The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Originally posted by jake1997
JJ
You certainly hit on one thing I didnt notice before. The largest complaint you hear from liberals is that christians should keep it inside the 4 walls of the church. They dont want it following them out in the public square or in the court room or class room or TV or.....

Why? Its not like christianity is front and center everywhere. But whenever the least little bit shows up, people go nutz. There is plenty of other stuff being FORCED on society. Pick up the paper, turn on the TV. There are million dollar ad campaigns and political agendas being rammed down your throat and you take it lying down.
Along comes christianity with a little bit of convicting by the Holy Spirit and you fly into a rage against it.

hmm

Well, the reason we rail against Christianity (or any other religion) being represented by govt. officials or on govt. property such as courthouses is that our Founding Fathers fought like hell to get the Puritan church off their backs. Most of them were Deists without a religion yet they chose to found a nation where any religion could be followed and any god worshipped without govt. interference and without requiring the public to pay for or follow any one god or religion. Separation of church and state. It's worked pretty well so far hasn't it? Not the bible thumpers want the 10 Commandments posted on govt. property. Why? Our govt. kills more than anyone else. The hypocrisy inherent in such a move as well as that of our fearless leaders claiming to be Christians is laughable. Christianity is a front used to keep real scientific or reasoned discourse from evaluating the decisions and behavior of those espousing it as the chosen faith. Keep your dogma. Keep your myth. Write a book. Just understand that you and all other 'true believers' are being used for political ends. As someone posted early Christians were used politically by the Emporer of Rome. As happened then, you and your faith are simply tools in the hands of Bush and the neocons. How does it feel?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
pray i don't end up like that car stuck under the lorry

You got it brother! If you need more time here on this floating ball in space, then I'll certainly ask for it.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i could describe it but i think you want me to say 'but you have to ''see'' it to realise what it really is'?

I don't really have a plan for your answers. If you'd describe it, I think that's an excellent answer. In fact, I'm trying to do...er...I would do the same thing. I'm thinking though the description isn't enough of an appeal to try it out, so what's the next step?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
not sure. guess she thought somehow it'd sway me.

Hm. I dunno. Maybe she didn't either. It be an interesting question to ask her I think. Along with, "how did you come to believe?" or "why do you believe?" I guess for me, I'm an experience-based person. I read all those biology books, but they meant very little to me until I walked into a lab. It was only then that I was scrambling for the 'instruction manuals'. Others seem not to have any issue with just reading before knowing what to do.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
maybe that's what i got to settle for. if you're right and i'm wrong, i'm headed to a place really bad, but at the end of the day i'm not the only one going there.

That's no good. Don't like that answer at all .

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the funny thing is i never could see myself praying, or having a relationship with god...doesn't 'seem' like me.

It doesn't seem like a typical daily thing like filling up your gas tank or paying for something at a store...but then again, neither is walking up to a girl you like and saying hi for the first time. It's awkward at first, but after a while you build a rapport. I think it's acceptable to start off with, "S'up God? It's me..." I wouldn't be able to pull of a, "For thine thou art shall unto" thing 'cause that's not how I talk...and I don't think I'd know what I'm saying even if I did. If I ever become a pastor, I think it'd be pretty cool to close:

Me: ...and the people in Hizzouse said...
Congregation: Woot!

Same message as, "And the people of His church said... amen". At least to my ears. I guess it's a cultural thing.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
no hesitation, i just don't see the same gain as you see.

Wanna go to the amusement park?


[edit on 4-10-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Glad you brought that up spamandham. Funny thing about the human spirit, we have a conscious. We have the side that knows the right thing to do and a side that knows the wrong thing to do.

Interestingly, different cultures seem to different inherent knowledge. Nature, nurture, or some combination? Even murder is acceptable in some cultures.

Originally posted by saint4God
It seems to me there's been some re-programming (which is certainly also possibly by our will) going on to where faith is seen as on the sin side, instead of a precursor to blessings.

From my perspective, there is no such thing as sin. There is only that which serves me, and that which doesn't. Faith doesn't. Faith costs me humiliation in relationships, financial loss in the markets, etc. It makes sense for animals with limited language and reasoning skills to operate on faith, they have no better tools available to them. But for an animal with better tools to use faith instead of reason is not wise.

Originally posted by saint4God
I'm willing to assert that it was caused by pain and is an act of retribution to God. How, or why all this happened, I'm not entirely sure. I don't think you've revealed that yet.

The actual cause was finally reading the whole Bible. I got caught up in the inerrancy doctrine for a while as the only way to salvage my faith after having read that silly book, and even became :shudder: a YEC for a brief period. I'm still battling with the consequences of that BS.

Then I started reading books by Hank Hanegraaff, Lee Stroble, and numerous others on the evidence in support of the Resurrection. It dawned on me that the evidence was extremely weak. Oops. Shouldn't have gone down that road.

Originally posted by saint4God
Kudos to the Mrs. by the way, what denomination does she go to that has the contemporary band?

She calls herself Catholic, but this particular church is an independent one that's on offshoot of Southern Baptist. That's where I was when I finally had my catharsis.

Originally posted by saint4God
Links aside, because I'm not very good at communicating with people who don't want to talk to me about it, let's go right to your assessment of inconsistencies.

I dont understand, you think I dont want to talk to you? Here are verses that are clearly contradictory, whats the problem?

Originally posted by saint4God
It other words, He's saying we're not going to get it sometimes...at least, not right away anyway.

So we are capapble of seeing contradictions in our own ways, but when he does something the exact same, its different because its him? We're not smart enough to know why he does it, but smart enough to know we're too stupid.

Originally posted by saint4God
As for point #2, what 'flaws' are we talking about?

Us.

Originally posted by saint4God
Yes, but you said you didn't think the Bible survived thousands of years because of historical accuracy. I was curious to know how you thought it did survive thousands of years.

It's funny you should ask, because I think it's been "forced" on people for as long as its been around. If you didnt believe in it, you were seen as evil and for the Devil. Kinda like if your not for us, your against us. Do you really think every Christian through-out history chose to be a Christian out of their own free-will?

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I dont understand, you think I dont want to talk to you?

I like hearing someone's own conclusions in the order that's most important to him/her. If you're saying that you've come to the same exact conclusions and in the same order of importance, I'd be glad to discuss them with you. I do like to take things one at a time though, it can get chaotic with ballooning lists. Right now, page 66 isn't loading for me so I'll have to get back with ya on it.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Here are verses that are clearly contradictory, whats the problem?

Well, the page won't load, but will get right on it when it does.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
So we are capapble of seeing contradictions in our own ways, but when he does something the exact same, its different because its him? We're not smart enough to know why he does it, but smart enough to know we're too stupid.

Can't wait for my browser/that page to work again, I can't see what you mean yet.

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Us.

Aha! Okay, now we're moving along. Yep, we're flawed. Hm, how did that happen? Genesis 1 & 2 looks like we're good. Genesis 3 tells us something happened. Hm. Looks like we used the ability to make decisions against God. That's not good. Why did we do that? Some bad advice, desire, disobedience, placing blame, looks like it snowballed from there. God gave us the responsibility of free-will. Was that a mistake and why?

Spam, I'm curious, what was it that convinced you that fundamentalism was a bunch of bunk, and what, in the first place, convinced you to become a fundamentalist?

Originally posted by spamandham
Interestingly, different cultures seem to different inherent knowledge. Nature, nurture, or some combination? Even murder is acceptable in some cultures.

Our country has rules on murder being okay (i.e. death penalty, abortion, etc.) but do we feel in our heart that it's the right, compassionate thing to do? Or do we get angry when the topic is brought up along with a bunch of 'justifications' as to why we should break that commandment?

Originally posted by spamandham
Faith costs me humiliation in relationships, financial loss in the markets, etc.

As Jake asked in different words, how so?

Originally posted by spamandham
The actual cause was finally reading the whole Bible. I got caught up in the inerrancy doctrine for a while as the only way to salvage my faith after having read that silly book, and even became :shudder: a YEC for a brief period.

I'm still battling with the consequences of that BS.

What's a YEC? I'd not heard that term before.

Originally posted by spamandham
Then I started reading books by Hank Hanegraaff, Lee Stroble, and numerous others on the evidence in support of the Resurrection. It dawned on me that the evidence was extremely weak. Oops. Shouldn't have gone down that road.

I think it's a great topic to discuss and totally applicable here...but why were you reading about support for the resurrection if you already believed?

Originally posted by spamandham
She calls herself Catholic, but this particular church is an independent one that's on offshoot of Southern Baptist. That's where I was when I finally had my catharsis.

Souther Baptist with a band now? Go baptists! Last one I was at was still hymning along but that was a decade ago. Nothing wrong with hymning, but not my preferred style.

So so, good music. How's the message?

originally posted by junglejake
If the government decided to put Satanist beliefs and symbols depicting those beliefs, I would be remarkably disappointed. I would probably want to know what the reasoning is that the government chose to do this. Was it for historical sake, as many of the memorials across the country were? Was it to show solidarity with Satanist's beliefs? Was it done because a large number of people in that area believe in Satanism?

More than likely, I would challenge it. I would write to the local, state and federal politicians in regards to it, maybe even protest it if that were logistically possible. However, I would not try to remove it by revoking Satanists' first amendment rights. I would not try to force the law to remove it. I would work at the politicians. Those whose future job would depend on the majority. I wouldn't threaten to sue. I wouldn't insist a judge misinterpret our religious freedom because I don't like the message something conveys.

Thank you,

Just understand that it is human nature to try to challenge symbols that represent a certain percentage of the public, in monuments used by the whole public.

I certainly do not condone taking anyone's free will, and rights away. I think that in places designated as separated from religion, symbols conveying a particular faith, not shared communially, will always cause conflict.


[edit on 4/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]

Originally posted by junglejake
Spam, I'm curious, what was it that convinced you that fundamentalism was a bunch of bunk, and what, in the first place, convinced you to become a fundamentalist?

After reading the Bible, I was left in a quandry. It is so filled with obvious hooey that it becomes difficult to accept the idea that there is truth hidden within the pages, obscured by human failing (the Catholic perspective). Before actually reading the whole thing, it was possible to accept that perspective. So I was driven toward a more black and white perspective. I either had to embrace inerrancy, or begin to question the foundations of faith. That's what led me down the fundamentalist route.

You'll notice a much higher incidence of fundamentalism among sects that concentrate heavily on Bible study, such as the Southern Baptists. I suspect the ranks are filled with people who found themselves in the same quandry I found myself after I studied it.

As far as what convinced me it was bunk? The knowledge I learned about archeaology and early church history during my quest to "prove" my faith directly contradicted inerrancy doctrine. One day, it dawned on me that it could all be a lie. That opened the door to listening to other perspectives and contradictory evidence. It's quite a journey to go from cradle Catholic to Baptist fundamentalist to atheist.

Originally posted by spamandham
It's quite a journey to go from cradle Catholic to Baptist fundamentalist to atheist.

Of that there can be no doubt! What, specifically, though, was it? What was the obvious hooey, and what was the archaeological evidence and biblical history that convinced you it was false?

Originally posted by saint4God
Our country has rules on murder being okay (i.e. death penalty, abortion, etc.) but do we feel in our heart that it's the right, compassionate thing to do? Or do we get angry when the topic is brought up along with a bunch of 'justifications' as to why we should break that commandment?

We seem to have an innate tendency to care about people who are similar to us, and tend to care less about people who are dissimilar, often to the point of preferring their deaths. Considering this is almost universal, it's probably instinctive. I can imagine how these tendencies would be beneficial in hunter/gatherer clans or small tribes.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by spamandham
Faith costs me humiliation in relationships, financial loss in the markets, etc.

As Jake asked in different words, how so?

Believing that someone feels a certain way about you simply because you desire it to be true, or hanging onto a losing investment out of faith that it will recover are not smart things. I'm using faith in the generic sense in those cases, and not in the religious sense.

However, in the religious sense, there are also actual costs associated with faith. I now save 10% and sleep in on Sundays . Beside that, I'm no longer judgemental toward others who pose me no harm, such as same-sex couples, swingers, drug users, people of competing faiths, etc. I no longer worry that I'll end up in heaven while a loved one is lost. I no longer have to try to make sense out of how god can be loving and just and yet allow his children to be tortured forever. I no longer have to try to reconcile the blood thirsty tyrant god who demands sacrifices of the Old Testament with the new and improved Trinity of the New. I no longer buy into the whole 'give to caeser' mantra. Most importantly, I am no longer required to shelter myself from other ways of thinking.

Originally posted by saint4God
What's a YEC? I'd not heard that term before.

Young Earth Christian. I allowed myself to be convinced that the earth was no more than 6000 years old. Admitting that is particularly embarassing. The beauty is that I'm much less critical of myself than I used to be. I'm just a talking hairless ape, so why should I expect so much?

Originally posted by saint4God
I think it's a great topic to discuss and totally applicable here...but why were you reading about support for the resurrection if you already believed?

I was reading them to strengthen my ability to convert others. I just didn't feel like I could make a good case to nonbelievers unless I could meet them on common ground, or at least that's what I thought at the time. In retrospect, I think I was subconsciously trying to disuade my own doubts without having to admit to myself that I had doubts.

Originally posted by saint4God
How's the message?

I found it inspiring in my believer days. As far as churches go, it seems to be pretty infectious, er, uhm, I mean effective. My attendance has been dwindling over the years since apostasy. I think I've only been once in the last year, so I'm not sure how it fairs these days.

Originally posted by junglejake
What, specifically, though, was it? What was the obvious hooey, and what was the archaeological evidence and biblical history that convinced you it was false?

You're asking for the contents of a library. There's not a single thing I could point to as "the reason". Rather, it was an overwhelming number of small reasons that caused me to realize I had the burden of proof backwards.

As far as hooey goes, the flood story is certainly up there on the list, but I think my favorite is the she bears Elisha summoned up to shred the group of boys who made fun of his baldness (2 Kings 2). This even beats the talking donkey.

As far as evidence goes, the most compelling evidence is that there is no compelling evidence.

Am I really to believe that god came to earth in human form, preached to thousands, with miracles witnessed by thousands, with the dead raised walking around Jarusalem seen by many, and not a single contemporary found these events worthy of being written down? Not only should there be at least one account, but there should be many! Certainly it makes no sense for god to reveal himself directly to thousands of people, while simultaneously making sure the record of these events was not reliably written down. You have to assume god is either incompetant or for some reason gave favor to people in the first century over those of who followed later.

But as a specific point, there was no city of Nazareth in the first century. If there was no city of Nazareth, then Jesus was not from Nazareth as the gospels claim. There are also geographical errors in the gospels that exclude the gospels from being reliable accounts. If the gospel writers couldn't get the basics straight, why should we even suspect there is any truth in the more fantastic claims?

I have yet to hear a coherent response as to how Nazareth, which was big enough to have a synagogue and a crowd of people who were not the friends and family of Jesus, could be so small as to have left no archaeological trace, nor to have been included in the list of cities of the area compiled by Jews and Josephus. The simple answer is that whoever wrote about it, was not familiar enough with the area or with Hebrew to realize he had simply made a transliteration error.

Originally posted by shaunybaby

i don't know, ask gps777 why he asked that question. well if i 'saw' a dragon, i'd question it, but i'd be more inclined to believe. the same as seeing jesus, or hearing god's voice etc... right now, i've not seen anything or heard anything so i'm not inclined to believe in something i've not experienced.

You likely also haven't experienced extreme poverty.

so now i'm unreasonable? or am i still independant? which label are you going to slap on me next...

Replace the "YOU" I use with "Someone". I am not talking about "YOU", I am discussing how behavior effects how others view you. I would like to think you are not immutable.

wierd, you use such a grand word as 'miracle' to describe the internet. modern-miracle at most, not a 'miracle'...the term is over used, thus has lost all meaning.

I was being facetious.

i don't choose evolution 'over' christianity. you make it seem like a black and white case, which it is not. there are plenty of other theories and plenty of other religions, i do not choose evolution over them, because i'm not saying those religions and theories are false, they are just not real to me. i don't get why you can't see that i don't have a perference.

I am unsure how you can both say "They are not real to me" and "Not saying they are false" in the same sentance.

If you choose Evolution, you've made a choice out of a variety of options. This is your preference. Whether your preference is temporary or not doesn't change what it is.

Literature has always made paradigms of thought more accessible. I could say the same exact thing about any field of science.

not really... my point was: 'would people actually learn aramaic, ancient hebrew, or even latin to read older bibles, and if there were no bible's in the english language would there be as many english speaking christians'. you totally avoided the question.


Yes, Really. Without chemistry books, or physics books, or any book that details science, the accessability of scientific thought is drastically reduced. Do recall that a mere 200 years ago, the school system didn't exist. If there were no science books in the english language, there would be less scientists.

you've called me bias, you think i'm independant but on the brink of becoming unreasonable(or already unreasonable), you think i'm immature, you think i'm less-wise than yourself...like i said you love to dress it up. so in essence you do think i'm trash or my words are, you've just dressed it up to not sound so bad.

Actually I haven't "CALLED" you anything. I have cited behavior. Behavior can be changed, and is in constant flux, for that matter. I do think you're immature, and I honestly can't say you are less wise as wisdom in and of itself is a functional quality rather than a hard quality in a persona.

Trash = Something without intrinsic value.
Flawed = Something less than perfect.
Innaccurate = Something either given to embellishment, or with a misappropriation of stated facts or pseudofacts.

Trash is a statement of the intrinsic value of things. As such, no, I don't think the bible is intrinsically value-less. It just might be that it holds a lower value to me than it does to others, but that doesn't make it trash to me.

yeah i noticed how you like to call the internet a miracle...you bring that word down, which is used to describe jesus healing the blind and feeding the 5000, to a level much lower. want to talk about 'DEGRADATION' of words...that's one fine example there.

You miss my raging absurd level of praise for the internet in calling it a miracle, I was being "OVER THE TOP" in my emphasis in an effort to be smarmy. I am sorry you didn't catch that.

i don't spend my time burning books, or the bible, or burning down libraries. i think that shows i have more respect than you give me credit for. i'll ask you if you think the porn industry is trash? is no one aloud to call it trash, because it makes people a living, it entertains, and is a lifestyle for some...does that mean we can't call it trash?

It entirely depends on what can be considered porn by definition. Some people view "PORN" as the depiction of any nudity or lewd act. Other people might consider forms of the above to be "Art".

knowledge that is flawed and innacurate...fine i'll dress it up like you do.

That would be difficult to do since I am not "DRESSING IT UP" or "PRETTIFYING" words that mean the same thing as how you feel. I am using words for their meaning, and nothing I have said equates the bible to trash. Perhaps you would care to discuss with an English Professor the differences between the statements I've made and the statements you've made?

to hell? also i said i didn't care about some dead authors that wrote the bible...yeah that means i don't care about 'everything' that came before me.

No, people who don't heed the past repeat the mistakes of people that went before. I think you care enough to be more than casually dismissive of certain "Dead people from the past" and what they tried to accomplish.

i was merely pointing out there is little respect from christians (extreme or not) on this forum for evolutionist...therefore why should i extend the courtesy to be respectful. if jumping off the bridge was fun i might do it, is there water below and how far is the jump??

There is just as much lack of respect for christians from evolutionists. What with people calling their holy book trash, saying they are delusional or insane, among other things. No, I am only saying you said the first part, not the second... in case you don't understand.

i know i worked in kfc over the summer, not a bad summer job...did put on a bit of weight though. if you hadn't noticed though the comment i made 'the truth hurts'...was a joke...i guess you didn't get it though.

Obviously I did not, considering the context. My failing, I suppose.

hitler was not worthless? stalin was not worthless? saddam hussain is not worthless? sorry to burst your little 'i'm wise and great bubble' but some people are worthless.

Hitler brought Germany out of a depression. Stalin created a great empire which rivalled the American Imperialism for half a century. Hussein I can't speak for, since i know little about him, but none of these people are worthless. You may hate them, revile them, and even wish that they never came to be, but their worth is in the manner which they touched the world. Monsters change the world far easier than men of noble hearts, for they lack scruples.

And even in these monsters, we learn life lessons. Or one should hope we do.

Nobody is worthless.

get over it hippie.

ad hominem.

you've already branded the use of miracle sufficient enough to use to describe the internet.

Assumption based off of incorrect parsing of data.

you're such a hypocrite and you don't even know it...

Ad hominem.

now that's called being 'self-delusional'.

Ad Hominem.

all you've been saying is you can't find god in a book, the same as saintforgod saying god is not ink. my question was 'how can someone find god whilst looking in a mirror...but not in a bible that was inspired by god, and apparently has spoken words by god? again you have totally unanswered the question, and gone for the sarcastic approach.

Indeed, I was being sarcastic. The mirror isn't what made saint4 aware of god, I do believe it was god. Just as the bible isn't a telephone, there is no definitive way to get gods attention or feel the presence of god. In a sense, everything works. You could find god in a taco, though your friends would never let you live that down.

You want some sort of function that makes sense.... well, it doesn't have to. Mirror, Taco, Bible, War, whatever. None of them are "THE WAY", the way is ones self and god, but things can help you get there. Especially if God wants to help you get there.

so you're saying people 'can' find god in the bible? why then is saintforgod telling me 'god isn't ink'.

Because he isn't, just like he isn't in the book. You can find him anywhere he wishes to be found. Anywhere *HE* wishes to be found. Perhaps the book just wasn't your thing.

a synonym for loud-mouthed is 'LOUD', sorry if it's a little confusing. but for someone that keeps on about dictionary definitions and using words appropriately, doesn't half get it wrong a lot of the time.

And yet the colloquial usage terms it to be someone who prattles on. Okay, here's a word that better suits; Voluble.

like i said you're in essence calling it trash. flawed and innacurate, it's not exactly positive critism.

Until you realize I am defending it's intrinsic value as vehemently as a christian might. My communion with god is mine, I don't need the book to do so. Likewise, my experiences do not have to be the same as saint4's. They can be disparately disproportional or just not equate at all. Spirituality is the ultimate "Have it your way" in regards to how you come by it.

bragging about yourself only gives one perspective of you: 'an arrogant, self-delusional person, who loves to brag about himself'. you have also showed signs of being a hypocrite, i could point some examples out for you if you want me to. i could give you a few more labels, because i know how you love to dish them out.

You are free to think whatever you like about me. You may be as incorrect as you are correct. If it makes you feel better to call me a braggart, hypocrite, and self-delusional, by all means do so. Whatever makes you happy.

And that isn't sarcasm. I wash myself of your emotions.

What's interesting about Nazareth is that it is mentioned, but this mention was in a completely unexpected document. When Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, priests were no longer needed in the temple because...Well, it went and got its self busted. As a result, the priests were sent out throughout Israel. A list was discovered in Aramaic by archaeologists describing the 24 families of priests that were relocated. One of them was entered in as having gone to Nazareth. If it wasn't there, where did the priest go?

On top of that, archaeologists have discovered what they believe to be first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth. Since Jewish burials had to take place outside of the town proper, these establish the town's limits, which seem to be about 60 acres. Jack Finegan in The Archaeology of the New Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), "From the tombs...it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period." Even Ian Wilson said, "Such findings suggest that Nazareth may have existed in Jesus' time, but there is no doubt that it must have been a very small and insignificant place." (Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence, 1984)

This might also explain John 1:48:

"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.

Granted, these are secondary and not primary sources, but I'm not an archaeologist, so I don't do too much digging, and I don't read Aramaic.

Good to have you here CrystalSword.

Question for you if I could. What specifically about Christian belief do you find not credible?

It's good to be here.

As for your question... let me first say this; I tend to make statements from my own point of view that have layers of nuance. Such as the statement before about most christians and most scientists. There's always a manner of explanation which I am willing to supply, especially since most people tend to jump to the worst conclusions first.

In any case... I feel that a good majority of my issues with mainstream christianity involve the interpretations commonly accepted. As I stated before, I am not one who believes in sin, as I feel it is a system to enforce behavior that isn't genuine. There are contradictions within the bible, which most likely have to do with man's misinterpretation of whatever the original message was, or perhaps the desire for powerful men to have more influence by changing text. I do not entirely trust the Church aspect of Christianity, as I feel that God's church is the world, not within the walls of man.

This would be the "FLAWED" aspect, which is primarily brought about by the desire of men to have their own visions of a goodly world imposed over the Godly world.

As for "Innacurate", alluding to the above, I believe the original message has been peverted over time and shifts in political power of those that controlled the origina texts.

it is relevant to add that the BIBLE as we know it is a consolidation of "CHOSEN" texts from a vast array of scrolls and booklets, the rest of those books and scriptures not being added to the bible being considered "Apocryphal" against the Mother Church's vision of what the faith should become.

I am unsure if this clarifies some things, or if I am merely rehashing things I may have already stated... it is a rather long conversation.

[edit on 10/4/2005 by TheCrystalSword]

Originally posted by junglejake
What's interesting about Nazareth is
...
A list was discovered in Aramaic by archaeologists describing the 24 families of priests that were relocated. One of them was entered in as having gone to Nazareth. If it wasn't there, where did the priest go?

It would be more interesting if it were actually written in the first century rather than the third/early fourth.

Originally posted by junglejake
On top of that, archaeologists have discovered what they believe to be first-century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth.

Certainly, the region we currently call "Nazareth" existed. The problem is that modern "Nazareth" does not fit the Biblical descriptions. No synagogue has been found anywhere near these tombs, nor any cliffs from which a crowd could threaten to throw Jesus. The discovery of modern day "Nazareth" dates to the discovery of a well which was declared to be Nazareth by the Catholic church, with no justification whatsoever. By then, the nonexistence of Nazareth was already causing problems. Anything whatsoever would have sufficed, which is exactly what they chose.

Originally posted by saint4God
Looks like we used the ability to make decisions against God. That's not good. Why did we do that? Some bad advice, desire, disobedience, placing blame, looks like it snowballed from there. God gave us the responsibility of free-will. Was that a mistake and why?

I just don't see how things could have gone as they did, and God still not condone me not believing in him. How can he be god, and not have things his own way? If he gave me free-will, he should have seen this coming. Im only human . What does he expect when I have no reason to believe he exists? Since you have claimed to contact him, tell him no harsh feelings alright?

Originally posted by saint4God
I contend that you can only be Christian out of your own free-will.

This thread isnt about Christians, its about Christianity and what it has become. If you are told, this is what you believe or you die(not lately), chances are its not free-will. I believe Christianity has survived through fundamentalist parents who "force" it on their children and scare them with "hell".

The page works good for me, maybe it works for you too now.

Your friendly neighborhood Charlie Murphy

Yes, Charlie, there has been corruption in the church where people were demanded to change their minds and believe in something, or they face execution. However, think of when the church first began. You could believe in Christ, and that didn't mean you got to live. It meant you were assured of torture and death if anyone found out. Like the Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, Christians knew what they believed to be true, and were willing to face torture and execution for it. That sounds like free will to me.

Originally posted by spamandham
We seem to have an innate tendency to care about people who are similar to us, and tend to care less about people who are dissimilar, often to the point of preferring their deaths. Considering this is almost universal, it's probably instinctive. I can imagine how these tendencies would be beneficial in hunter/gatherer clans or small tribes.

I think the primary issue with murder is the intent of the person inacting it, and the pain it causes the victim and the family. It doesn't seem to me death is evil (else we're all doomed 'cause we're all going to die), but rather what effect murder has to the hearts and minds of the people involved. No doubt tribal culture is different than modern day. Just by reading the Old Testament and comparring to now, we can see that. It seems crude and statutory, but that's the way it had to be for people then. It looks clear to me that God doesn't care what happens to the body (the Book isn't a collection of volumes for burial rites) but rather what goes on inside - how we feel and how we think.

Originally posted by spamandham
Believing that someone feels a certain way about you simply because you desire it to be true,

I've done that before. Got burned for it too. But, I think that's why talking about it is soooo important to break down those misconceptions. I'm not sure specifically who you're referring to, but for me it was my spouse. I assumed too much and actually caused us both a lot of damage for it.

Originally posted by spamandham
or hanging onto a losing investment out of faith that it will recover are not smart things. I'm using faith in the generic sense in those cases, and not in the religious sense.

I suppose it all depends on what a person is putting their faith into. I know I'm not supposed to put my faith into the failures of mankind, because, well, we're flawed. I can certainly hope for the best, but for me to put all my faith into a person or company is a prelude to disappointment because there's only one direction it can go when you have 'perfect' expectations for them. Naturally I had to learn that lesson the hard way. When I've put my faith into God however, it has never failed, even though it may not have been my desired outcome at the moment. Yeah, it might've made me angry then, but later on I came to understand why it had to be that way.

Originally posted by spamandham
However, in the religious sense, there are also actual costs associated with faith. I now save 10% and sleep in on Sundays

.

I have a puzzle called "Who is the greater giver?":

Person A: Attends church every Sunday and puts 10% into the offering plate because s/he believe s/he will be punished (in this life or the next) for not giving.

or

Person B: Sees a homeless person, makes a phone calls, helps the person get cleaned up and gets that person a job.

Person A gave about $300,000 in his/her lifetime to the church. Person B gave $0. Who gave more?

Originally posted by spamandham
Beside that, I'm no longer judgemental toward others who pose me no harm, such as same-sex couples, swingers, drug users, people of competing faiths, etc.

Uh, my Book says not to judge (Matthew 7). If anyone is judging people, they're not going by the Book.

Originally posted by spamandham
I no longer worry that I'll end up in heaven while a loved one is lost. I no longer have to try to make sense out of how god can be loving and just and yet allow his children to be tortured forever.

I have a question. Would any of us be able to enjoy heaven if we had to bear the suffing of loved ones in hell?

Originally posted by spamandham
I no longer have to try to reconcile the blood thirsty tyrant god who demands sacrifices of the Old Testament with the new and improved Trinity of the New.

Does God change or remain the same? If he changes, then it shouldn't be that hard. If he does not, then apparently we've misunderstood what he's been trying to tell us. Which is it? I'd rather hear everyone else's thoughts than offer my opinion. I do know we broke many promises with him in the Old Testament.

Originally posted by spamandham
I no longer buy into the whole 'give to caeser' mantra.

So...you don't pay taxes then?

Originally posted by spamandham
Most importantly, I am no longer required to shelter myself from other ways of thinking.

I don't know why anyone would in the first place.

Originally posted by spamandham
Young Earth Christian. I allowed myself to be convinced that the earth was no more than 6000 years old. Admitting that is particularly embarassing.

Egads! You've made a mistake, how dare you! Don't you know all Christians are perfect when drawing conclussions from stuff not written in the Bible? Wait, that would make us God, wouldn't it? Which we're not, so...

Originally posted by spamandham
The beauty is that I'm much less critical of myself than I used to be. I'm just a talking hairless ape, so why should I expect so much?

"I knew hairless apes. Hairless apes are personal friends. Spamandham, you are no hairless ape." Seriously though, you've easily demonstrated that you're much more than a product of your environment.

Originally posted by spamandham
I was reading them to strengthen my ability to convert others.

Ack! You and I can't convert anyone. God is the only one who can convert anyone to believing.

Originally posted by spamandham
I just didn't feel like I could make a good case to nonbelievers unless I could meet them on common ground, or at least that's what I thought at the time. In retrospect, I think I was subconsciously trying to disuade my own doubts without having to admit to myself that I had doubts.

I think that's a very sharp observation. Most impressive indeed.

Originally posted by spamandham
I found it inspiring in my believer days. As far as churches go, it seems to be pretty infectious, er, uhm, I mean effective. My attendance has been dwindling over the years since apostasy. I think I've only been once in the last year, so I'm not sure how it fairs these days.

*nods*. This weekend the church I go to is having an 'Inquirer's Weekend' where we sit for a few hours and roundtable questions. Wish I could take you with me...though I'm wondering if me being there would be more than enough for them to handle . I'm sure it'll be fabulous experience despite my many questions. I'm going to bring up the 'loved ones' question, you'd better believe it. I'd like to hear what they have to say about it too.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
In any case... I feel that a good majority of my issues with mainstream christianity involve the interpretations commonly accepted.

Well, maybe I can help as soon as I look at the list on the previous page Charlie has cited. What I think is most interesting, is a lot of people say they cannot accept Christianity because of 'flaws' in the Bible. These flaws never include that there's a loving God nor problems with the messages Jesus taught. Usually it's something like "The Bible doesn't know math because it says pi = 3" or science in that "The earth is 6,000 years old" or better still "it says the earth is flat". When I ask for the quoted verse, I get a paragraph of extrapolation of how it could mean what it doesn't say.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
As I stated before, I am not one who believes in sin, as I feel it is a system to enforce behavior that isn't genuine.

When you were younger and your parents asked you to do something, did you do it because you had to or did you do it because you wanted to. The fact that you did what you were told had no bearing on whether it was genuine or not.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
There are contradictions within the bible, which most likely have to do with man's misinterpretation of whatever the original message was,

Can you provide the example that has the greatest impact for you?

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
or perhaps the desire for powerful men to have more influence by changing text.

"Love your neighbor" and "love your enemies" hardly seems like a polical move, how does this work into politics?

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I do not entirely trust the Church aspect of Christianity, as I feel that God's church is the world, not within the walls of man.

God's church is indeed everywhere. A lot of Christians gather together to read and/or listen with each other, that's true. If a Christian "leaves God at the door" when they leave, I feel that's a big problem.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
As for "Innacurate", alluding to the above, I believe the original message has been peverted over time and shifts in political power of those that controlled the origina texts.

In this statement you sound convinced. See question on political motivation above.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
it is relevant to add that the BIBLE as we know it is a consolidation of "CHOSEN" texts from a vast array of scrolls and booklets, the rest of those books and scriptures not being added to the bible being considered "Apocryphal" against the Mother Church's vision of what the faith should become.

I've read quite a bit from the Apocrypha, seems pretty redundant. I didn't see any 'shocking' or 'new' information in them that adds to the message. I believe there was a question of sourcing and verification at the time to see if they should be included. The only people I know who "miss" those books are those who like to make the case that the Book has been 'changed', which isn't really what occurred. What is missing piece of the Apocrypha that I'm not aware of that is important for my salvation?

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I am unsure if this clarifies some things, or if I am merely rehashing things I may have already stated... it is a rather long conversation.

No worries friend, I think we all get a little redundant now and then. As long as the thoughts are your own and not www.thebibleiscrap.com, I don't mind talking about them.

I'll take a look and address a website's 'contradictions of the Bible' though I don't like to a webpage that can't talk back, but if it truly helps someone here with similar concerns I'd say it's more than worth it.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by saint4God]