Is "Religion" Good or Bad for the World?
-
jmog
Aboslutely, yes we are.merganser wrote:
...and we are all sinners too. -
jmog
Good Lord you can't be serious?jefft01 wrote: In what context would this teaching make the world a better place?
Matthew
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Would it be the same context that this is good in?
Matthew
13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Sounds really peaceful to me.
Matthew 5 part-Jesus is using a metaphor to say if there is something in your life that always causes you to sin, get it out of your life. If having the internet in your house makes you look at porn 24/7 get rid of the computer. He's not really saying to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand.
Matthew 13 part-Its talking about the 2nd coming, all those that have accepted Jesus as their savior go to heaven, those who haven't go to hell. I curious on how this is "not peaceful"? -
bigdaddy2003
You have to understand the kind of person sleeper is. He is anti-religion, anti-military, anti-capitalism. He basically believes that everything America has done has been wrong. So of course he is going to go against religion and make crazy statements. Oh and a typical liberal response is to call someone a moron.jmog wrote:
Ah, the ad hominem logical "proof", if you can't disprove someone, just call them a moron so their statement has to be false.sleeper wrote: LOL
Yeah, because if laws were ever created people would be okay with others going around whacking people. Something tells me you're a moron, and also a believer, coincidence?
You ask someone to provide proof for a statement they made when you have stated a few times on this thread that you KNOW that our laws would have been the same regardless if there was ever a religious influence or not.
You seem to neglect the fact that our forefathers wrote documents like the Declaration of Independence that talked about everyone being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Those same rights, that our country still base laws off of, are NOT seen as "rights" around the world in different cultures, but they are similar to the moral standards of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
I'd love to compare intelligence with you by any measure you like, IQ, ACT, SAT, GRE, etc but I'm afraid you might be ill equiped. -
pmoney25
Looks like jeff has taken the atheism 101 class -
Mr PatI can go all day, Jeff.
Matthew 5: 1-12 Sermon on the Mount
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, 2and He began to teach them, saying:
3Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you Because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:41-42
Should anyone press you into service for one mile go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
Matthew 5:43-48
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Oh man, the atrocities!! -
jefft01Mr Pat wrote: I can go all day, Jeff.
Matthew 5: 1-12 Sermon on the Mount
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, 2and He began to teach them, saying:
3Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you Because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:41-42
Should anyone press you into service for one mile go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
Matthew 5:43-48
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Oh man, the atrocities!!
We can compare good vs bad all day, when someone says that Jesus was "all" good, it's not fact. -
krazie45
Not sure where the Dan Brown reference comes from, I didn't mention Mary Magdalene or anything like that. As for the gnostic gospels, I picked up an interest in them a few years ago because I didn't like the fact that when I asked about them in my catholic school I could never get a straight answer of them. Personally I don't use the Bible or the gospels as a historical document as much as a guide to life since they were written many years after the events they describe and many stories were passed by oral tradition and therefore could've changed. Therefore I include the readings of the gnostic gospels as examples of good moral teachings much like the traditional bible, without caring whether the church included them in their Bible.fan_from_texas wrote: I see that OTrap beat me to this thread and answered most of the questions, so I'll just jump in a little bit.
How familiar are you with the gnostic gospels and why they were/were not included in the canon? There are a number of very good reasons why the GoT wasn't directly included in the canon, and the church's pecuniary interest wasn't among those, as far as historian's can tell. That's a little too much Dan Brown and not enough history.krazie45 wrote: The Gospel of Thomas (which you won't find in the Bible because the church felt that its message was a detriment to their own fiscal cause) says in verse 77. " I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there." Basically, you don't need to go to church to be a good person. You also don't need to go to church to find God, because God is everywhere. Therefore I do not see how people giving their time, money, and lives to an organized religion is beneficial. Having a personal relationship with God (or Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Chuck Norris, whomever) is far more beneficial both on a personal and societal level in my opinion.
Regardless, I'm not sure your exegesis on v77 is particularly accurate. If anything, v77 suggests something more pantheistic and gnostic, which is the traditional scholarly reading of the GoT. The idea of God being all and in all is more closely akin to various gnostic movements in the Middle East, e.g., the Sufis. But being pantheist and gnostic doesn't necessarily go against communal meeting and "organized" religion. We've seen most groups along those lines become more communal than ever. The idea of "individualized pantheism" is a bastardized American creation that basically says, "I want to believe in something convenient so I can be spiritual, but I don't want to have to do anything real about it." That is an admittedly convenient, pluralistic, and non-threatening way to approach religion, but that doesn't seem to square up with rigorous philosophical or theological thought.
In short, I'm not sure where you got your information from regarding the GoT, but from what you've typed here, it appears that you've built a personal belief system based on an erroneous (albeit conveniently western) interpretation of one of the Nag Hammadi docs. You can believe whatever you want and live your life however you want, but it's not reasonable to throw out your thoughts on this as though they're accurate. Hold 'em, but treat 'em like what they are--a way for Americans to feel good but not have to follow through.
Re aliens: the Bible doesn't say (or even suggest) that there are no aliens. The Bible states that there are non-human beings that exist. I assume there is other intelligent life out there, which is consistent with (and reinforced by) the Bible itself. I don't know why that would be embarrassing for religious people unless they took a hard line over a meaningless issue (which happens all the time. See, e.g., Falwell and the dinosaur bones). Picking apart the words of dumb Christians is pretty easy, and while it proves that there are some religious morons out there, these sort of ad hominem attacks don't say much at all about the validity of the religion itself.
As for the verse I quoted, that is my interpretation of it and that's what I shared. You shared your interpretation of it, congratulations. Neither of us are really right or wrong since we didn't write it, nor do we know what the message intended. You can quote historians or whatever but truth be told they don't really know for sure either. My point of view at this time in my life is that I don't know, so I'm not going to pretend that I know. I believe there's a God, I believe he created the universe, I'm not certain if he intervenes in everyone's lives though I don't think that he does. There may be a heaven, and when I die, I intend on doing so after a life where I know I've lived a good and fulfilling life where I helped my fellow man and been a good person. If God denies me access to heaven because I didn't go to church, well maybe that's not a heaven I want to be in anyways. I believe God is everywhere and you don't need to be in a church to know that or to be a good person and live a good life. The pain and suffering that has become of the arguments in organized religion are more than the benefits of a church community on an individual. I just believe if people had a more personal relationship with their God and learned to accept others rather than persecute them for their beliefs, the world would be a better place. -
jefft01Looks like pmoney25 has taken the bad comedian class.
-
Mr PatJeff, I took issue with your statement about how if people followed the New Testament closely there would a lot MORE atrocities, which is just silly. I believe you are running out of ammunition for that ridiculous claim because you know there is much more about peace in Jesus' teaching then you could misinterpret into possibly making human being commit MORE atrocities.
-
jefft01
So are you the only one who can interpret the bible? You THINK it's a metaphor. Coming right after Jesus tells us that even looking at another woman is adultery, I would have to differ with your assumption of metaphor.jmog wrote:
Good Lord you can't be serious?jefft01 wrote: In what context would this teaching make the world a better place?
Matthew
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Would it be the same context that this is good in?
Matthew
13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Sounds really peaceful to me.
Matthew 5 part-Jesus is using a metaphor to say if there is something in your life that always causes you to sin, get it out of your life. If having the internet in your house makes you look at porn 24/7 get rid of the computer. He's not really saying to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand.
Matthew 13 part-Its talking about the 2nd coming, all those that have accepted Jesus as their savior go to heaven, those who haven't go to hell. I curious on how this is "not peaceful"?
While spending eternity in a lake of fire, may be peaceful to some, it is a huge injustice for the scant time that we spend as "sinners" on earth. -
sleeper
jmog wrote:
Ah, the ad hominem logical "proof", if you can't disprove someone, just call them a moron so their statement has to be false.sleeper wrote: LOL
Yeah, because if laws were ever created people would be okay with others going around whacking people. Something tells me you're a moron, and also a believer, coincidence?
You ask someone to provide proof for a statement they made when you have stated a few times on this thread that you KNOW that our laws would have been the same regardless if there was ever a religious influence or not.
You seem to neglect the fact that our forefathers wrote documents like the Declaration of Independence that talked about everyone being endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Those same rights, that our country still base laws off of, are NOT seen as "rights" around the world in different cultures, but they are similar to the moral standards of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
I'd love to compare intelligence with you by any measure you like, IQ, ACT, SAT, GRE, etc but I'm afraid you might be ill equiped.
Once again, I've never said our laws aren't based on religion, but you still seem to think that society would allow for someone to murder another if we didn't have religion to base those laws off of. That makes you a moron, AND your statement is false. -
fan_from_texas
The Dan Brown reference is a reference to "conspiracy theory" approaches to Christianity, as though the "church" as some institution on its own conspired to block certain books from the canon.krazie45 wrote: Not sure where the Dan Brown reference comes from, I didn't mention Mary Magdalene or anything like that.
They weren't written "many years" after the events they describe. Most were certainly written within a generation. E.g., Mark was written before the destruction of the temple, so we're certainly looking at sometime in the 60s. Most people can remember significant events that happened twenty or thirty years ago (Will you remember 9/11? Pearl Harbor? JFK assassination?) With an oral culture and significantly better memories, there's good reason to assume that they're pretty solid on the major details, even if there are discrepancies over immaterial points. That's only an issue for people who are strict Biblical literalists, which most Christians aren't.Personally I don't use the Bible or the gospels as a historical document as much as a guide to life since they were written many years after the events they describe and many stories were passed by oral tradition and therefore could've changed. Therefore I include the readings of the gnostic gospels as examples of good moral teachings much like the traditional bible, without caring whether the church included them in their Bible.
Right--your interepration appears to lead to individualistic pantheism. If that doesn't strike you as a bit odd, that's kind of your call. You can say that neither of us can conclusively determine whether we're right or wrong, but it's factually inaccurate to say that neither of us are right or wrong. We didn't write Romeo and Juliet, either, but that doesn't mean that we can't get an idea of what Shakespeare was trying to say, nor does it mean that all interpretations of Shakespeare are equally valid. Though there are some differences of opinion, most experts--people who spend their life studying Shakespeare--come out, in large part, on the same ground.As for the verse I quoted, that is my interpretation of it and that's what I shared. You shared your interpretation of it, congratulations. Neither of us are really right or wrong since we didn't write it, nor do we know what the message intended.
Similarly with Biblical interpretation--while we can't conclusively prove exactly what someone intended by their writing, it doesn't follow from that that all interpretations are equally valid. Some are prima facie bad interpretations, like individualistic pantheism. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but I'd at least recommend revisiting your conclusion.
I'm not pretending that I know, either. I am noting that some things seem more reasonable than others, and my lack of certainty doesn't mean that I should accept all propositions equally. Some things make a lot more sense than other things, and as rational beings, we have an obligation to treat the reasonable and the unreasonable differently.My point of view at this time in my life is that I don't know, so I'm not going to pretend that I know. -
sleeper
Anti-capitalism and a liberal?bigdaddy2003 wrote:
You have to understand the kind of person sleeper is. He is anti-religion, anti-military, anti-capitalism. He basically believes that everything America has done has been wrong. So of course he is going to go against religion and make crazy statements. Oh and a typical liberal response is to call someone a moron.
LOL
Also, anti-military is false, I like the military, I just feel its over glorified FOR NO REASON.
Sorry, just because I don't think America is without fault doesn't mean I think everything they do is wrong. It's still the greatest country on the planet, but I don't drink the kool-aid like the average American. -
bigdaddy2003
Yeah sleeper the world would be a great place if there had never been any wars but that's not a reality. It's a fantasy and the truth is that the military is a good thing and not over glorified.sleeper wrote:
Anti-capitalism and a liberal?bigdaddy2003 wrote:
You have to understand the kind of person sleeper is. He is anti-religion, anti-military, anti-capitalism. He basically believes that everything America has done has been wrong. So of course he is going to go against religion and make crazy statements. Oh and a typical liberal response is to call someone a moron.
LOL
Also, anti-military is false, I like the military, I just feel its over glorified FOR NO REASON.
Sorry, just because I don't think America is without fault doesn't mean I think everything they do is wrong. It's still the greatest country on the planet, but I don't drink the kool-aid like the average American. -
jefft01
I was trying to point out that people who believe literally in a religion which promises reward in the afterlife, are much more likely to commit atrocities against people who believe something different, and much more likely than someone who thinks that their current life is all they have. I agree that a lot of things taught by Jesus are good. I just disagree that it is all good.Mr Pat wrote: Jeff, I took issue with your statement about how if people followed the New Testament closely there would a lot MORE atrocities, which is just silly. I believe you are running out of ammunition for that ridiculous claim because you know there is much more about peace in Jesus' teaching then you could misinterpret into possibly making human being commit MORE atrocities. -
sleeper
I'd rather not get into specifics about the military in this thread, simply because my anti-religion agenda has taken off nicely.bigdaddy2003 wrote:
Yeah sleeper the world would be a great place if there had never been any wars but that's not a reality. It's a fantasy and the truth is that the military is a good thing and not over glorified.sleeper wrote:
Anti-capitalism and a liberal?bigdaddy2003 wrote:
You have to understand the kind of person sleeper is. He is anti-religion, anti-military, anti-capitalism. He basically believes that everything America has done has been wrong. So of course he is going to go against religion and make crazy statements. Oh and a typical liberal response is to call someone a moron.
LOL
Also, anti-military is false, I like the military, I just feel its over glorified FOR NO REASON.
Sorry, just because I don't think America is without fault doesn't mean I think everything they do is wrong. It's still the greatest country on the planet, but I don't drink the kool-aid like the average American.
CLOWN. -
jmog
Pretty much every Bible scholar on the planet agrees he's talking in metaphor at that point about plucking out your eye, and anyone with a brain can see he is with simple reading comprehension.jefft01 wrote:
So are you the only one who can interpret the bible? You THINK it's a metaphor. Coming right after Jesus tells us that even looking at another woman is adultery, I would have to differ with your assumption of metaphor.
While spending eternity in a lake of fire, may be peaceful to some, it is a huge injustice for the scant time that we spend as "sinners" on earth.
Also, you are wrong, Jesus didn't say that looking at a woman is adultery, he said that if you look at a woman and lust after her in your heart (basically fantasize about it) that its like you've committed adultery with her already.
Huge difference between just looking at a woman and lusting after her, you know this, I know this. -
bigdaddy2003
sleeper wrote:
I'd rather not get into specifics about the military in this thread, simply because my anti-religion agenda has taken off nicely.bigdaddy2003 wrote:
Yeah sleeper the world would be a great place if there had never been any wars but that's not a reality. It's a fantasy and the truth is that the military is a good thing and not over glorified.sleeper wrote:
Anti-capitalism and a liberal?bigdaddy2003 wrote:
You have to understand the kind of person sleeper is. He is anti-religion, anti-military, anti-capitalism. He basically believes that everything America has done has been wrong. So of course he is going to go against religion and make crazy statements. Oh and a typical liberal response is to call someone a moron.
LOL
Also, anti-military is false, I like the military, I just feel its over glorified FOR NO REASON.
Sorry, just because I don't think America is without fault doesn't mean I think everything they do is wrong. It's still the greatest country on the planet, but I don't drink the kool-aid like the average American.
CLOWN.
Yeah, your reasoning in both subjects makes me giggle like a little school girl.
Let me try this.
Ass clown. Damn I'm as cool as sleeper now. -
jefft01
I'll have to concede that it's obvious hyperbole, but it doesn't change the fact that "lust" is natural and I fail to find anything wrong with it.jmog wrote:
Pretty much every Bible scholar on the planet agrees he's talking in metaphor at that point about plucking out your eye, and anyone with a brain can see he is with simple reading comprehension.jefft01 wrote:
So are you the only one who can interpret the bible? You THINK it's a metaphor. Coming right after Jesus tells us that even looking at another woman is adultery, I would have to differ with your assumption of metaphor.
While spending eternity in a lake of fire, may be peaceful to some, it is a huge injustice for the scant time that we spend as "sinners" on earth.
Also, you are wrong, Jesus didn't say that looking at a woman is adultery, he said that if you look at a woman and lust after her in your heart (basically fantasize about it) that its like you've committed adultery with her already.
Huge difference between just looking at a woman and lusting after her, you know this, I know this. -
jmog
You are the one that started with the moron, so you are the one with an "e-penis" issue.sleeper wrote:
Once again, I've never said our laws aren't based on religion, but you still seem to think that society would allow for someone to murder another if we didn't have religion to base those laws off of. That makes you a moron, AND your statement is false.
You look at societies, and there are many that view things we consider reprehensible to be perfectly fine/normal. I already gave one example but since you deemed it unworthy and you are smarter than everyone, it was a ludicrous example.
What about "honor killings" in some societies? Your own family has no problem killing you if you did something they thought was dishonorable. These are almost completely "overlooked" in such nations laws/courts and basically allowed.
Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Israel, Peru, and Venezuela all have allowed "honor killing" as a defense for murder in their courts. While not technically "legal" to kill someone, they got away with it as a defense.
Jordan, Syria, and Morocco "honor killings" are actually legal.
All of these are laws based on the societies religious backgrounds, right or wrong it happened there.
So no, I'm NOT a moron to believe that if not for the Christian morality instilled in our law system from the beginning, that murder quite possibly would be legal.
Now, I've cited one ancient case (Mayans) and a few modern cases as evidence to my claim. Will you still use the ad hominem logic or start providing evidence that you KNOW? -
jmog
100% false.krazie45 wrote: Personally I don't use the Bible or the gospels as a historical document as much as a guide to life since they were written many years after the events they describe and many stories were passed by oral tradition and therefore could've changed. Therefore I include the readings of the gnostic gospels as examples of good moral teachings much like the traditional bible, without caring whether the church included them in their Bible.
Book-dates (all A.D.)
Matthew-dated between 70 and 85
Mark-dated between 55 and 75
Luke-dated between 65 and 95
John-
Acts-dated in the 60s
Galations-49
1 Thessalonians-51
I could keep going, but it has been dated that every NT book was written between 40 AD and 120ish AD, some believe that they were all written before 70 AD since many quotes from the books were found in ancient letters with dates on them sent to various city leaders.
So no, it wasn't passed down for generations from oral communications, it was written within a couple decades of the death of Jesus by first and second hand witnesses. -
krazie45
I was referring to the stories of the Bible as a whole, most notably in the OT in regard to the oral tradition over generations. I'm fully aware the gospels were written years after the death of Christ, however their authorship is often mistaken. Many people believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the gospels.jmog wrote:
100% false.krazie45 wrote: Personally I don't use the Bible or the gospels as a historical document as much as a guide to life since they were written many years after the events they describe and many stories were passed by oral tradition and therefore could've changed. Therefore I include the readings of the gnostic gospels as examples of good moral teachings much like the traditional bible, without caring whether the church included them in their Bible.
Book-dates (all A.D.)
Matthew-dated between 70 and 85
Mark-dated between 55 and 75
Luke-dated between 65 and 95
John-
Acts-dated in the 60s
Galations-49
1 Thessalonians-51
I could keep going, but it has been dated that every NT book was written between 40 AD and 120ish AD, some believe that they were all written before 70 AD since many quotes from the books were found in ancient letters with dates on them sent to various city leaders.
So no, it wasn't passed down for generations from oral communications, it was written within a couple decades of the death of Jesus by first and second hand witnesses. -
jmog
I'm glad you agree with me that it was obvious metaphore/hyperbole, but if you agree then why even bring it up as "non-peace" type statements? Just to try to fool those who would have no clue?jefft01 wrote:
I'll have to concede that it's obvious hyperbole, but it doesn't change the fact that "lust" is natural and I fail to find anything wrong with it.
Its your opinion that there is nothing wrong with lust, that doesn't make it a fact.
I best most wives would have the opposite opinion as you, that lusting after another woman is just fine. -
jmog
Most of this thread has been about the NT, not the OT, so sorry if I thought you were talking about the NT.krazie45 wrote:
I was referring to the stories of the Bible as a whole, most notably in the OT in regard to the oral tradition over generations. I'm fully aware the gospels were written years after the death of Christ, however their authorship is often mistaken. Many people believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the gospels.
Prove to me that the 4 gospels were not written by the stated authors?
Their authorship is not mistaken, its often questioned by people with an agenda to disprove Christianity.
I'm not saying I can prove one way or another who wrote the gospels, but I'm saying there isn't any proof that the 4 stated authors didn't write them, so please don't make that statement like its fact. -
krazie45
fan_from_texas wrote:
Fair enough, though the Catholic church was very corrupt in its early stages with things such as "buying your way into heaven". The corruption was one of the reasons that Martin Luther started his own church after being excommunicated.The Dan Brown reference is a reference to "conspiracy theory" approaches to Christianity, as though the "church" as some institution on its own conspired to block certain books from the canon.
Not a great example since we have things like TV and the internet these days where we can document such things. Sure I'll always remember 9/11 but if I lived back then it would be tough to remember every point especially since I wasn't actually in New York at the time. I suppose most of the gospels are pretty close to what actually happened but again, many people falsely believe they were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I don't use the bible as a historical tool, I don't believe the Earth was created in 7 days.They weren't written "many years" after the events they describe. Most were certainly written within a generation. E.g., Mark was written before the destruction of the temple, so we're certainly looking at sometime in the 60s. Most people can remember significant events that happened twenty or thirty years ago (Will you remember 9/11? Pearl Harbor? JFK assassination?) With an oral culture and significantly better memories, there's good reason to assume that they're pretty solid on the major details, even if there are discrepancies over immaterial points. That's only an issue for people who are strict Biblical literalists, which most Christians aren't.
I guess you could say my perspective is somewhat pantheistic. This is probably because that perspective makes more sense to me. I can see the earth, I can see nature, therefore it's not outlandish for me to believe that God and the Earth are connected. Faith stems from two sources, either what we were taught so we simply believe it, or what we've discovered so we simply believe it. That's perfectly fine with me, but you're implying that I'm some kind of idiot because I think this way. I could easily say the same about you but I don't because I'm tolerant of others belief. This is part of the problem of organized religion. I'm sorry but I guess I just don't see how going to a building that a group of "religious officials" deem to be a holy place makes me a better human being. I give time and money to the less fortunate, I love my neighbor as myself, I believe in God. In my opinion, practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ is more important than focusing on his life, death, resurrection, etc. I know not everyone feels this way and doesn't have to, but that doesn't make me ill-informed.Right--your interepration appears to lead to individualistic pantheism. If that doesn't strike you as a bit odd, that's kind of your call. You can say that neither of us can conclusively determine whether we're right or wrong, but it's factually inaccurate to say that neither of us are right or wrong. We didn't write Romeo and Juliet, either, but that doesn't mean that we can't get an idea of what Shakespeare was trying to say, nor does it mean that all interpretations of Shakespeare are equally valid. Though there are some differences of opinion, most experts--people who spend their life studying Shakespeare--come out, in large part, on the same ground.
Similarly with Biblical interpretation--while we can't conclusively prove exactly what someone intended by their writing, it doesn't follow from that that all interpretations are equally valid. Some are prima facie bad interpretations, like individualistic pantheism. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but I'd at least recommend revisiting your conclusion.
This goes back to my above post. My way of thinking makes more sense to me, your belief makes more sense to you. This should be the basis of religion. Believe what you wish and let others believe what they wish. It is God that reveals himself to you.I'm not pretending that I know, either. I am noting that some things seem more reasonable than others, and my lack of certainty doesn't mean that I should accept all propositions equally. Some things make a lot more sense than other things, and as rational beings, we have an obligation to treat the reasonable and the unreasonable differently.