Radorth

Which truth or theory (from the hundreds of contradictory ones presented here) were you referring to?

Some of us have been doing this for years and I personally have only found two skeptics out of hundreds I would prefer not to debate. And even then it is not because they present me with irrefutable proof that there is no soul, afterlife, resurrection, what my motives are, etc. So your "firm belief" is precisely that.

There are many questions we cannot answer with the proof you ask, and vice versa. It's "proof" enough for me when my once horribly abused adopted daughter goes to a youth assembly at the Rose Bowl, and comes home determined to get better grades, then a month later comes home with B's and A's instead of c's and D's. Not only that, her attitude has changed altogether and she's a joy to have around. Something happened deep in her soul which no one will ever be able to "prove" or even explain. So what? Atheists have their beliefs and I have mine, and mine get me somewhere.

As seebs has intimated, we can't know these things for sure on a purely intellectual basis, and we all must all act on faith. I really don't find skeptics coherent enough to know what they have to offer me anyway. I've changed my views on evolution a little although I find the proof of it and the contradictions in it almost laughable. I have some doubts about some NT commentary I did not have before. I admit I can never prove the resurrection. I believe it because of the change in Peter, which is otherwise inexplicable. For me it's not about avoiding truth as you say- certainly not as JM'ers do while inventing wildly contradictory theories and taking the most inane assertions by faith. I sometimes believe one thing simply because the alternative is more absurd.

Rad

beth

I'm glad to hear that your daughter has had such a wonderful transformation.
Have a nice Easter!

HelenM

Hi ex-xian,

I think I 'met' you in SL&S on the thread where you were wishing you could have your name changed (and then it was changed)

I think each Christian here is different. I'd rather not try to speak for anyone else and give reasons why they post as they do. That's up to them, to defend their posts, if they want to. Or not.

Speaking for myself, I try not to derail serious discussions. Often I don't comment at all because I don't feel that I have anything to say that will change anyone's mind. Plus I only have 24 hours a day and a few other things to do in those 24 hours as well as post here .

I'm curious what the original title of this thread was since I didn't see it. Ironically I read this current title and it sounded like possible 'baiting' (i.e. "Christians, come post so I can make fun of you or rant at you" - as opposed to, "let's have a serious, mutually respectful discussion"). I try to avoid threads that are baiting but I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt and read your opening post. Having done that, it doesn't seem to me that 'baiting' was your intent. I haven't read the rest of the thread so I hope it's not too confusing that I skipped back to the OP (opening post).

Helen

The Frood Dude

The problem here is the context. I am applying a consistent hermeneutical principle to the text. This morning I said to my kids, "no one is getting breakfast until this mess is cleaned up." Did I mean that you couldn't have breakfast or people outside of my home? No. But the people in my home were clear who I meant and why.

Christians have wrongfully used this text to support exclusion of other people. I do not support the wronful use of this text from them or from atheists.

Quote:

So, apparantly you are another person who takes only those portions of the bible that line up with what you already decided to believe? Even if one applies proper hermeneutics (sp?) while interpreting the bible, it is impossible to be consistent and ignore all the references to punishment and hell. We'll toss out revelation and we're left with the teachings of paul and jesus aboutg hell.

I am a person who applies a consistent hermeneutic to all texts. My assumptions are about the reliability of my approach. I will grant that. However, that does not mean that I take this part of the Bible and reject that part. It means that after I have used the approach of understanding the original language, the original context, the literary context, and the historical context, I have an understanding of the text that I must know reckon with. However, I should say that my assumption is that the Bible is written by humans to point to God. I am not one who points to the Bible as if it were God. I don't buy the less than 200 year old position that the Bible is factually correct about every topic. It is reliable as an account of people in relationship with God.

I don't throw out Revelation. I take it for what it is. It is a message of hope and encouragement to stay faithful in times of persecution. Historically it helps me understand the early church.

The teaching about hell attributed to Paul and Christ does not stand up under literary criticism. Christ was using a powerful metaphor to show the waste and destruction of sin. We still use this kind of language today. When we say "everything is going down the drain" we do not mean a literal drain that things go down. It is a metaphor for waste.

Paul was referencing a cultural understanding. We see him doing this often. Even the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not original to Christ. He didn't make this story up. It existed in the culture already. And Christ's point in that story was never to teach about hell, but the point was about disregard for the poor and needy. Read that story in context of the whole chapter and it seems obvious to me. The Jews had "Moses and the prophets" (the Jewish Scriptures) that taught them to care for those in their midst who were in need, but they ignored it.

Quote:

So you choose to be a xian. Ok, fair enough, you assume that all religions (or even none) are all ways to god?

Possibly. All of the major ones seem to have common elements. You could make up your own system that may or may not point to what I would call God. You might even have no structured system, yet what I call God would be evident in the choices you make.

Quote:

So if the type of christ you believe is the one you choose, what happens if you make the wrong choice? If there is no objective standard to measure your christ against other christs, what value is there in choosing one at all?

Seebs has answered the problem of an objective standard. None exists. Even in the construction of a standard our subjectivity comes into play. But what do you mean by wrong? If the Christ I believe in were leading to me pain, destruction, waste, etc, then I would choose a new one. If the Christ I believe in allowed me to marginalize others and mistreat them, I would drop that Christ immediately.

The value in choosing Christ, IMO, is the association with a community of followers. As we connect and journey together, we work out our salvation through relationship and experience.

lpetrich

(to Radorth after his daughter's behavior improved...)
This recalls a somewhat similar story Hedrick Smith's book or (?) Shipler's book on the Russia. Someone in Russia during the later Soviet years had gone to church (Russian Orthodox) and had become much less crabby and quarrelsome. I wonder what similar stories can be told about converts to other creeds.

Since if a heretical church can do it, it must be some sort of psychological effect. Ed Babinski has a nice article where he mentions the great happiness people can get from converting to this or that religion/sect.

Yes, I say heretical, because the Eastern Orthodox church is very Catholic-like in some ways, such as its taste for imagery and saints and so forth. I recall from a visit to St. Petersburg long ago that there was a religious painting with a worn spot on it from people kissing it.

Last but not least, Bertrand Russell, that famous freethinker, had had a "mystical experience" which had made him much more compassionate -- but it did not make him want to convert to any established religion.

Opera Nut

Objection, non responsive. Frood, you didnt' answer my question about whether Jesus was a badass with a sword who is violent and splits up families, or whether he's meek and mild and a good guy.

Radorth

Gee, thanks for all the options.

Too bad about that fig tree.

"Behold the goodness and severity of God."

He was neither, but you'd need a Zen course to get it.

Rad

Radorth

I have to go with what empirical evidence I can find Ip, while you claim to have all the insight into the human heart you'll ever need based on some assertion of bertrandt Russell.

(Who never tired of making them)

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Wouldn't it be just as effective and easier on the wallet to skip the Zen courses and just smack yourself on the head with a rock?

It's funny how followers of "the one true god" have to look outside of their religion to find meaning and understanding.

Radorth

Huh? No, I don't need a Zen course to understand how God could be good or severe, depending on my attitude. One can learn it rather quickly at no charge. We determine which side we will see, by how we judge others in particular.

Rad