Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/02/2020 in all areas

  1. When we have strong emotional ties to Christianity, it can make us examine Christianity in a biased way. "We can't disprove God, so maybe he does exist?" ... "If you interpret this story as a metaphor and that as having happened 350 years later, it could potentially have happened" ... "If you view this quote in the right context, it potentially doesn't contradict that other quote"... etc. etc. We look for the smallest possibility that it might be true, because it's of such high emotional importance to us. It can help put it into perspective to examine it from the other direction, t
    3 points
  2. I like to take the approach where I am as honest with the evidence as I can be, even if that means at times I defend the Bible. The best approach to this is to use inductive reasoning, build a case from the ground up and see where the evidence leads. Regarding the question at hand, what do you think this is evidence of? Here is what I would make of it: The earliest Christian writings were supposedly from Paul (what Paul actually wrote is a whole other story. If I remember correctly only 7 of the books in the NT are actually attributed to him), and they include a resurre
    2 points
  3. Not really. We don't have lots of evidence. What we do have indicates that they were somewhat like ourselves. Some took it literally and others took it allegorically with others falling in-between. Josephus and Philo of Alexandria are about the only two writers from that period and they're on both ends of this. Josephus describes a literal creation while Philo tends to a more allegorical one (however, his writings are focused on this so it may well be because of this). Josephus also mentions that the various sects of Jews varied in their beliefs with the Sadducees being most literal and
    2 points
  4. There's clearly a lot of anger here. I'm not saying it's unjustified, but I'm not sure that actively leaning into it is the most helpful approach either. And that's all I'm going to say about that.
    2 points
  5. And I also remember you @Overcame Faith! Glad to hear from you! Thank you for the friendship and encouragement when I needed it! I and @Eugene39 are happy as heck and so thankful for this site. 3 of my 4 kids are grown and 1 has thought his way out of fundamentalism, so that makes me happy too. We happened upon another “Ex-c” (from this site) in our town who is semi-famous now for an ex-c book she wrote and we were privileged to celebrate our wedding at her beautiful home, and are very thankful to know her. My kids love my husband and love seeing us happy. We have had much fallout
    2 points
  6. My reply is much along the lines of MWC. We do know that ancient people didn't necessarily think in terms of historical accuracy when telling their stories, but rather in terms of a 'truth' they were trying to convey.
    1 point
  7. I know, a bit rich coming from me
    1 point
  8. @SeaJay I am really glad to hear it. I think this is going to be a big step for you in the right direction. IMO, your anxiety leads to OCD, where you obsess about religion, EXACTLY like I did. I have told you before, I was constantly thinking about Hell, constantly praying, constantly asking for forgiveness, constantly trying to find reasons to keep believing. Jesus did not comfort me, he scared the shit out of me. All this talk of love ws just a mask for the absolute terror right behind it...well, I am going off topic here. Perhaps start out with General Anxiety and see where that
    1 point
  9. Thanks for the reply Hierophant. It is odd Mark never mentions the resurrection. Archons? That sounds interesting.
    1 point
  10. Apart from the problems associated with the term "scriptural evidence" I can say that it is purported (or claimed if you like) that the Jesus in the story told of in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew did believe in Adam and Eve as real people as evidenced by the passage in Mark 10:6-8 which is basically copied word for word by the later writings of Matthew 19:4-6 where he makes direct allusion to Adam and Eve (Not by name, but by stating what was known to be in Genesis) You can see Matthew copies this and improves the story: So here the character Jesus
    1 point
  11. ^ Along with Forgery & Counter Forgery by Bart D Ehrman
    1 point
  12. Just ordered it this minute.
    1 point
  13. I was being sarcastic. Except for being 78 years old and out of the loop on all the latest fads, I am fine.
    1 point
  14. Because in this case belief isn't belief. It's actually a rhetoric device that amounts to reasoning. I didn't check every single reference to "believe" but I checked quite a few and they all come from "pistis" so we'll just be lazy and go to Wikipedia for pistis: So we'll wander on over to Enthymeme which is where this comes from: Go to the page to see examples. Anyhow, xians weren't looking for blind faith. They were using Aristotelian logic. Belief had to be grounded in something. It's not their fault that this line of "logic"
    1 point
  15. Geezer might be able to help you out but I think he was pretty young then. Sorry. Couldn't resist. I'll shut up and let the smart folks hash this one out.
    1 point



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.