Radcliffe Emerson

When I personally talk to a man who went to a seminary and was ordained as a Methodist preacher, and he tells me they are taught in the seminary that the New Testament in particular is mostly myth, and not to tell the congregations, plus I hear and read that from others who went the same path, I fail to see any logical reason to believe in Christianity.

Marduk

" I fail to see any logical reason to believe in Christianity."


What about the free wine and crackers!?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson: When I personally talk to a man who went to a seminary and was ordained as a Methodist preacher, and he tells me they are taught in the seminary that the New Testament in particular is mostly myth, and not to tell the congregations, plus I hear and read that from others who went the same path, I fail to see any logical reason to believe in Christianity.

Right.

And if you hear from an a different ordained Methodist preacher, and he says that they are taught in seminary that the New Testament contains huge portions of history, plus you hear and read that from others who went the same path, then you would suddenly see a good reason to believe in Christianity.

It sounds like you believe what you want to hear.

Radcliffe Emerson

Sorry, the evidence against the NT being historical fact is overwhelming. If you'd take the time to read some books on the actual history of when and why the bible was written, you'd realize that. It's so blatantly obvious it's myth it's almost funny.
It amazes me people think the NT is so 'inspired' when NONE of it was written by any actual eyewitnesses of Jesus, nor until at the minimum 15 to 20 years after he died, and there is no other historical documents about Jesus other than the bible.
That's fact, and it doesn't matter what the personal belief about that is, or what the apologists say to deny it.
The bible is just a book, no more inspired than any other book. If it were indeed the official word of God, man would not have tampered with it over the years, adding stuff to press their individual points of view to influence people to their beliefs.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Actually, I didn't want to believe it. I was one of the most bible-toting, prophecy, doom preaching guys around.
When I started studying the history behind the bible though, and discovered when the books were actually written, along with the differences in early Christian beliefs, and the council of Nicea forcing the Trinity on people, I began to doubt.
When I read about the discrepancies between different accounts of the crucifixion, the resurrection, who saw Jesus first, how long he stayed before leaving for heaven, etc, and the fact there is hardly anything at all from the first century that backs any of it up, it became obvious to me the stories are not true.

NOGO

Are you saying that you do not believe what you want to believe.

It has been my experience that believers NEED to believe what they believe. Most of them are emotionally attached to their faith to the point where even the smallest logical reasoning cannot be accepted.

Perhaps there are non-believers out there that are attached to their non-belief. I would think however that they are few.

Where do you stand on this, Polycarp?
Are you willing to examine all your beliefs from a totally rational point of view?

Kosh

But in your "Kangaroo" thread, you claim that skeptics will never believe anything based on hearsay. Make up your mind on your generalizations, please.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh: But in your "Kangaroo" thread, you claim that skeptics will never believe anything based on hearsay. Make up your mind on your generalizations, please.

You're mistaken. Nowhere have I claimed that "skeptics will never believe anything based on hearsay".

In fact, here’s my exact words repeated here so that those reading this thread will realize your unfortunate oversight.

” As I stated in that thread, I believe very few skeptics here would have believed in kangaroos had they lived in 16th century Europe.”

Do you care to recant?

Kosh

No, looks damn close to me.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh: No, looks damn close to me.

So you don’t understand the difference between “never” and “very few”? You apparently also don’t understand the difference between addressing an individual, as I did Radcliffe Emerson, and speaking of a group at large, as I did of skeptics.

Is any of this making sense to you? I worry about you Kosh.