's too generic, you will never be able to convince that it was God or just luck. Also with regards to your statements regarding whether religions are made for our morality. We, human beings, always seek to redeem ourselves. The wrongs, mistakes, regrets and all the things that we did that made us feel insecure need to be dealt with for us to feel secure. Religions give you that by its rituals prayers, rules, and laws that make us feel better because we feel as though we did something to redeem ourselves of our sins (a reason why OCDs exist; the need to complete a certain set of tasks before feeling comfortable). Religion works well because it gives a temporary relief to our insecurity and discomfort. But because we always make mistakes, we end up going back to the situation where we sin again (criminals have a high chance of repeating the same crime). Christianity is not like thay. This is because Christianity is not a religon, by that i mean it's not about the things that we do (e.g. Not watching porn, not killing people, following the ten commandments). If you have read the Bible, you will know that the Gospel is not about us trying to redeem ourselves of the bad things we committed (e.g. Watching porn or killing our neighbour). The Gospel says that Jesus Christ came to Earth to clean us of our sins. What does that mean? It means that we dont need to do religious rituals, prayers, or kill animals to make the Creator who made us happy from killing us for committing sins. Yes, there are the rules and laws that are stated in the Old Testament but that was before Jesus came to Earth. Jesus came so that we do not have to do any of the religious rituals to redeem ourselves of the guilt we feel (God does not "require" us to repent for our sins. Repenting for what we did should be done because we want to not because we ought to. This is possible because Jesus already dealt with our sins through his death). I.e. Christianity is not about what we do or who we are(our moral behaviours) but what God did so that we dont have to redeem ourselves. You mentioned that you want to believe in God but you find it hard. Well then, you should pray that God would give you the heart to believe in Him. Know that we are not perfect. We, by nature, want to move away from God and live out our lives partying, having sex, taking drugs, and killing others we dont like(read CNN and count the number of murder reports). That is why we need to pray that God helps us believe in Him. We cannot do it by ourselves. I understand why you may feel like 'serving God' may eventually prove to seem like a waste of time especially when serving God limits us from doing so many things that we want to do. But do you really want to spend your life doing all the things that are on your mind now? I've heard of people regretting one night stands(pregnancy), overdosing themselves with drugs/alcohol, and committing murders, but i've never heard of anyone who truly had a personal relationship with Christ regret that. Im not saying everyone regrets doing the things above. The above is bad logic and i admit it. But reality doesnt make sense, fiction does. Lastly, faith without sight is NOT correct at least according to the Bible. Also, reason is as important in Christian faith as 'emotion'. There's a reason why theology is an academic discipline, to 'understand', not feel, God. 2€ | ||
|
Shizanu
Germany44 Posts
I there a god (=supernatural entity)? Does god exist the way depicted by the church? Do I believe in the church as the way to practise my religion? Those are all different questions, and I would begin with the first one. As to the "I feel myself degrading slowly morally": Again another business entirely. If you believe in god and the church as an institution representing god on earth, then obviously their moral rules, would be yours. But there are a lot of other ways to find moral guidelines to be a "good" person. As already stated, in the end you have to answer those questions yourself. Thats going to take time and wont go planned, but some day you are going to come across something that decides you. Just go searching - in all directions. Study your religion, study non-religious philosophy, maybe also study other religions - but most of all ask questions yourself and see if the answers given to you make sense - and if not find your own. | ||
|
Gak2
Canada418 Posts
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones" - Marcus Aurelius | ||
|
adeezy
United States1428 Posts
The biggest thing's that religion can give, (at least what I think), is hope and perseverance. The poorest of countries have a strong coorelation to religion, and it's not just because of the education, it's because it gives people hope that the end of our lives is just the beginning something more real. Quite simply Religion gives purpose to our life other than just living it. In an unfair world, only a just god would help give equality and balance to our universe. In my personal experience, doubts are okay because they are just instances where we can grow our faith. You shouldn't feel bad about the way it's going, especially with the way you still want to learn. However during my times of doubt, especially when I asked questions like "Do you even exist" or "Why did you do this or let this happen", the answer occurs to me later in the big picture, only through endurance and hope. And as for these morals and virtues, I found them a lot easier to attain with church/surrounding myself with other people striving for the same thing. People are right, you can be a good person without church or religion, however, faith sure does help. People in history that I admire, gandhi, MLK, mother theresa, etc, are all people of religious backgrounds, I for sure bet if we asked them if religion was a big role in their growth as a person they would say yes. Anyways, I hope somewhere along the way you find your answer but regardless I hope you also continue to grow as a person. God speed | ||
|
BadWolf0
United States300 Posts
 ) it's more of a everyone present their views and reasons so the OP can take it all in and make his own semi-informed decision. I say semi because any decision regarding a belief/faith system contains an element of uncertainty. I was raised in a very orthodox Jewish house by a very learned man (nuclear physicist/rabbi). I struggled a lot with religion, especially after my sexuality surfaced as that's a real sticking point with most orthodox religions. I went through a hardcore atheist/debating phase as many people do when they transition from a world like that. I used to be one of the atheists who would pretty much attack anyone expressing religious beliefs, in fact my beliefs most line up with the HC troll from earlier. That said, my personal belief system has changed over the years. I spent two years living in FL with a very conservative christian family, and was part of a community that was majority religous. I was privy to alot of their faith related discussions and they frequently included me as (I think) an entertaining counterpoint. I am no longer an asshole about the issue, that is the best way to put it. I still don't believe in god, but my beliefs have expanded. One thing I've learned is that everyone experiences doubt. People like to say there are no atheists in foxholes. This references the fact that many atheists experience doubt too, which they attempt to shrug off as weakness. Doubt, in of itself, does NOT mean that you are a bad christian or destined to become an atheist. I would really encourage you to read books from both sides of the issue and spend some time meditating. Spend some daily time, preferably after your reading, in complete silence. Attempt not to think. I learned how to meditate from a pastor in FL who I loved talking too. He did it to feel at peace and closer to god. I did it to try to achieve a deeper calm, and shrug off superficial crap that kept me from being a centered person. The point here is, contemplation is good. Meditation/prayer are both helpful. Just remember that the results are going to be similar either way. No-one will give you a right answer and whichever way you go you will not end up with any comfortable security in being right unless you (imo) are unhealthily arrogant. Rest assured that you are a good person, this doubt doesn't make you evil in anyone's eyes. The looking at porn thing too does not make you an evil person. I think the biggest point I wanted to make is that you don't need an immediate decision! It's apparent that you are beginning to realize that you've never taken the time to contemplate this so it's a good thing to take a step back and meditate on it. Some of the greatest people I know have been religious, but also some of the worst most small minded people I know have been. Religion in of itself is no reflection on your character or intelligence. My father is a crazily conservative Jew. I think he is crazy for his beliefs, however I promise you that man is smarter then 90% of the people I've ever met (I'm not exaggerating it actually used to drive me crazy). This doubt is just a sign that you are maturing intellectually. That does not mean I think maturity = rejection of your childhood beliefs but this is a transition period most thinking people of faith do experience. You will either come out of it with a deeper faith or a new self-created belief system but either way you WILL grow. You might even be lucky enough to feel 100% confident in your beliefs when you come out of it, just in time for the next belief-shaking episode of doubt. That is life. Anyone who tells you they have never experienced some form of doubt is either lying or hasn't experienced it yet or really really lucky. Congratulations though, whatever you decide just realize you are developing and that is a beautiful thing. | ||
|
dragoon
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
On June 23 2011 09:14 plbro81 wrote: Hey what do you mean when he answered your prayer? I have prayed many times but never "felt anything." What was it like having God answer your prayer? It was a quite a few years ago. I was really lonely, going to a school with people that were just unlike me, having parents that couldn't go a day without screaming at each other. I began to question my faith because of how alone I felt. So I prayed to God, asked Him to show me that He exists to give me something hopeful. He didn't come and be like "hey here I am, now cheer up." But I felt God's presence, I felt Him comfort me. After that I became a much happier person know that he's always with me. | ||
|
Shifft
Canada1085 Posts
| ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
On June 24 2011 03:54 Shifft wrote: You say that you want to believe in god but you're finding it hard. My question to you would be why do you want to believe? It's certainly possible (probably even easier) to be a good person and live a good life without religion, so what benefit do you gain from your faith? Personally I was raised in a non-religious family and I couldn't even imagine committing so much of my mind and time to believing in something that can't be proven. Ultimately though which religion or lack thereof that you choose to believe in is a personal decision that should be made after informing yourself of all available options and deciding for yourself which seems to be the most plausible. Only reason I can imagine for a rational person wanting to be part of a religious group is having a community. Most of us need friends, people that support us and for some it is not as easy to gain permanent source of human compassion. This is the easy way, If of course you can accept some rules(or fake it). Other reason may be that some people want to have some power over people and this is possible in these groups where you became a shepherd of your own sheep and you can even rise in the hierarchy - so it may be a life-time self-realization. | ||
|
Buffy
Sweden665 Posts
Had the same problem as you with being afraid of death, but they helped me get over it ^____^ | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On July 07 2011 19:35 LastWish wrote: Only reason I can imagine for a rational person wanting to be part of a religious group is having a community. Most of us need friends, people that support us and for some it is not as easy to gain permanent source of human compassion. This is the easy way, If of course you can accept some rules(or fake it). Other reason may be that some people want to have some power over people and this is possible in these groups where you became a shepherd of your own sheep and you can even rise in the hierarchy - so it may be a life-time self-realization. That's a good reason for joining any group, not just one that is religious in nature. That is NOT a good reason for having a certain belief like the OP's. A rational person should have rational reasons for believing (whether it be existential, historical, logical, etc.). The Christian community would fall apart if its members were only there for community or security or comfort (which many would say is happening now) and not on a strong belief in the actual core tenets of Christianity (mankind's depravity, Jesus' deity, death and resurrection, etc.) On June 24 2011 03:54 Shifft wrote: My question to you would be why do you want to believe? It's certainly possible (probably even easier) to be a good person and live a good life without religion, so what benefit do you gain from your faith? Good question. However, belief shouldn't be contingent on perceived benefits, it should be because of truth. If something is true, you should respond accordingly regardless of whether you benefit. You don't benefit much from believe someone is pointing a gun at you with bad intentions, but if that is reality, that gun is there regardless of what you want to believe. NOTE: I'm not trying to make any truth claims about Christianity, I'm just saying that belief should be rational. Christians should have a good reason for believing what they believe that go beyond apparent benefits they receive, because 1) if you don't have good reason to believe, there's no reason for you to be a 'Christian', and 2) Christianity at its core is NOT about benefiting the believer, but giving glory to God. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On June 21 2011 17:08 plbro81 wrote:I've read the Bible a couple times, and when I think about it, all of it seems so fake. Like Noah's ark, men growing to be 800 yrs old, and Goliath. What makes Christianity different from other religions in retrospect? I used to laugh at other religions because they were "stupid" but is Christianity really any different? It's so hard to believe sometimes. Is there really a heaven and hell? Is there really a God? When I do something bad, why am I beating myself up over it? Is religion just something created by man to establish moral codes? Have any Christians went through this phase I'm going through? I really want to believe in God, I really do. I just find it so hard to do so lately. I feel myself degrading slowly morally, which is alarming me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bad guy, in fact, I would say I'm a pretty good person. I don't cuss, I don't get into fights, I am a really kind guy. I'm not looking for a reason to do things looked down upon in the Bible. I just want to know whether spending my life "serving God" is a waste of time and I should just live life to the fullest. So, any advice on how to get through this phase? Or what to do? Most christians do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, especially in the old testament. Basically, the most rational way to get value out of the bible is to understand it as a series of stories meant to teach a lesson, some of which make sense, and some of which dont. Even though it was inspired by divine events, the Bible has been written, rewritten, and translated by mortal hands, and so, like the people who wrote it, it is flawed. Even the Gospels are at odds, and they are second-hand descriptions anyways. Live life like jesus would; be kind to others, and gentle. Speak with forgiveness and understanding. Don't be good due to some childish ideas of the afterlife, but rather, do well by your fellow man because it is righteous. This is how Jesus would want you to live. Belief in God and those other side dishes like the Bible and the Saints will come and go. And that's okay, as long as you keep on working on the main course of being as good a man as you can. | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On June 23 2011 14:37 pyaar wrote: + Show Spoiler + If you've ever played the game "telephone" at a summer camp or something then you already understand how terribly distorted information can become when passed from one individual to another. We're fortunate to live in an age where misinformation is much less of a concern, but in a world where a person seldom ever traveled more than a few miles beyond his birthplace it's easy to understand how something could quickly get out of hand, especially when supernaturally charged. With this in mind, examine the facts about the gospel. Even many Christian scholars agree with the consensus that they were written decades after the events they describe took place. Furthermore, scholars reject that any of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses (John is attributed to a collection of authors and Matthew is thought to have been based off of Mark. Mark and Luke are not even traditionally held to be eyewitness accounts). If we can trust that the majority opinion of scholars on this subject, which has been researched extensively, then it is clear that the gospels must have been based off of secondhand information, which is a terrible source if truthfulness is important at all. It's naive to believe that there could not have been changes to the narrative of Jesus along the way. Don't forget, also, that even after the gospels were originally written, they were handed down through two millennia through repeated copies. The oldest manuscripts we have are from a few centuries after these books were written. Your points are so trivial or questionable that they can't make up for the glaring problems I've just discussed. Your base your discussion below on the assumption that all four gospels are perfect accounts of the life of Jesus, but in light of all this I think you really should reexamine that thought. I might raise some additional points: why do hardly any sources outside of the Bible even mention such a monumental figure as Jesus? One of the only references to him from a secular writer is in a book by Tacitus, but even the authenticity of this reference is heavily disputed. Also, why did nobody take note of the awe-inspiring things the Bible says happened when Jesus died, like the darkness, the resurrection of the holy, the tearing of the temple curtain, and the earthquake? I simply can't find myself very convinced that the gospel accounts can be taken as legitimate. I agree with you that the majority of scholars, both conservative and critical, cannot support the authorship and accuracy of the four gospels. However, they do support several books (undisputed among critical scholars) that contain accounts, specifically Galatians and 1 Corinthians, which directly reference Jesus, his claim to deity, and his death and resurrection. The author, Paul (which is, again, undisputed), spent the first half of his life persecuting Christians. Why would he then spend the second half living a lie, to death, in complete opposition to his previous beliefs? I think you underestimate the significance of second-hand sources and time between event (death of Jesus) and first record [of decades] which I believe is about 25 years (1 Corinthians). Is this not better than the works of Plutarch on Alexander the Great, or Homer and his Iliad (unless you don't believe them) which are on the order of centuries? Gary Habermas has done a lot of research in this area and says that virtually no scholars, including critical non-believing scholars, deny the existence or death of Jesus, only his resurrection and deity. The Bible also has hundreds of manuscript copies and thousands of fragments to work from, which is many times better than any other records of history. Looking at those copies and fragments, as based on work done by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, you will find that the majority of the differences are trivial and there is an obvious consensus, specifically on core doctrine. On July 08 2011 00:06 Blazinghand wrote: + Show Spoiler + Most christians do not believe in the literal truth of the Bible, especially in the old testament. Basically, the most rational way to get value out of the bible is to understand it as a series of stories meant to teach a lesson, some of which make sense, and some of which dont. Even though it was inspired by divine events, the Bible has been written, rewritten, and translated by mortal hands, and so, like the people who wrote it, it is flawed. Even the Gospels are at odds, and they are second-hand descriptions anyways. Live life like jesus would; be kind to others, and gentle. Speak with forgiveness and understanding. Don't be good due to some childish ideas of the afterlife, but rather, do well by your fellow man because it is righteous. This is how Jesus would want you to live. Belief in God and those other side dishes like the Bible and the Saints will come and go. And that's okay, as long as you keep on working on the main course of being as good a man as you can. I think that most people who call themselves Christians take the Bible literally, which is wrong. They should take the Bible at face value, or as intended by the original author. Most of the time it is obvious from the original text whether the language is figurative (poetry) or literal (laws or protocols); other times, it is not (like the Genesis accounts). However, I do not see any issue with disagreement with these portions of text as they are not core doctrine. (Yes, I believe the creation account as told in Genesis is not core doctrine when compared to fallen-ness of mankind, and the deity and resurrection of Jesus.) Your assessment, if for the non-believer, is sound. A Christian should never do this. Although the Bible espouses good moral behaviour, like many people have said, you do not need the Bible or religion in general to do that, not does Christianity require good moral behaviour as a prerequisite for belief. Christianity is about and broken spiritual condition of humanity with respect to God, and a need to remedy that condition and relationship as done through Jesus. EDIT: Quotes spoilered. | ||
| ||
