In whichever translation you prefer,

[PrinceMyshkin]

the old Testament does not say: “In the beginning I created” &c., &c., as you might expect it to do if God himself were telling it, so it is implicitly the invention of a story-teller or at best, hearsay, jotted down by a fallible human amanuensis.

From this story or collection of stories by diverse authors, we get rituals and rules and priests to administer them and then higher priests to oversee the priests who are overseeing the laity. And we get congregations and tithing and structures and groups that break away from the original group and provide their dissenting interpretations and we get theologians and then more and more theologians and endless debates ever more sophisticated and hair-splitting and religious wars.

In the beginning was the word and the word was said to be God but the word soon became the property of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of men, each of whom thought that either he was God or the only true spokesperson for God...

[ampoule]

Well, personally, I like....In the beginning there was the word and the word was 'chocolate'.........and it was very good.:)

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well, personally, I like....In the beginning there was the word and the word was 'chocolate'.........and it was very good.:)

I take it you are using the Lady Godiva translation of the NT?

[ampoule]

Mmm, my favorite.

[Gorilla King]

The bible had human authors. God worked through the human authors to convey His message. The original manuscripts are said to be infallible. Our modern translations are not. However, the modern texts are 98.6% accurate which is a considerably higher rate of accuracy than any other ancient text.

[Mortis Anarchy]

The bible had human authors. God worked through the human authors to convey His message. The original manuscripts are said to be infallible. Our modern translations are not. However, the modern texts are 98.6% accurate which is a considerably higher rate of accuracy than any other ancient text.

I agree. Plus in order for the books even to be put in the bible, or at least the Catholic version, they must have an eye witness...I'm not talking about the "In the beginning" part.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The bible had human authors. God worked through the human authors to convey His message. The original manuscripts are said to be infallible. Our modern translations are not. However, the modern texts are 98.6% accurate which is a considerably higher rate of accuracy than any other ancient text.

What are the sources of these several remarkable assertions? Who witnessed this working of God? And on what basis was the astonishingly precise figure of 98.6% arrived at?

[Gorilla King]

1. We know the authors of the bible were human.

2. The internal consistency of the biblical text and the central figure of Christ manifest even within the old testament text shows it to be so.

3. Again, internal consistency

4. Anything translated from any other language cannot by it's very nature be infallible in relation to the original source text.

5. This figure was arrived at by secular sources comparing the internal consistency amongst the over 5,000 extant manuscripts in existence (the earliest of which dates to less than 100 years from the original autograph). It's the same process used with every other ancient historical work including the Iliad and the Odyssey.

[ampoule]

And of course, before anything was ever written or chiseled down, the stories were passed back and forth orally. I've always wondered if it could be a little like Chinese telephone?? No disrespect intended.

[Mortis Anarchy]

And of course, before anything was ever written or chiseled down, the stories were passed back and forth orally. I've always wondered if it could be a little like Chinese telephone?? No disrespect intended.

No, I think that is totally correct...there is a game on Scene It, where you have to guess the title of a movie that was translated from another language into english, half of the time it was amazing what the results were. Like the philosphers and stuff, they didn't really write anything down. They just talked and people carried on the stories and later wrote them down.

[motherhubbard]

I think that most people who believe in the Bible also believe that it is the inspired word of God. That, at least for me, is to say that God moved the people to write his word down, not that they just decided one day to mash a paper pulp and record the bedtime stories they told their children. That is why it is consistent. Otherwise, how could forty authors be in such perfect agreement? I realize that my faith may seem naive, but without the written word to guide us then what is there. I must believe that God would not allow the Bible to become so corrupted by man that I could not find salvation in it.

[weepingforloman]

No, I think that is totally correct...there is a game on Scene It, where you have to guess the title of a movie that was translated from another language into english, half of the time it was amazing what the results were. Like the philosphers and stuff, they didn't really write anything down. They just talked and people carried on the stories and later wrote them down.

What western people forget is that, unlike with us, oral tradition was practiced and re-practiced to the point of memorization, so that this sort of thing could not occur, in the Near East. No one questions the accuracy of, say, Egyptian myths, right?

[Gorilla King]

You want to talk oral tradition? Let's do. Paul's conversion came an estimated 4-7 years following the death of Jesus. He recorded in his epistles the teachings he learned while in Jerusalem meeting with the apostles. Therefore, the oral tradition and teachings of the early church would have had to have proceeded this meeting and would have been established inside of three years of Jesus' death.

Want more detail? Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Ancient-Evidence-Christ/dp/0899007325/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0545312-8627141?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183086370&sr=1-1

[NikolaiI]

Nah, it's just myth. There's not a lot of reason to believe the Bible is true. Which isn't to say that I hold Christianity or Christians in disdain or contempt, Gorilla King. ;)

[Bakiryu]

I don't really believe in the bibble, it's just a book of Zorosthroastrian-based religion. That's not to say I dislike christians and such but to believe in a book! To see is to believe, if I see Jesus, then maybe I'll believe.

[Gorilla King]

To Nikolai, what makes you think it's a myth?

And to Bakiryu, might you allow me to challenge your beliefs with a historical analysis of the basis upon which Christianity was founded?

[Bakiryu]

Sure, go ahead.

[Gorilla King]

Sure, go ahead.

Danke.

I'll just make this a brief overview to start. First, let's look at what's called the Nazarene decree. It was put forth by Emperor Claudius around 41 AD. It basically stated that those who disturbed the graves of the dead and removed the stone seal from their entrance was to be put to death. The former penalty was a mild fine. Now given that Jesus was crucified in 33AD and Claudius was responding to riots in Rome related to the vast and rapid spread of Christianity, it's only reasonable to assume that he knew of the claims of the resurrection and hence issued this decree with hopes of curtailing it.

Now, in the interest of keeping this simple, I'll whittle down the traditional 12 generally agreed upon facts of Jesus' life to 4.

1. Jesus died due to crucification (this is attested to in several secular historical sources)

2.Upon the death of Jesus the apostles fled for their lives fearing they would be hunted down and killed too.

3.Three days later, the apostles, believed they saw the resurrected Jesus (whether they did or not isn't the issue here)

4. The apostles then became bold in their preaching of Christ and were even willing to die violent deaths for the certainty of their belief in having seen and even eaten with Jesus. Moreover, Paul, who was entirely unsympathetic to these followers of "the way" also claimed to have an encounter with Jesus and became the leading proponent of the very group he was persecuting.

Now these are just basic and generally agreed upon facts by both religious and secular historians. I make no mention of miracles, only claims by men who somehow went from terrified to bold at the hands of a claimed experience. I'll leave it to you to make your own conclusions about what the implications are.

[NikolaiI]

Because I live in a world that is opposite of yours. Because I believe a hidden truth, that when anything is said, its opposite is being confirmed. Because like I said, there's no reason to believe it's true, and I have studied other religions, and found their claims to be equally legitimate (see Arjuna and Krishna, direct lineage, etc.). Because I feel this way:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman, p. 438


Please don't try to convince me of anything, just say something interesting.


4. The apostles then became bold in their preaching of Christ and were even willing to die violent deaths for the certainty of their belief in having seen and even eaten with Jesus. Moreover, Paul, who was entirely unsympathetic to these followers of "the way" also claimed to have an encounter with Jesus and became the leading proponent of the very group he was persecuting.

Perhaps that's because they wanted to die. Like Socrates.

[Gorilla King]

Please don't try to convince me of anything, just say something interesting.

I always thought Jesus' claim to be God was pretty interesting.


Perhaps that's because they wanted to die. Like Socrates.

If they wanted to die like Socrates then they wouldn't have run and gone into hiding would they? All they had to do was turn themselves in for blasphemy.

[NikolaiI]

I always thought Jesus' claim to be God was pretty interesting.

OK, true, but now try looking at things from the big picture. ;)

[Gorilla King]

OK, true, but now try looking at things from the big picture. ;)

I am lol. That's why I'm so interested in determining the truth of it. After all, Buddha never claimed to be God, Mohammed never claimed to be God, Abraham never claimed to be God.....but Jesus did. That's worth looking into I think. You know, in the big picture. :lol:

[NikolaiI]

Okay, but why any of it? I mean, if you look at the earth as a small speck in a near-infinite universe? and look at the life that's on the planet, and has been. Fish, scorpions, crabs, etc., eventually larger animals and then dinosaurs and later mammals and humans. And then humans come up with the idea that there's a humanesque God who's been here from the start, and in fact is residing over the entire universe. In my mind, it remains to ring false, despite however good a man Jesus was, or whatever powers he had.

I'm not trying to change your belief or anything, but keep thinking about it, so you understand it better, what others believe and what you believe, and always be true to whatever you think is right.

[Dark Star]

I am lol. That's why I'm so interested in determining the truth of it. After all, Buddha never claimed to be God, Mohammed never claimed to be God, Abraham never claimed to be God.....but Jesus did. That's worth looking into I think. You know, in the big picture. :lol:



And so did multiple other people in that same area during that time. There were even other prophets that allegedly performed miracles, so I don't think his making that claim is particularly special... ;)

I'm also curious about these multiple secular historical sources that speak of his crucifixion. If they're the ones I'm thinking of...

[Mortis Anarchy]

No, that part isn't too special. Rasputin, for instance, was another miracle worker. Who knows what we are capable of in that area? But again, I don't think it's specific to any particular relgion.


I don't really believe in the bibble, it's just a book of Zorosthroastrian-based religion. That's not to say I dislike christians and such but to believe in a book! To see is to believe, if I see Jesus, then maybe I'll believe.

If seeing was believing than I am afraid I can't believe in a lot of things. I'm not running on blind faith, and believe me I've thought the same thing. "If this was true than why has no one ever seen this Jesus or God." But then it wouldn't be faith...its a little hard to describe but its more than just seeing. I'm not trying to contradict anything you say, I respect your thoughts. And I don't think that it is based on Zoroastrianism. There are similarties, but the same with other religions as well.

[JBI]

Berasheet Barah Elohim... Original is always the best. Either way, it may be an alright little story, but I don't believe it.

[Gorilla King]

Okay, but why any of it? I mean, if you look at the earth as a small speck in a near-infinite universe? and look at the life that's on the planet, and has been. Fish, scorpions, crabs, etc., eventually larger animals and then dinosaurs and later mammals and humans. And then humans come up with the idea that there's a humanesque God who's been here from the start, and in fact is residing over the entire universe. In my mind, it remains to ring false, despite however good a man Jesus was, or whatever powers he had.

I'm not trying to change your belief or anything, but keep thinking about it, so you understand it better, what others believe and what you believe, and always be true to whatever you think is right.

And believe me, I really do appreciate having my beliefs challenged. I may not have answers for everything asked of me, but these questions give me a desire to continue seeking. I can really only speculate on the diversity of life, but really all I can say is that it demonstrates the creativity of God. Certainly not a scientific answer I know, but it's as far as I'm willing to venture on that one given what I know. at this point.


And so did multiple other people in that same area during that time. There were even other prophets that allegedly performed miracles, so I don't think his making that claim is particularly special... ;)

I'm also curious about these multiple secular historical sources that speak of his crucifixion. If they're the ones I'm thinking of...

Sure, there were plenty of false messiahs, but they didn't live up to the old testament prophecy either. Jesus did. They weren't reported to have come back from the dead. Jesus was.

As for the second part, again, check out the book called "The Historical Jesus." I've recommended it three times now and it really is quite good and scholarly.

[Mortis Anarchy]

No I didn't mean the diversity of life, I meant the place of life on this planet, in time, and in the universe. I meant the significance of life on this planet, and therefore, what life is on this planet, and what used to be. Therefore I talked about the first life, fish, scorpions, etc. Millions of years and different species later, humans come into existence, but not before Dinosaurs, for example. And then when you look at this planet, you see how small it is in the universe, and how vast the universe is, and what else is out there? We don't know. But when humans come into existence we create a Human-like God. But we say he's universal and forever. That was my point.


I am lol. That's why I'm so interested in determining the truth of it. After all, Buddha never claimed to be God, Mohammed never claimed to be God, Abraham never claimed to be God.....but Jesus did. That's worth looking into I think. You know, in the big picture. :lol:

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all in one yet different at the same time. The only thing that makes sense, and I've only just discovered this analogy is this:

An apple. Apples have three major parts: the skin, the meat, and the core.
If you take off of the skin of an apple, the skin would still be an apple skin. If you ate the meat and all that was left was the core, you would see it still as an apple core. If you bit into it and you looked at the meat, it would still be an apple! Its complicated to explain but thats the best analogy that I can use. An apple is an apple even if you just seperate the parts.

[Gorilla King]

No I didn't mean the diversity of life, I meant the place of life on this planet, in time, and in the universe. I meant the significance of life on this planet, and therefore, what life is on this planet, and what used to be. Therefore I talked about the first life, fish, scorpions, etc. Millions of years and different species later, humans come into existence, but not before Dinosaurs, for example. And then when you look at this planet, you see how small it is in the universe, and how vast the universe is, and what else is out there? We don't know. But when humans come into existence we create a Human-like God. But we say he's universal and forever. That was my point.

Well let me respond to that. When it's spoken of in Genesis of God making man in his image, think of it not necessarily in terms of looks, but more in nature. Given that God is spirit and Jesus clearly hadn't been manifest in the world at that point (unless you count Eden), then what we inherit from God is our spiritual nature which is like God's own. He could have just as easily made us dumb creatures and made koala's the species with his nature. Then again, everything to an extent reveals something of the nature of God. And I don't mean in the sense of pantheism. Along this same line of thought, the vastness of the universe and the infinity of space is yet another revelation of the character of God.

[Dark Star]

Sure, there were plenty of false messiahs, but they didn't live up to the old testament prophecy either. Jesus did. They weren't reported to have come back from the dead. Jesus was.

Now, tell me, since these biographies of him were written at a minimum of thirty to fifty years after his death what is there exactly to say that they didn't have the OT texts on hand and fill in the details just well enough to fit those prophecies?


As for the second part, again, check out the book called "The Historical Jesus." I've recommended it three times now and it really is quite good and scholarly.

I have my doubts about this but I'll look into it. I find most tend to draw from the same pool of unreliable sources that date at a minimum to 115 CE.

EDIT: Turns out there are three books titled 'The Historical Jesus'...I'm assuming you mean the one by Habermas?

[Gorilla King]

Now, tell me, since these biographies of him were written at a minimum of thirty to fifty years after his death what is there exactly to say that they didn't have the OT texts on hand and fill in the details just well enough to fit those prophecies?



I have my doubts about this but I'll look into it. I find most tend to draw from the same pool of unreliable sources that date at a minimum to 115 CE.


Sure, the original autographs weren't written until around 60 AD, but you underestimate the oral tradition. It was common practice for Jews to learn the teachings of their Rabbi's word for word and given that it wasn't just the apostles, but at least 500 other people that saw Jesus post resurrection and countless other witnesses to the events proceeding that, there's very little reason to doubt the authenticity of the claims. If someone came to your town of let's say 3,000 people and raised someone from the dead, do you think it would be forgotten so quickly? And if it never happened don't you think someone would refute it?

And yes, it is the Habermas book. I hate the cover, but it's what's inside that counts. ;)

[NikolaiI]

Well let me respond to that. When it's spoken of in Genesis of God making man in his image, think of it not necessarily in terms of looks, but more in nature. Given that God is spirit and Jesus clearly hadn't been manifest in the world at that point (unless you count Eden), then what we inherit from God is our spiritual nature which is like God's own. He could have just as easily made us dumb creatures and made koala's the species with his nature. Then again, everything to an extent reveals something of the nature of God. And I don't mean in the sense of pantheism. Along this same line of thought, the vastness of the universe and the infinity of space is yet another revelation of the character of God.

Well said, but sorry, I still think your God doesn't exist, though I was raised Christian. You think nature points to God, I think humans made him up. But I recommend studying Eastern religions because they will give you insight into your own, if not convert you to pantheism. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post that eloquent response.

[Dark Star]

Sure, the original autographs weren't written until around 60 AD, but you underestimate the oral tradition. It was common practice for Jews to learn the teachings of their Rabbi's word for word and given that it wasn't just the apostles, but at least 500 other people that saw Jesus post resurrection and countless other witnesses to the events proceeding that, there's very little reason to doubt the authenticity of the claims. If someone came to your town of let's say 3,000 people and raised someone from the dead, do you think it would be forgotten so quickly? And if it never happened don't you think someone would refute it?

And yes, it is the Habermas book. I hate the cover, but it's what's inside that counts. ;)

Personally, I'd think someone would have mentioned it or written about it around the time it happened instead of waiting until a time where everyone who would have been alive to see such a thing (or not see it) was conveniently dead but that's an entirely different story. That book certainly does look interesting so I'll look into picking it up at the library.

[Gorilla King]

Well said, but sorry, I still think your God doesn't exist, though I was raised Christian. You think nature points to God, I think humans made him up. But I recommend studying Eastern religions because they will give you insight into your own, if not convert you to pantheism. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to post that eloquent response.

I am in the early stages of studying eastern religion. In fact I'm interested in all religion (save for maybe Scientology which I think is just a dumb cult), but given what I've learned and experienced as a Christian I doubt I could be converted to pantheism, but that fact doesn't preclude me from having a desire to study it.


Personally, I'd think someone would have mentioned it or written about it around the time it happened instead of waiting until a time where everyone who would have been alive to see such a thing (or not see it) was conveniently dead but that's an entirely different story. That book certainly does look interesting so I'll look into picking it up at the library.

Well the issue wasn't a matter of deception by any means. There were thousands of practicing Christians being instructed by the apostles themselves within the first 5 years following the resurrection. The reason for the delay in writing down the gospels was because when Jesus said He would be coming back for them they thought He meant in their lifetimes. When they saw that wasn't the case and the church was growing beyond their ability to minister to personally, they wrote down the gospels. Meanwhile, Paul, in an effort to curb the false teachings which were springing up, wrote the epistles to offer the correct teachings. He of course conferred with the other apostles before doing so.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I am in the early stages of studying eastern religion. In fact I'm interested in all religion (save for maybe Scientology which I think is just a dumb cult), but given what I've learned and experienced as a Christian I doubt I could be converted to pantheism, but that fact doesn't preclude me from having a desire to study it.

One man's "dumb cult" may be another man's (indeed, millions of other men's and women's) sacred, irrefutable religion, pored over, studied and explained or defended by the most subtle and sophisticated arguments, er, theology.


Well the issue wasn't a matter of deception by any means. There were thousands of practicing Christians being instructed by the apostles themselves within the first 5 years following the resurrection. The reason for the delay in writing down the gospels was because when Jesus said He would be coming back for them they thought He meant in their lifetimes. When they saw that wasn't the case and the church was growing beyond their ability to minister to personally, they wrote down the gospels. Meanwhile, Paul, in an effort to curb the false teachings which were springing up, wrote the epistles to offer the correct teachings. He of course conferred with the other apostles before doing so.

"The reason for the delay in writing down the gospels was because when Jesus said He would be coming back for them they thought He meant in their lifetimes. " If they were wrong in that, in what other respects might they have been wrong?

And as to the 500 witnesses to the resurrection, I thought it was only Mary Magdalene? But how do you arrive at that precise figure of 500?

[Gorilla King]

One man's "dumb cult" may be another man's (indeed, millions of other men's and women's) sacred, irrefutable religion, pored over, studied and explained or defended by the most subtle and sophisticated arguments, er, theology.

Feel free to make a defense of Scientology. I'll gladly point you to operation snow white and freak out.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Feel free to make a defense of Scientology. I'll gladly point you to operation snow white and freak out.


I have no interest whatsoever in defending Scientology or any other "cults," including those which go by the more dignified name of "religions." Ridiculous or fallacious as Scientology may be can you doubt that there are many good-hearted people who believe in it as profoundly and sincerely as you do in Christianity (or whichever of the many variants of it you practice)?

Engage in debating with a Scientologist or a Witness of Jehovah et al and you might soon experience the deep frustration that many of us feel when attempting to question a "Christian".

[Gorilla King]

"The reason for the delay in writing down the gospels was because when Jesus said He would be coming back for them they thought He meant in their lifetimes. " If they were wrong in that, in what other respects might they have been wrong?

And as to the 500 witnesses to the resurrection, I thought it was only Mary Magdalene? But how do you arrive at that precise figure of 500?

1 Corinthians 15

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all in one yet different at the same time. The only thing that makes sense, and I've only just discovered this analogy is this:

An apple. Apples have three major parts: the skin, the meat, and the core.
If you take off of the skin of an apple, the skin would still be an apple skin. If you ate the meat and all that was left was the core, you would see it still as an apple core. If you bit into it and you looked at the meat, it would still be an apple! Its complicated to explain but thats the best analogy that I can use. An apple is an apple even if you just seperate the parts.

Ah, but what is that saying about not comparing apples with divinities?

But perhaps it would make just as much sense to worship the Apple, the Skin, the Meat and the Holy Core.

[Gorilla King]

I have no interest whatsoever in defending Scientology or any other "cults," including those which go by the more dignified name of "religions." Ridiculous or fallacious as Scientology may be can you doubt that there are many good-hearted people who believe in it as profoundly and sincerely as you do in Christianity (or whichever of the many variants of it you practice)?

Engage in debating with a Scientologist or a Witness of Jehovah et al and you might soon experience the deep frustration that many of us feel when attempting to question a "Christian".

Well fortunately, though it's sometimes spoken of in the generalized term of religion, Christianity is not one. Jesus didn't come to create a new religion, he came to DESTROY religion. I don't practice a series of rituals to try to appease God and earn His favor. I have a living relationship with Him. I look to God as Father. Ask a Muslim if they have that sort of intimacy with Allah.

You can question me all you like, but as Sam Jackson said in Pulp fiction, if the answers frighten you then perhaps you should stop asking scary questions. Or rather perhaps you're a victim of cynicism. As was said by one of the Bishops at Chalcedon, "favor obscures the vision, but hatred makes a man blind." I'm not implying the latter, but I certainly suspect the former.

[Gorilla King]

Ah, but what is that saying about not comparing apples with divinities?

But perhaps it would make just as much sense to worship the Apple, the Skin, the Meat and the Holy Core.

If the apple died for your sins and you have a personal relationship with it.....then something isn't right.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well fortunately, though it's sometimes spoken of in the generalized term of religion, Christianity is not one. Jesus didn't come to create a new religion, he came to DESTROY religion. I don't practice a series of rituals to try to appease God and earn His favor. I have a living relationship with Him. I look to God as Father. Ask a Muslim if they have that sort of intimacy with Allah.

You can question me all you like, but as Sam Jackson said in Pulp fiction, if the answers frighten you then perhaps you should stop asking scary questions. Or rather perhaps you're a victim of cynicism. As was said by one of the Bishops at Chalcedon, "favor obscures the vision, but hatred makes a man blind." I'm not implying the latter, but I certainly suspect the former.

"Christianity is not a religion"! But... if it walks like a religion, and it talks like a religion...

As to questioning you, I submit that it is you, rather, who ought to be questioning - yourself, your mentors, etc.

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

[Gorilla King]

"Christianity is not a religion"! But... if it walks like a religion, and it talks like a religion...

As to questioning you, I submit that it is you, rather, who ought to be questioning - yourself, your mentors, etc.

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

Well it doesn't very well seem like I'm standing around accepting whatever is thrown at me does it. You're making a straw man when a real one is right in front of you.

And in response to your Hume, which I've already responded to two or three times, I offer that just as plato said an unexamined life is not worth living, so too, is an unexamined faith not worth having. I assure you, my faith has been examined considerably.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well it doesn't very well seem like I'm standing around accepting whatever is thrown at me does it.

Actually, it does, I have yet to read a post in which you questioned so much as a comma of what you have been taught.


And in response to your Hume, which I've already responded to two or three times, I offer that just as plato said an unexamined life is not worth living, so too, is an unexamined faith not worth having. I assure you, my faith has been examined considerably.

Not Plato but Socrates who said that. And might I suggest that the corollary is equally true: The over-examined life (or faith) leaves too little time foir fresh, unmediated experience.

As for an earlier remark of yours that I ought not to ask questions if I am scared of the answers I might get: Which of us, you or I, is more scared of an answer that might contradict our beliefs? I, that I might find there really IS a God? Or you, that there might not be one?

[Pendragon]

It has been said that one questions that which one does not understand. It has also been said that we ask questions in order to learn, there is no learning without questioning. Do I or have I ever questioned the Bible, being a Christian, and a minister? Often. Why is probably the thought running through most minds. Because I consider blind faith often no faith. Because I need answers as to the who, what, where, when, why, and how of things I choose to believe. The Bible (I use a KJV, published 1611), is very old. Meanings of words have changed over the years. We used different measurements and things sound confusing. People often had to describe what they saw in visions in terms they understood, never having any knowledge of what they really saw. Paul himself warns against meaningless geneologies, and vain repetitions. I only say sometimes, you might not be so able to explain it as you think. Tread carefully. You would be amazed at the number of "quotes" I have ran into in 20-odd years as a minister that simply do not exist in the Bible as worded.

What happened? Someone misquoted, but was respected enough that others trusted that minister enough to quote him or her. Others took the bait, and then it became tradition, but it isn't in the Bible. Always check your quote.

God bless

Pen

[PrinceMyshkin]

It has been said that one questions that which one does not understand. It has also been said that we ask questions in order to learn, there is no learning without questioning. Do I or have I ever questioned the Bible, being a Christian, and a minister? Often. Why is probably the thought running through most minds. Because I consider blind faith often no faith. Because I need answers as to the who, what, where, when, why, and how of things I choose to believe. The Bible (I use a KJV, published 1611), is very old. Meanings of words have changed over the years. We used different measurements and things sound confusing. People often had to describe what they saw in visions in terms they understood, never having any knowledge of what they really saw. Paul himself warns against meaningless geneologies, and vain repetitions. I only say sometimes, you might not be so able to explain it as you think. Tread carefully. You would be amazed at the number of "quotes" I have ran into in 20-odd years as a minister that simply do not exist in the Bible as worded.

What happened? Someone misquoted, but was respected enough that others trusted that minister enough to quote him or her. Others took the bait, and then it became tradition, but it isn't in the Bible. Always check your quote.

God bless

Pen

You're a WHAT? and a WHAT? AND a reasonable, amiable, open-minded chap?

Wait! While I attempt to re-align my map of the world!

[Gorilla King]

Actually, it does, I have yet to read a post in which you questioned so much as a comma of what you have been taught.



Not Plato but Socrates who said that. And might I suggest that the corollary is equally true: The over-examined life (or faith) leaves too little time foir fresh, unmediated experience.

As for an earlier remark of yours that I ought not to ask questions if I am scared of the answers I might get: Which of us, you or I, is more scared of an answer that might contradict our beliefs? I, that I might find there really IS a God? Or you, that there might not be one?

Well considering I was an atheist for most of my life...lol you're funny.:lol:

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well considering I was an atheist for most of my life...lol you're funny.:lol:

Ah, then I grieve for the surrender of your autonomous free will, your preference for an ancient scripture over the living scripture of the earth, the cosmos and the future.