The Faith & Religion mega Thread

If everyone's religions are "true," it makes a point—careful tho it's sharp!——>

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann I just love it when, as a Pagan, I know more about Christianity than the Christians! The Church banned unauthorised translations which were being used to promote heresy, but translations were available in the Middle Ages. In view of the cost of manuscript books, it was generally just the Gospels and Psalms that got translated.

You don't know as much as you think you know. Those "translations" you speak of were only available to the elite aristocracy, not the common people. The elite aristocracy who were in bed with the church politically. Gutenberg invented the printing press precicely for the purpose of getting the Bible into the hands of men affordably. The very fact that we have books of any kind today, the explosion of the information age, is due to the Christian Bible.

If I had to provide the detailed history behind every statement I made, this thread would be 3,000 pages long. A lack of detail does not infer a lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by OregonJim With this statement, I agree. The Roman Catholic church corrupted itself internally in the middle ages out of greed and political desires. It has been apostate ever since, and is not representative of Christianity. That was the whole reason for the Reformation in the 16th century. The Catholic church kept the Bible locked away from the common people, and punished by death those who attempted to translate it. Many men paid with their lives to get the Bible translated into common language - first German, then English. When the people were finally able to read what it said, the Catholic church was exposed for what it was.

Sure, all provable I'm sure. I submit entirely biased opinion.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Really? You don't remember me telling you that I was an atheist for nearly 40 years? (to be more precise, I leaned closer to agnosticism). Do you really think I lived in blissful ignorance all that time? Of course I researched. I was an engineer AND a scientist. I still keep up with what's going on, which is why I tried to point out some of the craziness that you are apparently blind to. On the other hand, what sort of research have YOU done that is OUTSIDE of your atheistic/materialist circle? If you are like I was, I'd guess zip. Zero. Nada.

A common thing I see is that people end up at some state where they decide they "need" something, their life needs meaning, and hence they "convert" and then they sound like you.

We can be quite sure that the gospels in the Holy Bible were not written during nor shortly-after the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, and we can never fully reconcile the inconsistencies between them. But, I submit, we don't have to. Every "legendary figure" is the stuff of legend.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm (although I do not entirely agree with it ...)

The Christian religion became, in due time, an official religion of the Roman Empire – something that had not before been done. Emperors prior to Constantine were content in having the plebeians worship them, whereas Constantine clearly recognized the power of religion when harnessed to the needs of the State. "The cult of Christianity" is largely a Roman invention – although it survived the Empire itself.

(Actually, Theodosius cemented it ...) http://www.unrv.com/culture/christianity.php

We should soberly remember that by this time – about 300 AD – the Christian religion had long ceased to be a matter of the teachings of an itinerant Jewish preacher, and had become a primary portal of Imperial power, especially in the Western Empire. There were plenty of opportunities to "shape" both dogma and surviving historical records ... and, to destroy them ... all of which we know were done. You could easily lose your head, or at least "all of your property and your Roman citizenship," if you "believed" the wrong thing at the wrong time, or failed to profess the "right" one.

Thousands of years have passed since those times, and we are left merely to debate the texts that we have, the (sometimes differing) copies that we have, and so forth. The study of human history is never exact science. We might be looking at documents from the cloudy eye of what we want to believe, and we might be looking at a document that was written – or, rewritten – to suit the "message" that they wished to convey.

This is why I ponder "the book itself, as I happen to have it," but treat it as ... a book. It went through a tumult of gathering and of translation to get here. The particular collection of documents that are in it (and, that are not), and in some cases the versions that are in it, all was a human choice – and anything but a neutral choice. "Keep that in mind when reading any book of this sort."

A "faith" that is based on assumptions about "a book" that "a book" can't hold up to ... is a castle built upon the sand. I don't ask nor do I expect so much from my copies of that book.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs We can be quite sure that the gospels in the Holy Bible were not written during nor shortly-after the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, and we can never fully reconcile the inconsistencies between them. But, I submit, we don't have to. Every "legendary figure" is the stuff of legend.

Even the most liberal, secular scholars don't agree with you:

The currently accepted dates are as follows, from the earliest by conservative, believing scholars to the latest by liberal and sometimes secular scholars: Matthew: 37 to 100 ad/ce Mark: 40 to 73 ad/ce Luke: 50 to 100 ad/ce John: 65 to 100 ad/ce

...and this is from a book by D.M. Murdoch, who (like you) didn't even believe that Jesus existed, but had to admit to the early dating of the books. Just a simple Google search of the source of YOUR CHOICE will reveal this. The Internet is full of garbage from nefarious sources, but this is one area where the overwhelming majority of scholars are in agreement. Legends don't develop in such a short period of time. Repeating ad nauseum your own delusions doesn't tread water. Do some actual INVESTIGATION.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs A "faith" that is based on assumptions about "a book" that "a book" can't hold up to ... is a castle built upon the sand. I don't ask nor do I expect so much from my copies of that book.

A book that is the product of humanity, yes. But the Bible (a library, not an individual book) is NOT the product of exclusively human minds. You have taken the name of "Christian" in vain. You are not one, plain and simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...us_populations
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/most-.../01/id/569022/

Your children make the best soldiers!

Sundialsvcs just say you're sorry (then all will be forgiven!)

Originally Posted by rtmistler A common thing I see is that people end up at some state where they decide they "need" something, their life needs meaning, and hence they "convert" and then they sound like you.

Sure, I'll agree with that. Many people feel a social need and join a Christian church to find a support group. That is not Christianity, however. That is a group of people calling themselves Christians simply due to membership in a "club". They are there to feel good about themselves, thinking that 'Jesus' will make their lives better, fix their marriages, get them better jobs, and so on. He never promised that. They're following a man-made religion. Granted, some go on to learn the truth, becoming true Christians, but many do not.

My case is different. I was raised in a Catholic family. We were taught the Catechism, not the Bible. As a result, my view of religion was fraught with inconsistencies and contradictions, all the baggage that comes with the Roman tradition. It is precisely those teachings that turned me into an atheist. I believed in evolution (they even taught it in Catholic school!). I considered that there MIGHT be a Creator who made the universe, but, if so, He just set everything in motion and let it go to play itself out. He was working on other things now, if at all.

Fast forward to adult life, and things were good. I had a 6-figure salary, working in aerospace, gaming, military countermeasures, biology and oceanography, at various stages in my career. I had comfort and perfect health, lots of friends, all the "toys" I wanted. Two boats, an RV, motorcycles, business trips to Australia and other places, diving off the Great Barrier Reef, private helicopter access, you name it. I was lacking in nothing, searching for nothing. I was satisfied with my life.

Then one day, while walking through an upscale mall, I passed by a Christian bookstore that I had seen but ignored many times before. However, this time, I got an irresistable urge to go inside and buy a Bible. I have no explanation for it. I was so ignorant at the time, that I did not realize there was such a diversity of translations available. I thought we only had the King James and the Catholic version - because that's all I was taught in school. I just picked one at random.

That same night, by the time I finished reading the Gospel of John, I had become a true Christian. I believed that Jesus did what He said He did, and that every "good deed" I had ever done was tainted by sin. He offered to pay for them FOR me, and nothing I could do myself would ever balance the scales. You might call it blind faith at this point, and from your vantage point, I would agree. However, as soon as I accepted what I read and trusted it to be true, all kinds of things happened. Not only did I find an abundance of hard and objective evidence to support my "faith" (and still continue to find more on a regular basis), my entire set of opinions, desires, goals, wants, and convictions changed virtually overnight. I became a "new person". just as the Bible says. I had no interest in money, no desire to accrue more "stuff", my friends were exchanged for new friends, my desires changed - I had previously hated history - it was always my worst subject in school - now it was my favorite. The text of the Bible came 'alive' - it was no longer dry and boring. Questions were popping off the pages, begging for more insight, being answered with more reading. I used to be interested exclusively in science and math. My eyes were opened and I was able to think more clearly and objectively about what I had been taught. The previously hidden, yet glaring, contradictions were now openly visible. I didn't HAVE to give up 'bad' things, I WANTED to. Some were more difficult to accomplish than others, and some I still have trouble with, but the DESIRE to do so never falters. The mark of a true Christian is a transformed life. Not a perfect one, but one that is moving in a direction that it wasn't before.


So, whatever I "sound like" to you, it is not for the reasons you conjectured. I was searching for nothing, and needing nothing. My case may not be typical, but it's not unique, either. As the Bible says, nobody comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him. People will join a social club, and construct a "Jesus" to their own liking, but they will never know the REAL and still LIVING Jesus unless the Father draws them. I don't know what triggers Him to do this, but I suspect it has something to do with His foreknowledge of whether we'll submit to that initial "trust" - with or without the evidence. It seems paradoxical, but only if you limit God to linear time as we are limited.

The world sees, primarily, the imposters. That gives them a reason to rationalize away the truth. It takes an act of God to open someone's eyes. It has always been, and will always be, this way until the last days.

OregonJim, (whether you might cynically "believe it or not" ...) I am n-o-t(!) going to (dare to ...) "refute you," nor to "oppose you." (Neither publicly, nor by any private message.)

"Who am I, verily, to in any way oppose what you have experienced? Nay, I do not do so! Howbeit that I, "but a fellow man, coincident on this mortal coil at this time with you," should dare(!) to do so? I do not.

I do not!

There is, after all, perhaps a much-greater concern than my (mere...) "winning" of this on-line argument: (Consisting more-or-less of the entirety of "1 Corinthians 8 ...")

But be careful with your freedom. [...] "You understand that it's alright to [....]" But a person who has doubts might see you [...] and this might encourage them to [...] But (the key point!!) they really think it is wrong. So this weak brother or sister is ruined(!) because of your 'better'(?!?!) understanding. [But...] ... ... Christ(!!) died for this(!) person. ... ("Oh, shit ... therefore ...") When you [...] caus[e] them to do things they feel are wrong, then you are also sinning against Christ.

Suddenly, the "abstract, theological" principles assume an entirely-different, and much more pragmatic, perspective.

"I have a personal perspective, but I do not choose to defend it." "You have had(!) an epiphany that I do not dispute, although I have not shared it." I hereby gracefully yield ... for there is no cause of conflict here.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs OregonJim, (whether you might cynically "believe it or not" ...) I am n-o-t(!) going to (dare to ...) "refute you," nor to "oppose you." (Neither publicly, nor by any private message.) "Who am I, verily, to in any way oppose what you have experienced? Nay, I do not do so! Howbeit that I, "but a fellow man, coincident on this mortal coil at this time with you," should dare(!) to do so? I do not. I do not!

There is nothing wrong in opposing what you do not believe to be true. You have already done so - in contradiction to your benevolent statement above. I do not argue that you believe what you believe, simply that what you believe does not fit the Christian label. You are free to use it, just as you could call yourself a Buddhist without ever studying the teachings. Many do that as well - I just don't see WHY.

I would not oppose your personal experience either, and you have not offered one. I am simply surprised at your desire to call yourself "Christian" while at the same time denying the existence of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible. It "does not compute".

EDIT (after your edit): I agree with your theological assessment of 1 Cor 8, but what has that to do with anything that either of us has said? Which of us has stated something that would cause another to sin? Which liberties have I expressed that a weaker brother may consider sinful? And, how is it that you quote Paul for your own purposes immediately after refuting the writings of Paul? Again, you "do not compute".

When Isaac’s mother starts hearing the voice of God demanding a sacrifice be made to prove her faith, Isaac escapes into the basement facing droves of deranged enemies, lost brothers and sisters, his fears, and eventually his mother. The Binding of Isaac is a randomly generated action RPG shooter with heavy Rogue-like elements. Following Isaac on his journey players will find bizarre treasures that change Isaac’s form giving him super human abilities and enabling him to fight off droves of mysterious creatures, discover secrets and fight his way to safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

Originally Posted by OregonJim I would not oppose your personal experience either, and you have not offered one. I am simply surprised at your desire to call yourself "Christian" while at the same time denying the existence of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible. It "does not compute".

Therefore, brother, let there be no further cause of "discussion" between us.

From my own point-of-view, I neither "deny the existence of Jesus," nor "the [...] Bible," But ...

... I hereby depart this (battle)field without further disruption, since I now regard the outcome of "whatever battle(s) may come" far more avaricious than the outcome of surrender. (Particularly and specifically to our brethren who will witness it, "now and forevermore.")
"
And, "with that, let the matter between us two, herewith be: closed."

"Blessed Be.™"

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs And, "with that, let the matter between us two, herewith be: closed." "Blessed Be.™"

That is fine with me. I may disagree with you, but I respect your right to defend your faith, or to withdraw from the discussion. In either case, God's blessings to you and to all others who venture through this battlefield.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I will also grant you the benefit of the doubt and retract my statement about you being 'outside the Christian faith'. That may be appropriate to say about an institution, but not about an individual without having a more personal relationship first. "By their fruits you shall know them". My apologies. Further, enorbet was right in calling me to task on that earlier.

EDIT (5 days later): After further evidence, I must "retract my retraction". Sundialvcs's views are clearly and squarely outside even the widest definition of the 'Christian faith'.

I do agree with Evelyn

Originally Posted by Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall (1906) I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It

but that said, IMHO, anyone who actually ever was a man of science who now embraces "Genetic Entropy", "Evolution Denial", and especially a "Young Earth" less than 10,000 years old has very seriously lost their way and become a superstitious mystic without a clue as to what "hard, objective evidence" actually entails. They appear to covet the title of "science" but are unwilling to earn it.

Anyone actually interested in a very even-handed discussion on those subjects would likely enjoy looking here. It is exceptionally well-written and requires no "heavy lifting".

Science Meets Religion - Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by enorbet IMHO, anyone who actually ever was a man of science who now embraces "Genetic Entropy", "Evolution Denial", and especially a "Young Earth" less than 10,000 years old has very seriously lost their way and become a superstitious mystic without a clue as to what "hard, objective evidence" actually entails. They appear to covet the title of "science" but are unwilling to earn it.

"I once was lost, but now I'm found." I've already earned the "title", as you say, and now see it as an empty crown. You are, of course, free to hold (and to voice) your own opinion. Incidentally, I never said I believed in the 10,000 year theory, much less a "less than 10,000" theory. You seem to be making more assumptions about me. Young earth, yes - meaning thousands versus billions. The important point is that LIFE started (roughly) 10,000 years ago. That does not necessarily need to equal the age of the earth. And, my major objection is not so much with the numbers anyway, but with the fact that they were constructed arbitrarily to fit the darwinian model by extrapolation, and everything else in evolution revolves around those presuppositions. In any case, science-minded people are usually a bit more precise when quoting other people.

Originally Posted by enorbet Anyone actually interested in a very even-handed discussion on those subjects would likely enjoy looking here. It is exceptionally well-written and requires no "heavy lifting". http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/...ent-design.php

Hmmm... the website is owned and edited by an elder in the Mormon church (comments withheld here) who deals with "experimental math". Hardly an objective exposition for EITHER side of the argument given the LDS view of the universe (which is rather...unique). This is not exactly characteristic of your usual narrow standards. Or were you more interested in the DATA rather than the SOURCE, as I have been 'preaching'? Do we see a double standard emerging? Did I not predict this several pages ago?