Christ, the Virgin Mary? but its basically the same God and same principles
Where do these ideas originate? Oh yeah...the Bible.
I stand by what I said, belief of God and an afterlife is the foundation, bible is just the brick and mortar, the Bible is important, but not to be taken word by word.
Why aren't you a Muslim?
I'm not anything, I though I made it clear, I'm not defending my point of view.
Then you just believe it because some guy told you to? Lame.
Again, you seem to have the idea that its my point of view, I have no answer to that because its not me, I don't know why someone believes in what the bible says, dunno why people think that dying in holy war will get you virgins in the afterlife, I don't judge people by it and live by the principles taught to me by those catholic priests "Live and let live" don't share most of their beliefs, but I do believe that most of them had their heart in the right place, something I've learned along the way is that with all the criticism they get, a catholic will respect an atheist and will let him be, won't criticize, won't say a thing an atheist will mostly jump the gun and start treating the others like idiots, but as it is with religion, both of the parties that are vocally active are most likely assholes, that goes for all religions and atheists alike.
Christ, the Virgin Mary? but its basically the same God and same principles
Where do these ideas originate? Oh yeah...the Bible.
No, the ideas originated when a man named Jesus wandered around the Middle East, preaching and gathering followers. The parts of the New Testament that pertain directly to him are just a collection of people's stories about his life, and their recollections of it.
No, the ideas originated when a man named Jesus wandered around the Middle East, preaching and gathering followers. The parts of the New Testament that pertain directly to him are just a collection of people's stories about his life, and their recollections of it.
Or maybe even when people made up stories about a man named Jesus, considering that there are no contemporary accounts of him even existing.
No, the ideas originated when a man named Jesus wandered around the Middle East, preaching and gathering followers. The parts of the New Testament that pertain directly to him are just a collection of people's stories about his life, and their recollections of it.
Or maybe even when people made up stories about a man named Jesus, considering that there are no contemporary accounts of him even existing.
Made up stories or not, my point about the bible not being the origin of the ideas behind Christianity stands.
No, the ideas originated when a man named Jesus wandered around the Middle East, preaching and gathering followers. The parts of the New Testament that pertain directly to him are just a collection of people's stories about his life, and their recollections of it.
Or maybe even when people made up stories about a man named Jesus, considering that there are no contemporary accounts of him even existing.
Made up stories or not, my point about the bible not being the origin of the ideas behind Christianity stands.
No, it doesn't. There wouldn't have been any messiah without Messianic prophecy, and there wouldn't have been any Messianic prophecy without the Talmud. The ancient jewish myths are the springboard for modern Christianity, and all of it packaged together is called the bible.
But the real crux of the argument comes down to the pick-and-choose mindset of the religious. They want all the benefits of their chosen religion with none of the baggage. If some of it can be said be not be literal, than why believe any of it is literal? If it can be argued that the creation account is not accurate, then why believe in god at all?
Made up stories or not, my point about the bible not being the origin of the ideas behind Christianity stands.
Yeah. I didn't meant to dispute that. There were clearly Christians before there was a "The Bible". However, there were not Christians before there was a Torah. Though presumably, there were Jews before there was a Torah.
If it can be argued that the creation account is not accurate, then why believe in god at all?
I think I can speak to this. Moderate, picky-choosy Christianity is the most culturally prevalent form of intelligent spirituality. It's for rational people who want the comfort of a community with the spiritual fulfillment of a religion; it's very difficult to find that anywhere else.
No, the ideas originated when a man named Jesus wandered around the Middle East, preaching and gathering followers. The parts of the New Testament that pertain directly to him are just a collection of people's stories about his life, and their recollections of it.
Or maybe even when people made up stories about a man named Jesus, considering that there are no contemporary accounts of him even existing.
Well, it's hard to find proof that Pontius Pilate existed too, and he was in charge of Roman territory.
Made up stories or not, my point about the bible not being the origin of the ideas behind Christianity stands.
Yeah. I didn't meant to dispute that. There were clearly Christians before there was a "The Bible". However, there were not Christians before there was a Torah. Though presumably, there were Jews before there was a Torah.
A great deal of Jewish religion was passed along orally before it was actually written down, so this is probably true.
Well, it's hard to find proof that Pontius Pilate existed too, and he was in charge of Roman territory.
Apparently, they've got some evidence right here. I don't think anything like that exists for Jesus. But it's kind of a moot point anyway. Whether Jesus existed or not, the place was lousy with saviors back then, and this one is just one that got lucky enough to stick, primarily through eventually becoming the dominant religion of the Roman empire. Hard to think of a better lucky break for young upstart religion than that.
Exactly. When you initially said it, it occurred to me that in 2 thousand years, technology will have probably advanced far enough that none of our current methods of proving someone's existence (photos, videos, paper records) will be considered reliable. If I had a time machine, I go forward and use that to present an argument that there was no such person as Jimmy Hoffa.
Either way, the whole argument over whether Jesus existed is a distraction at best, and real-world shitcocking at worst. I say that because if you're trying to convince a Christian/Muslim/Bhuddist/Other-faith-with-a-central-figure that their faith's central figure didn't really exist, you'll end up putting them on such a defensive that they're likely to reject everything you say to them.
And the Bible says things about the world, and while I'm willing to accept scientific theories (did I use it right this time?) about this world and its origins, I have to take them and try and explain them by the Bible. If I started by using the Bible to prove the origins of the world, then Science would turn me away from Religion. But I started by using the Bible as something spiritual, and therefore am inclined to believe God when he told the people who wrote the Bible that every word was true.
Every word in the Bible is true? This is a prime indicator of craziness. As noted earlier in this thread, the Bible was translated and edited multiple times. The ones that did the editing were mortal men. Sometimes they made mistakes. Sometimes they had a secular, political purpose behind their editing. If you believe that every word of the Bible is true, then your belief in magical thinking should allow you to also believe that everything written about Superman is true.
My beliefs about religion are not based on proof, they are based on faith.
Some don't believe in a living God, rather trusting in statues and idols. I want a God that is real, not some object.
How is their faith any different than yours? You that your beliefs are not based on proof, but on faith. Why would you knock their faith that in their statues? Further, if your belief is not based on proof, then how can you say your god is real? You must be able to see how the statue people could use your own argument against you: “I have faith in my statue. My statue is real. I don’t believe in some imaginary sky-man.”
But Christianity is about something spiritual, something emotional, something that goes beyond logic, something you clearly can't understand.
God's logic is above ours, so we can't comprehend everything he does.
These are the money quotes. No one can use logic to convince you of anything because you deny logic. Under these rules, my faith in the force should be accorded every bit as much respect as your faith in the sky-man.
Others believe in spirits of the past, worshiping them (ancestor worship.) Why does someone become more powerful after they die? That's just illogical.
You canÂ’t use logic now. YouÂ’ve just denied itÂ’s use in your religious belief. The people who worship their ancestors do so through faith. Just as you said about the sky-man, the power of the ancestors goes beyond logic. Their logic is above ours, so we canÂ’t understand everything they do. If we canÂ’t deny the existence of your sky-man through logic, you canÂ’t deny the power of the ancestors through logic.
But Christianity is actually different. You don't go to Heaven because you did good things. You go to Heaven because Jesus Christ died so that you could be forgiven for all of the bad things you'd done. It's the only one that provides a logical way to have your sins forgiven.
As Mr. Fetus asked, how is it more logical to get into heaven by believing a story than it is to get into heaven by doing good things? Also, youÂ’re trying to apply logic to your god again, and you said that he doesnÂ’t work by logic.
God loves us. I think any real god would. Otherwise, why create us, and then give us free will?
If God loves us, and therefore doesn't expect us to be perfect, the only religion that makes sense is one that provides something that anyone and everyone can choose to do, which, in Christianity's case, is to accept the forgiveness of Jesus.
God did not create us to worship him. Why does he need a bunch of people to tell him how great he is? He created the WORLD, he already knows how great he is.
In these quotes youÂ’re trying to apply logic to your god again. Why do you persist in doing this when you so clearly say that your god is illogical?
And yeah, God did kill everyone once, in the Old Testament . . .
Prove it.
. . . when that was the only way. God tried everything to make people understand, to make people not sin. But when he realized that it wouldn't work, he sent Jesus to die for our sins.
How was your god constrained? What rules made it so that this “was the only way”? It sounds like your god is obeying the dictates of someone else. Chthulu perhaps? I’m also very interested in how he came to the “realization that it wouldn’t work”. Does it take time for your god to work things out on his own?
No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The Bible is the sole source and foundation of the Christian faith. The belief of god without doctrine is deism.
Uhh...no. Jason is correct. There are, for example, catechisms that are not included in the bible that form part of the foundation of some branches of Christianity, like Lutheranism. We studied Luther's Modern Catechism just as much as we studied the actual bible, and while his thoughts were often on the bible, they were just as often on the behavior of men and the church. Yeah, I went through confirmation class in a Christian church, so I know a thing or two about how it works. To say that the Bible itself is the sole source and foundation of Christianity is startlingly ignorant. Do you not know about the crusades and the indulgences that were sponsored by the Church? These things were not based on the Bible's teachings, but rather on the word of the Church. That is one of the main reasons for the Protestant split!
If the Bible itself is the only source for the religion, why are there so many different branches of Christianity, rather than one unified branch? Some branches acknowledge the Pope as speaking for God. No Bible involved. Some branches incorporate the teachings of other people into their doctrine as well as the Bible.
If it can be argued that the creation account is not accurate, then why believe in god at all?
I think I can speak to this. Moderate, picky-choosy Christianity is the most culturally prevalent form of intelligent spirituality. It's for rational people who want the comfort of a community with the spiritual fulfillment of a religion; it's very difficult to find that anywhere else.
That's easy. Why do we not discount every word of a scientific paper if one statement turns out to be wrong? We recognize that a single work of writing with multiple assertions can contain both true and untrue statements. Pointing out that one part of the Bible is not accurate doesn't mean that none of the rest of it is accurate. It's faulty logic to say that the inaccuracy of the creation story invalidates the whole book. It's quite possible that SOME of the events portrayed in the Bible stories did happen.
No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The Bible is the sole source and foundation of the Christian faith . The belief of god without doctrine is deism.
You are absolutely correct that it is the initial foundation for the Christian religion (other than figure of Christ himself - a figure whose story as portrayed in the Bible many historians believe was a mish-mosh of three men), but every sect has their own interpretations, outside rituals, blind spots, etc. of the Bible. Many individuals that identify themselves as Christian have not read the Bible or take what they believe to be the gist or overarching teachings and ignore the specifics of the book entirely - placing their individual interpretation of God before the text. This is how many practice their faith.
To those that ask why people still cling to the notion of God when they accept evolution, many state that they see God as the inciting act that sparked life and shaped the system. I can certainly why when someone sees design they think there must be a designer rather than a complicated set of physical rules that even our greatest physicists can't fully articulate. Limited senses, limited education, a feeling of comfort (joy, structure, fairness, etc.), societal programming, desire to be identified as part of a greater group, and intellectual laziness are all partial reasons for faith in the face of reason. It is nice and pleasant to think of an all loving being that will provide paradise after death or the ability to reach an enlightened state that will usher us into paradise. These are comforting. To ask why people believe is to ask why people eat more than they need or have sex without the desire to procreate. It is for comfort and enjoyment. I don't feel the need for comfort from religion, but to those that do I hold no grudge as long as long as they are reasonable in other aspects.
Uhh...no. Jason is correct. There are, for example, catechisms that are not included in the bible that form part of the foundation of some branches of Christianity, like Lutheranism. We studied Luther's Modern Catechism just as much as we studied the actual bible, and while his thoughts were often on the bible, they were just as often on the behavior of men and the church. Yeah, I went through confirmation class in a Christian church, so I know a thing or two about how it works. To say that the Bible itself is the sole source and foundation of Christianity is startlingly ignorant. Do you not know about the crusades and the indulgences that were sponsored by the Church? These things were not based on the Bible's teachings, but rather on the word of the Church. That is one of the main reasons for the Protestant split!
The main tennets of Christianity are based upon these premises.These are that Jesus is the son/manifestation of the Abrahamic god, he fulfills the Messianic prophecy, and that he was crucified and rose again to forgive the souls of man; past, present, and future. Sure, there are a multitude of doctrines including the Protestant Reformation and Martin Luther's Ninety-Five theses. However, the strict requirements (from the word of Jesus himself, as recorded by his disciples which became Gospels) state the the only way to heaven is through belief in him. This was later established as specific doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea, where the Nicene Creed was established. Furthermore, the official cannon of the Bible was established at this same council.
Without the Bible, Christianity would not exist. I'm not saying that there weren't conflicts in denominations because of other documents (St. Thomas Aquinas' writings have had particular importance in Christian philosophy as an example). It's clear that significant religious doctrine has been established without influence of the Bible (hell, the Anglican church was established just so King Henry VIII could get laid), but to say that the Bible is not the bedrock of all Christianity is absurd. Oh yeah, I went to confirmation class as well.
I believe you are taking my statement to a bit of a reducio ad absurdum.
Not really. I took you at your word. You said the Bible was the "sole source and foundation of the Christian faith." Sole source means there are no others. If that wasn't what you meant, fine, but it was you who reduced it to that simple state, not the me. I don't think anyone is saying the Bible isn't the bedrock of modern Christianity. However, like all things based on an original source, branches of the faith have changed and incorporated other ideals over the years. The fact is that while the Bible is the text that most modern Christians turn to for guidance, it is not the sole authority. It also was not how the faith originated, although it has greatly shaped how Christianity is practiced today. Yes, codifying the religion in text has been a stabilizing force, but it has not prevented the inclusion of other influences. Some of those influences change the way we see or understand the Bible, such that two Christians may have very different interpretations of the same passage.
You are absolutely correct that it is the initial foundation for the Christian religion (other than figure of Christ himself - a figure whose story as portrayed in the Bible many historians believe was a mish-mosh of three men),
.
Actually, no. All of the evidence indicates that the "Bible" outside of the Torah was written hundreds of years after Jesus' supposed existence. Prior to that, it was just one of many similar sects within Judaism. The only difference between Christianity and the myriad other splinter Jewish sects/cults was that it happened to find a national patron.
Andrew showed me this video back in the day. It's a two-parter. Watch this before you try to say you know shit about the bible. This guy knows more than you, so listen to what he says.
Not really. I took you at your word. You said the Bible was the "sole source and foundation of the Christian faith." Sole source means there are no others. If that wasn't what you meant, fine, but it was you who reduced it to that simple state, not the me. I don't think anyone is saying the Bible isn't the bedrock of modern Christianity. However, like all things based on an original source, branches of the faith have changed and incorporated other ideals over the years. The fact is that while the Bible is the text that most modern Christians turn to for guidance, it is not the sole authority. It also was not how the faith originated, although it has greatly shaped how Christianity is practiced today. Yes, codifying the religion in text has been a stabilizing force, but it has not prevented the inclusion of other influences. Some of those influences change the way we see or understand the Bible, such that two Christians may have very different interpretations of the same passage.
I agree. Just chalk it up to poor wording on my part then. Sorry for the confusion.
You should stop now before your ignorance bites you in the ass.
Go ahead and enlighten me, oh great knowledgeable one. I'm only going on the limited research I could muster up between studying for finals.
Comments
But the real crux of the argument comes down to the pick-and-choose mindset of the religious. They want all the benefits of their chosen religion with none of the baggage. If some of it can be said be not be literal, than why believe any of it is literal? If it can be argued that the creation account is not accurate, then why believe in god at all?
Either way, the whole argument over whether Jesus existed is a distraction at best, and real-world shitcocking at worst. I say that because if you're trying to convince a Christian/Muslim/Bhuddist/Other-faith-with-a-central-figure that their faith's central figure didn't really exist, you'll end up putting them on such a defensive that they're likely to reject everything you say to them.
If the Bible itself is the only source for the religion, why are there so many different branches of Christianity, rather than one unified branch? Some branches acknowledge the Pope as speaking for God. No Bible involved. Some branches incorporate the teachings of other people into their doctrine as well as the Bible. That's easy. Why do we not discount every word of a scientific paper if one statement turns out to be wrong? We recognize that a single work of writing with multiple assertions can contain both true and untrue statements. Pointing out that one part of the Bible is not accurate doesn't mean that none of the rest of it is accurate. It's faulty logic to say that the inaccuracy of the creation story invalidates the whole book. It's quite possible that SOME of the events portrayed in the Bible stories did happen.
To those that ask why people still cling to the notion of God when they accept evolution, many state that they see God as the inciting act that sparked life and shaped the system. I can certainly why when someone sees design they think there must be a designer rather than a complicated set of physical rules that even our greatest physicists can't fully articulate. Limited senses, limited education, a feeling of comfort (joy, structure, fairness, etc.), societal programming, desire to be identified as part of a greater group, and intellectual laziness are all partial reasons for faith in the face of reason. It is nice and pleasant to think of an all loving being that will provide paradise after death or the ability to reach an enlightened state that will usher us into paradise. These are comforting. To ask why people believe is to ask why people eat more than they need or have sex without the desire to procreate. It is for comfort and enjoyment. I don't feel the need for comfort from religion, but to those that do I hold no grudge as long as long as they are reasonable in other aspects.
Without the Bible, Christianity would not exist. I'm not saying that there weren't conflicts in denominations because of other documents (St. Thomas Aquinas' writings have had particular importance in Christian philosophy as an example). It's clear that significant religious doctrine has been established without influence of the Bible (hell, the Anglican church was established just so King Henry VIII could get laid), but to say that the Bible is not the bedrock of all Christianity is absurd. Oh yeah, I went to confirmation class as well.
I believe you are taking my statement to a bit of a reducio ad absurdum.
You didn't get the memo, people already started disregarding everything I said. No need to respond to me anymore.
Actually, no. All of the evidence indicates that the "Bible" outside of the Torah was written hundreds of years after Jesus' supposed existence. Prior to that, it was just one of many similar sects within Judaism. The only difference between Christianity and the myriad other splinter Jewish sects/cults was that it happened to find a national patron.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2260956154287964220
That you messed up such a basic piece of church history shows a deep misunderstanding on the matter of early Christianity.