CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[ChristianPatriot]

In the "church" thread, there was a comparison made putting things such as tattoos, certain types of clothing material, and certain types of food on the same moral plain as abortion. He was absolutely right. If there is no God, than tattoos, clothing, food, and abortion are all equal. Right and wrong are determined largely by society. We (humans) are the basis for our own right and wrong because there is nothing beyond what we can see/feel/taste/etc.

I am 1,000% at peace with anyone that wants to believe those things. I'm just trying to warn you that you won't like the conclusion. Man being the basis for morals sounds nice and freeing, but it never stops there. Societies have never moved towards more freedom. Ever. They always move towards more control. The founding fathers understood this. The morals of men change constantly. I am sure that you love all of those inalienable rights. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of/from Religion. Freedom to protect yourself. You just don't want to concede that they were endowed by their Creator. If they were endowed by man, than they can be taken away by man. Not that long ago, abortion was generally accepted as wrong. Clearly, now it is not. You're ok with that because it lines up with your beliefs. What happens when it doesn't? What happens when society determines that freedom of speech is wrong? Think it won't happen? It already is.

Society is moving away from absolute truths. You shouldn't push your version of right and wrong on someone else because it's not their version of right and wrong. Sounds like live and let live, but it most assuredly is not. If society determines that pedophilia is acceptable, will that make it right? Euthanasia? Burning people at the stake for entertainment? It was acceptable to the Romans, so by your own definition, it most definitely was morally good.

I choose not to put my trust in man as the arbiter of right and wrong. Men waiver. Men fail. Men make wrong decisions. Men pass judgement without basis. I choose to put my trust in God. He never changes. He never fails. I will continue to practice freedom of speech whether society tells me I can or not. My rights are inalienable. My rights come from the Creator of the Universe.

 

[steveh_131]

As wrong as a tattoo or a poly-cotton blend, or eating shellfish....abominations, all.

This is a very important topic that I think even many Christians don't understand. I didn't get it until more recently.

The Israelites were held to different standards than later Christians. Things like purity in their food, clothing, hygiene, etc were enforced. Not because those things were inherently important, but because it demonstrated to us the impossible level of purity that separates us from God. The pharisees had really latched onto this in a legalistic way.

Jesus came and let them know that they missed the point, and to let us know that His purity is all that we need and we are no longer separated from God. The ceremonial cleansing and rituals became obsolete - God's law did not.

I think Penn Jillette put it best, I'm not a Christian precisely because I've read the bible. If you just read it and take it at face value I don't see how you can believe it. Granted I've never heard God tell me the NIV is his exact words like he's told other people. I've lined up and read the texts of different religions and, in a vacuum, I don't know how you'd choose one over the other.

I've spoken with many atheists over the years. I don't think I've met one yet who didn't claim to have read the entire Bible - sometimes more than once. Most proved to be dishonest in that claim. Heck, I bet 80% of proclaimed Christians that I've met haven't read the entire Bible.

The Bible is a very long and complex read. Scholars spend their entire lives trying to understand it. Are you honestly going to tell me that you read the entire Bible and made an effort to understand it?

 

[PaulF]

This is a very important topic that I think even many Christians don't understand. I didn't get it until more recently.

The Israelites were held to different standards than later Christians. Things like purity in their food, clothing, hygiene, etc were enforced. Not because those things were inherently important, but because it demonstrated to us the impossible level of purity that separates us from God. The pharisees had really latched onto this in a legalistic way.

Jesus came and let them know that they missed the point, and to let us know that His purity is all that we need and we are no longer separated from God. The ceremonial cleansing and rituals became obsolete - God's law did not.

God doesn't change...except when he does. And if God makes a "covenant" he later regrets? No big deal, he will just send another version of himself to deliver a "new" covenant...which everyone is sure to take totally seriously...because god doesn't change.

I've spoken with many atheists over the years. I don't think I've met one yet who didn't claim to have read the entire Bible - sometimes more than once. Most proved to be dishonest in that claim. Heck, I bet 80% of proclaimed Christians that I've met haven't read the entire Bible.

The Bible is a very long and complex read. Scholars spend their entire lives trying to understand it. Are you honestly going to tell me that you read the entire Bible and made an effort to understand it?

I decided to read the bible for myself when I was a child, so I did...cover to cover. It was there on the family room table waiting for me. it was my "family" bible, a big leather-bound affair. (I'm pretty sure it was NIV). Later, in my high school years I really-read it (skipping over much of the genealogy this time). In college I tried to read the King James Version, but I couldn't get past the language.

In no small part it was actually reading the bible that led me to becoming an atheist. You write that 80% of the Christians you know have never read it completely...that comes as no surprise to me, as they likely wouldn't be Christian anymore either.

That book is full of nonsense. Read it sometime.

 

[rvb]

This is a very important topic that I think even many Christians don't understand. I didn't get it until more recently.

The Israelites were held to different standards than later Christians. Things like purity in their food, clothing, hygiene, etc were enforced. Not because those things were inherently important, but because it demonstrated to us the impossible level of purity that separates us from God. The pharisees had really latched onto this in a legalistic way.

Jesus came and let them know that they missed the point, and to let us know that His purity is all that we need and we are no longer separated from God. The ceremonial cleansing and rituals became obsolete - God's law did not.

The tearing of the temple curtain at Christ's death is of tremendous significance!
Truly a New Covenant; a new law replacing the old. What many call a contradiction in the bible is a misunderstanding of the significance of what Christ's sacrifice meant.

I've spoken with many atheists over the years. I don't think I've met one yet who didn't claim to have read the entire Bible - sometimes more than once. Most proved to be dishonest in that claim. Heck, I bet 80% of proclaimed Christians that I've met haven't read the entire Bible.

The Bible is a very long and complex read. Scholars spend their entire lives trying to understand it. Are you honestly going to tell me that you read the entire Bible and made an effort to understand it?

[/quote]

I have been working to read the entire Bible for the first time. Genesis to Revelation. My goal has been to do it in under a year. That's about 3.5 chapters per night on average to get there. A year. At a pace that seems blazingly fast. There are entire chapters, if not entire books that I know I am miles away from a true understanding (especially the prophesies later in the OT!).

This study has helped to piece together all of the individual stories I grew up hearing in Sunday schools and sermons into one overarching theme of a very consistent, forgiving, jealous God who wants nothing more than a relationship with us. Through Christ he made that relationship easier than ever.

All of the inconsistencies I had heard about and discussed with non-believer friends that created doubt dissolved as part of this endeavor. In context, by actually reading it all, I'm better understanding just how consistent the story and prophesies are. The non-believer says reading the bible will make you realize it's all a lie. It's done the opposite for me. There are certainly parts that have to be taken on faith. Noah's ark is an obvious example. But faith is the whole point.

-rvb

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You write that 80% of the Christians you know have never read it completely...that comes as no surprise to me, as they likely wouldn't be Christian anymore either.

That book is full of nonsense. Read it sometime.

In context, by actually reading it all, I'm better understanding just how consistent the story and prophesies are. The non-believer says reading the bible will make you realize it's all a lie. It's done the opposite for me. There are certainly parts that have to be taken on faith. Noah's ark is an obvious example. But faith is the whole point.

-rvb

Isn't this interesting. Both are steadfast in the other being wrong.

 

[PaulF]

Isn't this interesting. Both are steadfast in the other being wrong.

I'm not sure where you get that. He has his interpretation, I have mine. What I think we are both saying is: read the book for yourself, be your own judge.

(It's what I was driving at, anyways...)

 

[Denny347]

I'm not sure where you get that. He has his interpretation, I have mine. What I think we are both saying is: read the book for yourself, be your own judge.

(It's what I was driving at, anyways...)

You mean that 2 people can read the EXACT same words and come away with entirely different meanings???????? Or form opposite opinions.......What??????

 

[Jludo]

This is a very important topic that I think even many Christians don't understand. I didn't get it until more recently.

The Israelites were held to different standards than later Christians. Things like purity in their food, clothing, hygiene, etc were enforced. Not because those things were inherently important, but because it demonstrated to us the impossible level of purity that separates us from God. The pharisees had really latched onto this in a legalistic way.

Jesus came and let them know that they missed the point, and to let us know that His purity is all that we need and we are no longer separated from God. The ceremonial cleansing and rituals became obsolete - God's law did not.



I've spoken with many atheists over the years. I don't think I've met one yet who didn't claim to have read the entire Bible - sometimes more than once. Most proved to be dishonest in that claim. Heck, I bet 80% of proclaimed Christians that I've met haven't read the entire Bible.

The Bible is a very long and complex read. Scholars spend their entire lives trying to understand it. Are you honestly going to tell me that you read the entire Bible and made an effort to understand it?

Yes the words are right there, the things said and done are laid right out in front of you, it's not hard to understand. I've also read a dozen books, at my moms urging, which attempt to explain to me what I misunderstand about the bible. All arguments involve taking at least some things on faith. Having never heard God speak to me , I'm not willing to believe just because my parents say it's the single correct religion in a world full of religions.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not sure where you get that. He has his interpretation, I have mine. What I think we are both saying is: read the book for yourself, be your own judge.

(It's what I was driving at, anyways...)

OK. Sure.

 

[Jludo]

The tearing of the temple curtain at Christ's death is of tremendous significance!
Truly a New Covenant; a new law replacing the old. What many call a contradiction in the bible is a misunderstanding of the significance of what Christ's sacrifice meant.





I have been working to read the entire Bible for the first time. Genesis to Revelation. My goal has been to do it in under a year. That's about 3.5 chapters per night on average to get there. A year. At a pace that seems blazingly fast. There are entire chapters, if not entire books that I know I am miles away from a true understanding (especially the prophesies later in the OT!).

This study has helped to piece together all of the individual stories I grew up hearing in Sunday schools and sermons into one overarching theme of a very consistent, forgiving, jealous God who wants nothing more than a relationship with us. Through Christ he made that relationship easier than ever.

All of the inconsistencies I had heard about and discussed with non-believer friends that created doubt dissolved as part of this endeavor. In context, by actually reading it all, I'm better understanding just how consistent the story and prophesies are. The non-believer says reading the bible will make you realize it's all a lie. It's done the opposite for me. There are certainly parts that have to be taken on faith. Noah's ark is an obvious example. But faith is the whole point.

-rvb

Do you think if you read a different religious text you wouldn't feel the same for that religion? There's lots of good in most texts, it's just hard to say one is more correct than another. There are people in Indonesia having the same debate about islam and I'm sure they believe just as strongly they grew up with the correct text.

 

[JettaKnight]

Do you think if you read a different religious text you wouldn't feel the same for that religion? There's lots of good in most texts, it's just hard to say one is more correct than another. There are people in Indonesia having the same debate about islam and I'm sure they believe just as strongly they grew up with the correct text.

Then judge the text against historical evidence. (see 'textual criticism')

Jos. Smith's tablets may be "good", but the fail when judged for what they are.

 

[Jludo]

Then judge the text against historical evidence. (see 'textual criticism')

Jos. Smith's tablets may be "good", but the fail when judged for what they are.

So you think the historical evidence objectively and entirely supports the bible as truth?

 

[indiucky]

You mean that 2 people can read the EXACT same words and come away with entirely different meanings???????? Or form opposite opinions.......What??????

Not only that but they may witness the same events and yet come away with a different version of what happened...The great director Akira Kurosowa did a wonderful film that illustrated this called "Rashoman"....A good flick by the way...

[video=youtube;xCZ9TguVOIA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCZ9TguVOIA[/video]

As many Atheists (or agnostics in the case of Bart Ehrlman) point out the four New Testaments offer contradictory versions of the life of Christ but the gist of the message remains the same....What you are describing is a human trait and is to be expected when reading ancient texts...One should not discount (IMHO) these ancient writings because of this...

 

[Jludo]

Not only that but they may witness the same events and yet come away with a different version of what happened...The great director Akira Kurosowa did a wonderful film that illustrated this called "Rashoman"....A good flick by the way...

[video=youtube;xCZ9TguVOIA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCZ9TguVOIA[/video]

As many Atheists (or agnostics in the case of Bart Ehrlman) point out the four New Testaments offer contradictory versions of the life of Christ but the gist of the message remains the same....What you are describing is a human trait and is to be expected when reading ancient texts...One should not discount (IMHO) these ancient writings because of this...

I understand the differences in stories about Jesus. It's the people living to 900, giants, global floods, young earth etc. The ones science has something to say about.

 

[steveh_131]

God doesn't change...except when he does. And if God makes a "covenant" he later regrets? No big deal, he will just send another version of himself to deliver a "new" covenant...which everyone is sure to take totally seriously...because god doesn't change.

That is incorrect. He did not 'regret' the first covenant. The first covenant pointed to the second, allowing us to grasp the real significance of its fulfillment.

Later, in my high school years I really-read it (skipping over much of the genealogy this time).

This is what I don't get. You read it a second time, really reading it, and you don't understand the purpose of the two covenants? A reading of only the red letters would dispel the fallacy that God 'changed his mind' between the old testament and the new.

If these core misunderstandings are the basis of your rejection then I strongly urge you to keep digging.

ETA - The verse I alluded to: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

[steveh_131]

There are people in Indonesia having the same debate about islam and I'm sure they believe just as strongly they grew up with the correct text.

So if two people strongly believe two different things, this is evidence that both are wrong? What sort of logic is that?

 

[indiucky]

So you think the historical evidence objectively and entirely supports the bible as truth?

I do....

I have researched this quite a bit and came at the Old Testament Bible (as a non believing skeptic) and walked away very appreciative that the authors saw fit to record these events to the best of their ability so that we in our time would know what it was like for the people chosen by God to serve Him...

The New Testament is (written in the style) of Greco/Roman History and was recorded so that we in the future would know the miraculous events that took place in that region at that time when God sent His only son to die for our transgressions....I for one am glad it was written down and VERY glad that we quit burning people at the stake for translating these works into the common language. (We common folk have only had access to the Bible for about 400-500 years.) That way folks like PaulF and myself could read these words and make our own decisions...


The Holy Bible and especially the New Testament are very dangerous books and folks in power over the years have done every thing they can to keep folks from reading these works....We can't let the common folk know that God loves them and cares about them, that's the King/State/Government's job now isn't it????

 

[eldirector]

I understand the differences in stories about Jesus. It's the people living to 900, giants, global floods, young earth etc. The ones science has something to say about.

I have a conjecture (not even really a hypothesis, let alone a theory) about that.

The original texts were written to the audience of the time. Describing something like "the Big Bang" would have been a BIT over their head. It is STILL a bit over our head.

Then again, I am perfectly comfortable not taking every passage literally. YMMV.

 

[Jludo]

So if two people strongly believe two different things, this is evidence that both are wrong? What sort of logic is that?

No, but when hundreds of confident religions and ideologies come and go through the centuries this particular one begins to look a bit like the others. There's a reason people aren't flocking to Mormonism and scientology, it's not that they're any more crazy, just more recent.

 

[steveh_131]

No, but when hundreds of confident religions and ideologies come and go through the centuries this particular one begins to look a bit like the others. There's a reason people aren't flocking to Mormonism and scientology, it's not that they're any more crazy, just more recent.

I can understand that, but in a logical sense it has no bearing on the accuracy of any given one of them.