[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Actually, I know a lot about the Bible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 12 years which meant Mass twice a week and religion class every school year. I am baptised and confirmed (my confirmation name is Anastasia ) and have done the sacrament of reconciliation and communion more times than I can count. I have read the Bible extensively, and have taken it both literally and figuratively. When I was raised with religion, I believed everything that was written about God, Jesus, and everything else that happened in the Bible. I reiterate: I BELIEVED IT ALL. But as I grew older and had more questions that my religious mentors could not answer, that is when I stopped going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc because I felt like I was lying if I went through the motions.

That said...I don't feel that an archaeological fing validates a "story" in the Bible. I am not denying that David or Jesus or whomever existed, I'm just saying that the whole basis of Christianity is centered upon what these people said, passed on by oral traditon until it was finally written down, and I think too much importance is placed on words on a page. That is where the proof is lacking for me. What other proof do we have of the lives and times of the people in the Bible other than what has been WRITTEN about them? How do we know that is what they really did, what they really said?

And I have done my own research regarding the Bible, particularly because it supposedly "condemns" my lifestyle, so I'm not just some joe-blow who doesn't have any background info about the Bible. The difference is now instead of taking it literally, like I did for 18 years of my life, I look at it as a work of fiction.

Well put

 

[Woggle Bear]

If there is no God and you know this to be true, then why should it matter to you what christians believe? I mean "God" would just be a another word, right? So why care if it's in the pledge or on money. If you do not believe in it's meaning then how are you offended by it? I really don't understand that.

Some of you seem to be anti-religous. Godophobic.
It is like some biggot getting on here and asking gay or lesbian riders to provide him with proof that their sexual prefrence is not wrong. I would think you would all be offended by this, so why is it ok to pick on the christians?

What happened to live and let live?

You don't believe in God...ok.
You are a Christian... fine.
You are Jewish...cool.
Black, white, socialist, capitialist, east coast, west coast, north, south, XC, DH what ever. Why care?

Why should it matter? Respect the other guys opinions and go on with your life.

WB

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Woggle Bear


Some of you seem to be anti-religous. Godophobic.
It is like some biggot getting on here and asking gay or lesbian riders to provide him with proof that their sexual prefrence is not wrong. I would think you would all be offended by this, so why is it ok to pick on the christians?

What happened to live and let live?


Why should it matter? Respect the other guys opinions and go on with your life.

WB

I think you are missing the point of this thread. Initially, narlus asked:
question for you Christians out there:

is it inconsistent to agree w/ darwin's (et al) theories and be Christian, or do you need to have a strict interpretation of Genesis and believe in creationism?

discuss.

He was wanting to know everyone's view of this. And this thread isn't as offensive and negative as you would think. We have all debated/discussed other things before, and this is a way of getting to know eachother.

 

[SVEN]

I would agree, i have always been impressed with discussions on this board, and have never been offended, and hopefully I haven' offended any. We do have our different views, and different reasons for having those views. i certainly don't lose any sleep over other people not believing what i believe. If I wasn't confident in my beliefs, I wouldn't stand by them at all. but, alas, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At first, i needed to go through these issues for myself (and continue to do so) so that i was confident I was weighing enough eveidence to make a decision. but once I allowd God to work in my life, evidence becomes much more personnal. For instance, as a child, not knowing what love is, you could tell me you love me and I would have to take it on faith. but after that, and after learning that love is a choice with actions that support it, when I see you actually loving me, I don't need you to tell me you love me anymore. i know it by experiencing it. I, in turn, know my faith is not in vain by what I have seen and experienced in my life, tangible things which, when added together, take away all reasonable doubt that I have been led astray.

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by SVEN
I would agree, i have always been impressed with discussions on this board, and have never been offended, and hopefully I haven' offended any. We do have our different views, and different reasons for having those views. i certainly don't lose any sleep over other people not believing what i believe. If I wasn't confident in my beliefs, I wouldn't stand by them at all. but, alas, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At first, i needed to go through these issues for myself (and continue to do so) so that i was confident I was weighing enough eveidence to make a decision. but once I allowd God to work in my life, evidence becomes much more personnal. For instance, as a child, not knowing what love is, you could tell me you love me and I would have to take it on faith. but after that, and after learning that love is a choice with actions that support it, when I see you actually loving me, I don't need you to tell me you love me anymore. i know it by experiencing it. I, in turn, know my faith is not in vain by what I have seen and experienced in my life, tangible things which, when added together, take away all reasonable doubt that I have been led astray.

Well put.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by Woggle Bear
If there is no God and you know this to be true, then why should it matter to you what christians believe? I mean "God" would just be a another word, right? So why care if it's in the pledge or on money. If you do not believe in it's meaning then how are you offended by it? I really don't understand that.

Some of you seem to be anti-religous. Godophobic.
It is like some biggot getting on here and asking gay or lesbian riders to provide him with proof that their sexual prefrence is not wrong. I would think you would all be offended by this, so why is it ok to pick on the christians?

What happened to live and let live?

You don't believe in God...ok.
You are a Christian... fine.
You are Jewish...cool.
Black, white, socialist, capitialist, east coast, west coast, north, south, XC, DH what ever. Why care?

Why should it matter? Respect the other guys opinions and go on with your life.

WB

Unfortunetly some people have very narrow minds and only see one side.................Their side. They are not willing to open their minds for a second and rationaly see the other side. This is usally how they were raised and tought to believe.

Look at the suicide bombers, they are told for their actions they will go to a better place. Is this a true fact? This I'm sure has been writen for them and they follow it thinking that what they beleive is correct. I find them to be pycho Mo Fo's that don't even belong on the face of this planet.

I don't have anything against religion, but to me its a personal thing and should be kept to themselves. If someone feels that their actions here on earth will get them to the great after life, more power to them. Unless anyone can provide CONCRETE EVIDENCE on the bible or evolution, people need to STOP preaching that they are the only correct ones.

Anyways Christianity is a newer religion, are all the others before it a farce? Could Jesus have been a cult leader? Could David Korrish and Jim Jones been correct with their religious beliefs. Most look at those 2 as total wacko's loony pycho nut cakes.

Like I said, I don't care about people beliefs, as long as they are good people, its all good.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Actually, I know a lot about the Bible. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for 12 years which meant Mass twice a week and religion class every school year. I am baptised and confirmed (my confirmation name is Anastasia ) and have done the sacrament of reconciliation and communion more times than I can count. I have read the Bible extensively, and have taken it both literally and figuratively. When I was raised with religion, I believed everything that was written about God, Jesus, and everything else that happened in the Bible. I reiterate: I BELIEVED IT ALL. But as I grew older and had more questions that my religious mentors could not answer, that is when I stopped going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc because I felt like I was lying if I went through the motions.

That said...I don't feel that an archaeological fing validates a "story" in the Bible. I am not denying that David or Jesus or whomever existed, I'm just saying that the whole basis of Christianity is centered upon what these people said, passed on by oral traditon until it was finally written down, and I think too much importance is placed on words on a page. That is where the proof is lacking for me. What other proof do we have of the lives and times of the people in the Bible other than what has been WRITTEN about them? How do we know that is what they really did, what they really said?

And I have done my own research regarding the Bible, particularly because it supposedly "condemns" my lifestyle, so I'm not just some joe-blow who doesn't have any background info about the Bible. The difference is now instead of taking it literally, like I did for 18 years of my life, I look at it as a work of fiction.

OK, 2 questions. One, you mentioned that when your religious mentors could not answer your questions, you kinda 'stopped' (going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc.) I do hope that they weren't the only reason you stopped. I do indeed credit you wtih more intelligence than just to say "Hm, they can't answer it.....I guess I'll stop being a Christian." *LOL* But by the same token, there are some answers that we will NEVER know - not, at least, until we get to Heaven. I guess my question is, did you continue doing studies and such? I mean, you listed how you went to classes and such, and grew up Catholic....but you didn't really talk about doing outside research. I can read the Bible all day long, and I know for a fact that sometimes I just can't figure out what the heck they're saying....UNTIL I do some serious footwork and read what others have said/researched, etc.

Two, you essentially seem to say that while you have no problem believing that those specific people existed, you have a problem with what is written about them. That's like saying you believe that they existed, but that you do not believe anything said about them in the Bible. That doesn't make sense.

 

[fourgivn1]

I'd like to point something out that people (me included) miss a lot. In short, I'll always believe in what I believe in. And I would not be a very good Christian if I did not get upset when people attack what I believe in, or if I didn't defend what I believe in.

That said, one minute after I surf away from Ridemonkey, I'm still the same guy, and I'm perfectly happy. Despite what others believe, I still love chatting here, and I don't dislike anyone. I can't say I agree with everyone's views, but obviously that is to be expected. I hold no one's views against them, and I would hope that others would extend to me the same courtesy. I will also take this time to apologize to all those who have ever taken offense (intended or unintended) from anything I have said to them...such was not and will never be the case.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Two, you essentially seem to say that while you have no problem believing that those specific people existed, you have a problem with what is written about them. That's like saying you believe that they existed, but that you do not believe anything said about them in the Bible. That doesn't make sense.

I don't want to put words in LF's mouth, but this is certainly what I believe. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and in my mind more logical, to view the bible and the stories it contains as potentially true when corroborated, but fallible in its interpretations of events and people. History has been written down by humans, and humans are fallible. There are many many historical documents that when viewed skeptically but taken as a whole, we can draw conclusions about actual events and people, but each document will have it's own religious/political/cultural spin. Example: Countless Egyptian documents record the phoroahs as a line of descendants from the gods. I believe these pharoahs EXISTED, I do NOT believe they were divine.

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


OK, 2 questions. One, you mentioned that when your religious mentors could not answer your questions, you kinda 'stopped' (going to communion, doing reconciliation, etc.) I do hope that they weren't the only reason you stopped. I do indeed credit you wtih more intelligence than just to say "Hm, they can't answer it.....I guess I'll stop being a Christian."

Well, whenever I had questions about things that never seemed to jibe with the teachings of the religion, the priests/nuns/brothers/teachers always said "well, that's what faith is for." And no, I didn't stop practicing Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, because of several things. One was that I realized that I was just going through the motions and not really examining the teachings of what I believed at the time. Like, when I realized that Catholics believe that every single time during the consecration of the host at Mass, a miracle occurs and it literally turns in to Jesus' body and blood, I felt I couldn't partake in that sacrament because I didn't believe that that happened. It was a symbol to me, at best. Original sin I thought was the actual sin of Adam and Eve that was washed from us when we were baptised, but when I asked about evolution and how it conflicted with the Adam and Eve story, I was told that Original sin was whatever sin existed in the world at that moment I was born, and that was washed from me, to protect me. As I grew older, I studied the Bible from a different view, and found that my deep embedded beliefs still made me believe the absurd could happen, because God did it. For example, I took a "Bible as Literature" class, and we were talking about Moses in the desert, and the Hebrews were complaining because they were hungry, and the notion of "manna coming from the heavens." My professor explained how there were tamarask trees in the desert, and when a branch is broken off, a liquid comes out that soon dries in the sun. This in turn creates flat, unleaven bread like edibles. Nomads still eat this today. And the whole time I was thinking "You mean manna didn't rain from the heavens?" Duh! Too many inconsistencies. Too many changing explanations trying to fit with science.

Originally posted by fourgivn1

Two, you essentially seem to say that while you have no problem believing that those specific people existed, you have a problem with what is written about them. That's like saying you believe that they existed, but that you do not believe anything said about them in the Bible. That doesn't make sense.

Well, I guess I should clarify. I believe that specific people existed. I don't believe what they said or did as written in the Bible, because that is the only source of actual conversations , events, etc. How do we know what David or Mary Magdalene or Jesus for that matter said exactly? The only evidence is in the Bible, and no place else really. Believe me, I watch the programs that show the archaeological digs of locations in the Bible, like how they may have found the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is a possiblility (that the cities actually/physically existed). But that God destroyed them because all the men were homosexuals and Lot's wife was turned to salt when she looked back on the destroyed city? That is the kind of thing I have a problem believing.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
Unfortunetly some people have very narrow minds and only see one side.................Their side. They are not willing to open their minds for a second and rationaly see the other side. This is usally how they were raised and tought to believe.

Look at the suicide bombers, they are told for their actions they will go to a better place. Is this a true fact? This I'm sure has been writen for them and they follow it thinking that what they beleive is correct. I find them to be pycho Mo Fo's that don't even belong on the face of this planet.

I don't have anything against religion, but to me its a personal thing and should be kept to themselves. If someone feels that their actions here on earth will get them to the great after life, more power to them. Unless anyone can provide CONCRETE EVIDENCE on the bible or evolution, people need to STOP preaching that they are the only correct ones.

Anyways Christianity is a newer religion, are all the others before it a farce? Could Jesus have been a cult leader? Could David Korrish and Jim Jones been correct with their religious beliefs. Most look at those 2 as total wacko's loony pycho nut cakes.

Like I said, I don't care about people beliefs, as long as they are good people, its all good.

I won't comment on any mor statemets, but I will answer questions, forgive me if they are rhetorical. About the age of christianity and what not, first, you are right, Christianity the religion is newer than some, older than others. Religion=man's attempt at pleasing, reaching, or otherwise living for/about God or gods. the key there is MAN made it, I don't defend Christianity, I don't think it is the best religion, i think all religions get tainted way or another (keep with me here). Secondly, my beliefs are not that off from Judaism (I hope no one is offended by this), with a major difference being that I believe that Jesus was the messiah prophesied about since the beginning of the Jewish religion. Therefore, my belief system is rooted, and can be traced, back to the beginning of man. But, yes, the religion of Christianity is newer.

Was Jesus a Cult leader? Could be, he could also have been downhiller who rode a V10, but that's just an idea with no backing evidence.

and about Korresh and Jones. They could have been right, but looking into there beliefs and lifestyles and influences I am more inclined to believe they were men that wanted to start something.

"But Sven, that sounds like Jesus!" Kinda does, to the uneducated and apathetic who are unwilling to look deeper into it. Again, I don't think Christianity is Right. But I do think that Jesus did in fact die for each and every one of us, and until I get proved otherwise (*which I am plenty open to, I would love to know that my beliefs are jaded, please challenge my faith in any way you see fit, I do not want to waste my time with a Savior who never saved) I will not live life as if he did not actually die for me. When someone dies for me, I take it seriously.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by ohio


I don't want to put words in LF's mouth, but this is certainly what I believe. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and in my mind more logical, to view the bible and the stories it contains as potentially true when corroborated, but fallible in its interpretations of events and people. History has been written down by humans, and humans are fallible. There are many many historical documents that when viewed skeptically but taken as a whole, we can draw conclusions about actual events and people, but each document will have it's own religious/political/cultural spin. Example: Countless Egyptian documents record the phoroahs as a line of descendants from the gods. I believe these pharoahs EXISTED, I do NOT believe they were divine.

I think you bring up a good point, and that is that it is very difficult and a waste of time to prove the Bible to someone. The best I can do is show how there are no inconsistencies, as long as you believe in God. I f you don't belive in a divine being that has the power to orchestrate events and even help a group of men put a book together, then it is nearly impossible to show the validity of everything in the bible. Even if I was able to provide a reason for every inconsiistency you may be able to muster about the Bible, in your mind there is still a chance something is fabricated. I can understand that. Basically, we both feel that the burden of proof is the other sides duty. I tend to give God the benefit of the doubt, and would seek to prove right anything that someone like you tries to prove wrong. You probably don't give God the benefit of the doubt ( I am assuming, of course) so you try to prove wrong anything I try to prove right in the bible. Does this make sense, i know my point but am having a hard time typing it. Ok, here is a good summary. You feel that because the Bible was written by human hand (who are admittedly fallible) then even if I backed up everything in it, something still may be wrong. I feel, that since the Bible is the very Word of God, that everything in it is true unless proven otherwise. like I said before, I would love for someone to provide evidence against the Bible, just as I would hope non-believers would like to hear why it is true.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by BAH
well if there is no god people who believe in him will live their lives thinking they did the right thing. people who dont believe in him will have done the same.
if there IS a god - the people who believe in him will get their reward- the people who dont believe in him- well.........:devil:

As far as my beliefs- it sounds like me and air sven agree. I believe the original message that jesus wanted to get across. The original message is basically just one of love for everybody. Why people have such a hard time with that- who knows? i understand a little because mankind has so twisted religions to suit their own needs- its almost worse than if you didnt believe at all IMHO. "religion" isnt where its at but your own personal relationship and willingness to do what you believe jesus would have wanted.

I do believe what you say here, BAH. But I have the feeling that there may be a little more to my beliefs than I am showing. Jesus' whole love message is great and all, but he also said that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me." John 14:6 (I hope I quoted it right!) He also made numerous other claims that he was God incarnate, and he was going to die for the sins of the world, and be resurrected on the 3rd day. My belief is he was either a lunatic along the lines of Korresh and Jones, or he was Right. I lean to the side of Right.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by BAH
well if there is no god people who believe in him will live their lives thinking they did the right thing. people who dont believe in him will have done the same.
if there IS a god - the people who believe in him will get their reward- the people who dont believe in him- well.........:devil:

As far as my beliefs- it sounds like me and air sven agree. I believe the original message that jesus wanted to get across. The original message is basically just one of love for everybody. Why people have such a hard time with that- who knows? i understand a little because mankind has so twisted religions to suit their own needs- its almost worse than if you didnt believe at all IMHO. "religion" isnt where its at but your own personal relationship and willingness to do what you believe jesus would have wanted.

Sorry Bah, but on reading over your post here, I have to clear up some more things. BTW, are you still riding with me in Thursday to Whistler? Anyhoo, we can speculate on what Jesus' message was, but all we really have to go on is what he said in the 4 gospels. Though he did have a message of love, it was also one of redemption, judgment, and salvation. He was very clear that nothing a man could do in action could get him/her to Heaven, and that no man was perfect. he was also clear that he was God (this claim was the very rerason that the Jews wanted hime dead, as they saw it as blasphemy, which if untrue it certainly was) and that simply believing that he died for your sins was the only way to be in the presence of God for eternity. he did not always have a lovey-dovey message, he was quite specific and graphic about what would happen to those who would not believe in Him as Savior.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by SVEN
I think you bring up a good point, and that is that it is very difficult and a waste of time to prove the Bible to someone. The best I can do is show how there are no inconsistencies, as long as you believe in God. I f you don't belive in a divine being that has the power to orchestrate events and even help a group of men put a book together, then it is nearly impossible to show the validity of everything in the bible. Even if I was able to provide a reason for every inconsiistency you may be able to muster about the Bible, in your mind there is still a chance something is fabricated. I can understand that. Basically, we both feel that the burden of proof is the other sides duty. I tend to give God the benefit of the doubt, and would seek to prove right anything that someone like you tries to prove wrong. You probably don't give God the benefit of the doubt ( I am assuming, of course) so you try to prove wrong anything I try to prove right in the bible. Does this make sense, i know my point but am having a hard time typing it. Ok, here is a good summary. You feel that because the Bible was written by human hand (who are admittedly fallible) then even if I backed up everything in it, something still may be wrong. I feel, that since the Bible is the very Word of God, that everything in it is true unless proven otherwise. like I said before, I would love for someone to provide evidence against the Bible, just as I would hope non-believers would like to hear why it is true.

Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly. I think I can trace the roots of my mindset to growing up in an academic environment. In academics, any piece of work you find, you criticize and look for holes in it. With Faith, it is true unless proven false. In academia, it is no more than theory, until it is absolutely irrefutable. It is better to be inconclusive/indecisive than to be wrong.

At the same time, on thing that is NEVER allowed in academics (though many "pop academics" get away with it) is to start with a conclusion, rather than a hypothesis, and search for evidence to support it, rather than run experiments to test it. So that is my objection to viewing the Bible as the word of God; your side of the argument requires that you start with the conclusion that the Bible is the word of God, and then finds evidence to support it; my side takes the evidence we have and tries to reach a conclusion.

I'm wondering to myself if the exact opposite can be argued back at me, but I think that it can't (I'm sure I'll soon find out), and that the subtle difference between the two sides is simply Faith.

Originally posted by SVEN

My belief is he was either a lunatic along the lines of Korresh and Jones, or he was Right. I lean to the side of Right.

So you're a fan of Mere Christianity? I also read it, and thought it was a fantastic argument. However (and I wish I could remember more specifically) I found that Lewis omitted several premises from his argument, that would have effected the logical conclusion...

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by ohio



So you're a fan of Mere Christianity? I also read it, and thought it was a fantastic argument. However (and I wish I could remember more specifically) I found that Lewis omitted several premises from his argument, that would have effected the logical conclusion...

I actually have it but haven't read it. But you hear it (lunatic/liar/savior) alot in Christian circles, and it just makes sense to me, assuming that everything of importance that Jesus was trying to get across is actually contained within the Bible. One could make the argument that he had a lot more to say, but you would have to have faith in that idea, rather than have any backing evidence.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by BAH


yeah we are on the same page air sven- see my first paragraph- but there is a comment on this section that said no preaching in here so i didnt but youre getting awfully close :devil:

Gotcha, I'm not good with directions or rules. Need to pay more attention.

 

[fourgivn1]

What ohio said above - about never being able to start with a conclusion in the world of academics - is why no one who can not surrender their will, to a degree, or, put another way, give God the 'benefit of the doubt' as someone above put it, will be able to accept God at His word via the Bible. If God had wanted to give us 100% proof, I'm fairly sure He could have. But again, this is where faith comes in at. It constantly amazes me that the same people who can essentially put faith in evolution, can not do the same thing for religion (Christianity, in this case....I've also heard of cases where they shifted their views from another religion - Wicca and Hinduism, to be exact - to atheism).

I will also say for the record that I do NOT think God is DUMB enough to say "Hm, I think I will dictate my Words of Wisdom to a buncha bumbling idiots and HOPE they don't screw up the message in the meantime." Yes, there most certainly ARE bibles in production that DO have things in them that are wrong. It has also been shown that our current translations of the Bible (good ones, such as the KJV, NASB and the new ESV versions) differ less in interpretation from the earliest manuscripts found at Qumran, than our current interpretations of Shakespeare's writings differ from his earliest surviving documents. Obviously there's no DVD library anywhere that shows God, Moses, Jesus, Adam and Eve, and all the characters in the Bible dealing with all the events in the Bible. But by the same token, I can not believe that because there is not 100% proof for everything in the Bible, that it simply nullifies the rest of the evidence gathered. If that is what makes me 'irrational' by academic standards, then oh well, I guess I'm irrational.

 

[DHanamal]

Christianity is powered by a ton of ignorance. We forget that there were generations of Indians living on this continent we call North America for 40,000 years. Were they all just a bunch of bumpingly fools to believe that they're were seperate gods for each Earth event, rain, sun, floods, and they also believed in reincarnation. Or how about the South American tribes? Or the people that built the pyramids? Or the one BILLION people that follow Islam. Are they all wrong? Maybe Christians have it wrong.

 

[laura]

i had to take a class last semester called evolution and human variations. what i found after taking this class is that most peoples idea of what evolution is is totally misconstrued. everyone has a generall knowledge of the concept of evolution but most people dont know the details and let me tell you, there are a lot of details involved.

i personally believe in evolution and not in god. i was however forced to go to church and a church of christ school for most of my life so i am very biassed against all organized religion and belief in things that cant be seen.

i think that everyone should have to take a human variations class. i also think that just because you believe one thing doesnt mean that you shouldnt explore other options.

if you dont educate yourself, you are the one missing out.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by DHanamal
Christianity is powered by a ton of ignorance. We forget that there were generations of Indians living on this continent we call North America for 40,000 years. Were they all just a bunch of bumpingly fools to believe that they're were seperate gods for each Earth event, rain, sun, floods, and they also believed in reincarnation. Or how about the South American tribes? Or the people that built the pyramids? Or the one BILLION people that follow Islam. Are they all wrong? Maybe Christians have it wrong.

Or maybe they don't. Maybe Muslims have it wrong. Or maybe Mormons have it all wrong. Or maybe Hindus have it all wrong. (I'm being somewhat facetious here.)

A note.......this doesn't apply to every Christian, but it at the least applies to me. I don't try to waste time proving just how WRONG other religions are. That would look conceited and closed-minded to anyone, I will grant that. But I DO take time to explain why I personally choose it, and why I BELIEVE it is 'right.'

To make a long story short, there's a lot of options out there as far as religion go. I don't waste time knocking other religions, personally. I believed when I was a kid because my parents believed. When I began to doubt, I went and did some actual/factual research, and that answered my questions and such.

Will it ever answer all my questions? Of course not. No religion has all the answers to everything. But it has enough answers, for me.

As far as educating oneself, I do have to point out something, and it isn't meant to be offensive.

You mentioned that if one does not educate oneself, then one is missing out, and that just because you believe one thing does not mean you can't explore other options. (I'm not looking for another religion, but I can say I am constantly learning. I'm in the middle of reading a big fat huge book about Islam, and another one about socialism, just because they are interesting.)

But 2 paragraphs above that, you mention that due to the school and the church you were forced to attend, you are very biased against all organized religion and belief in things you can't see.

This is why I get confused/frustrated at times. It seems that the same people who tell me I need to be more 'open minded' about things in opposition to what I believe (or, the people who tell me I'm too 'closed minded') are the ones who seem to be closed-minded about what I believe.

What Dhanamal said is something I wholeheartedly agree with today, to be honest...when he said that Christianity is powered by a ton of ignorance. I would make one change, though. I would have to say 'institutionalized Christianity.' The simple fact is that there as just as much underlying proof for the people/places/times/events in the Bible, as there is proof for evolution. It is one of those topics that Christians/non-Christians will always fight over.

 

[ohio]

fourgivn1, I just wanted to thank you for participating. You always post very thoughtfully, with reserve and respect for other people's opinions, and though we have different beliefs I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you have to say. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your level-headed and humorous style...

cheers.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ohio
fourgivn1, I just wanted to thank you for participating. You always post very thoughtfully, with reserve and respect for other people's opinions, and though we have different beliefs I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you have to say. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your level-headed and humorous style...

cheers.

Dude, that's awesome of you. I do worry a lot that I'm seen as trying to bash in people's head with my beliefs, so I try hard to state my beliefs while respecting others and not condemning their own beliefs. Thanks a lot for the comment

And as far as humor goes, ya gotta laugh to keep a level head in today's world. I believe God has a sense of humor.....otherwise, he would not have created Jerry Falwell.

 

[JesusFreak]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


Well, whenever I had questions about things that never seemed to jibe with the teachings of the religion, the priests/nuns/brothers/teachers always said "well, that's what faith is for." And no, I didn't stop practicing Catholicism, or any religion for that matter, because of several things. One was that I realized that I was just going through the motions and not really examining the teachings of what I believed at the time. Like, when I realized that Catholics believe that every single time during the consecration of the host at Mass, a miracle occurs and it literally turns in to Jesus' body and blood, I felt I couldn't partake in that sacrament because I didn't believe that that happened. It was a symbol to me, at best. Original sin I thought was the actual sin of Adam and Eve that was washed from us when we were baptised, but when I asked about evolution and how it conflicted with the Adam and Eve story, I was told that Original sin was whatever sin existed in the world at that moment I was born, and that was washed from me, to protect me. As I grew older, I studied the Bible from a different view, and found that my deep embedded beliefs still made me believe the absurd could happen, because God did it. For example, I took a "Bible as Literature" class, and we were talking about Moses in the desert, and the Hebrews were complaining because they were hungry, and the notion of "manna coming from the heavens." My professor explained how there were tamarask trees in the desert, and when a branch is broken off, a liquid comes out that soon dries in the sun. This in turn creates flat, unleaven bread like edibles. Nomads still eat this today. And the whole time I was thinking "You mean manna didn't rain from the heavens?" Duh! Too many inconsistencies. Too many changing explanations trying to fit with science.



Well, I guess I should clarify. I believe that specific people existed. I don't believe what they said or did as written in the Bible, because that is the only source of actual conversations , events, etc. How do we know what David or Mary Magdalene or Jesus for that matter said exactly? The only evidence is in the Bible, and no place else really. Believe me, I watch the programs that show the archaeological digs of locations in the Bible, like how they may have found the site of Sodom and Gomorrah. That is a possiblility (that the cities actually/physically existed). But that God destroyed them because all the men were homosexuals and Lot's wife was turned to salt when she looked back on the destroyed city? That is the kind of thing I have a problem believing.

LF, again i will mention that ANYONE will be faced with inconsistencies in the catholic faith and the bible. personally, i believe it is the honest ones who realize that such are serious enough to warrant answers, and continuing without them is mindless.

i should also mention that there was a good reason for protestantism, and continues to be. "here i stand" (biography of martin luther) is interesting reading, and reveals a small part of the issue. one must be careful, however, not to just accept something because it is 'against' something else. this is a warning because all the cults disdain the catholic doctrine and practice also.

regarding the authenticity of biblical text - wether or not it really happened that way, (to start) there are a couple good, easy reading books that examine this and bibliography some of the real heavyweights for those wanting more research. "the case for christ" and "the case for faith" by lee strobel.

so, i commend you for seeking the truth but i don't think you'd tell me you've found the truth (no insult intended). Jesus is where it's at.