Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[bdp]

stranger, who wrote the gospels, what do we know about them, what do OTHER writers say about them, how did they get their information, were any of them eyewitnesses to ANYTHING...

 

...see, we have no way of determining the veracity of ANYTHING any of them say. You have a contradiction; the only way you can remove it is to make the bible say things it clearly doesn't, or try to explain why it doesn't say what it very clearly does. I, myself, am not willing to do that anymore.

[bdp]

In conclusion for myself, I understand why and how this is a tough one to understand.

 

It isn't tough to understand at all - you're patronizing us.

[the stranger]

I really had an uneasy feeling just to leave this as was. Not because I have anything to change about the possibilities, but to try to focus on something a bit different to try to bring it into more prospective.

 

Let us start with just a couple comments about Matthew. In chapter eight, Matthew tells us of directly three miracles in some minor details, and of many more in no detail, all in a matter of just 16 verses. So, countless miracles in just 16 verses, with three having just a few things said about it.

 

After giving these accounts of miracles, Matthew goes on to tell us of the whole reasoning that these miracles happened.

 

17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

 

“He took up our infirmities

and bore our diseases.”

 

Matthew focus point was to relate Jesus as the king to the Jews. His main focus point was not to give every minor detail, and every minor fact to every miracle that happened, but to make it very clear that Jesus done many miracles to fulfill the given prophecy. There was no better way to relate this to the Jews than to relate Jesus with the prophecies. The very fact that Matthew mentioned as many facts as he did concerning the centurion is quite amazing and of itself.

 

Point being. Matthew was relating to the Jews that Jesus was fulfilling prophecy by doing these miracles. His point was never to focus on every little detail of the miracles. In saying this, given the fact Matthew wrote five verses about this one miracle, tells us that there had to be a bit to the story, but in this being said, he probably focused on this most due to the fact there was no other time given concerning such great faith. This great faith of this gentile, and the fact the unbelieving Jews would be thrown out of the Kingdom, though it was prepared for them, was the main focus of this portion of scripture, and not the details of the story.

 

We can tell this easily by the general terms of description used combined with the rest of the text.

 

=======================

 

Now I want to spend just a drop of time on Luke.

 

In Luke 1-14, he gives an account of only two miracles, in two separate towns. Being the doctor that he was, he probably took a little more interest in some of the details than what Matthew was interested in giving. He also probably had an idea to take selected happenings and to give more detail of them to even more so show Theophilus that the things in which he had heard or read were in fact true, and was verified. His main focus point was to make certain point very clear in that Jesus was in fact who He said He was, and that the other stories and writings were true.

 

=============================

 

In Matthew, his general account was that this centurion approached Jesus, asked Him to heal his servant, and his servant was healed. In Luke, it is the same story, but told with some of the details that Matthew did not give, like how he sent others up before himself. Also of course, to focus on the main issue, the centurions faith.

 

 

 

I believe part of the problem is, though already talked about, is that both accounts have to give the same facts in order for the account to be true. The problem is, we already know that the bible never truly gives every fact or detail about any of the stories, just as you will not find authors of today doing the same thing. We write what we feel is important enough to write down, and even than, often just to make the point that we are trying to make, and do not give the event a full historic account of all of the happenings as that is not the purpose of what we are writing. Again, we found the same type of thing in the comparison about Washington.

 

 

Now it is true that every word is God inspired and breathed, but that does not change the style of writing. It is also true that throughout the years there may have been a copyist error at certain places in the bible. But this is what i am looking for. In the Washington story, http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/25632-question-for-christians-about-biblical-inerrancy/page__view__findpost__p__635899

 

I had shown that the number of Washingtons siblings were different from one another. On two of those accounts maybe you could say others were just not implied, but on the other two, they simply totaled different numbers, and none of those were a rounded figure, If I were to try to prove a no mistakes level with those accounts, I would be out of luck. We also saw that at the age of eleven, Washington moves to several different places in onr account, but stays place with another. There are some things you can tie together, but I would like to try to change sides for a moment if I could.

 

Perhaps I should be putting this question up on the other thread, but can anyone pull a me, and make the Washington story fit together, no matter how it is you do it? I would be interested.

 

===================================

 

 

I believe that the scripture is like everything else with God. With miracles, with everyday events, with accidents, and with our daily walk, we can decide to believe that all things are in Gods hand and all things happen for a reason (though we may not ever know in this life time) and that the word of God is in fact, the 100% truth, or we can believe that we are all here by chance, that God does not exist, and that there is no reason behind anything, and that the bible is a bunch of bunk.

 

I believe what i believe based on the word of God and the walk that I have with god. Most of you believe what you do based on your past life history. We all have reasons why we believe what we do. I hope in the end everyone has made the right choice, whatever that choice may be!

[bdp]

Most of you believe what you do based on your past life history.

 

Wrong. But who cares.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Stranger, you had already said that Matthew's text was meant literally. Now you want to change it to non-literal.

 

Congratulations, you've PROVED MY POINT! You will REINTERPRET passages differently from their clear, straight-forward meaning when it's necessary for you to try to prop up your ASSUMPTION of inerrancy.

 

Epic fail, Stranger!

 

Why not just be honest and recognize the fact that if these texts were inspired by an omniscient God, then there would be no reason to have to stretch their meanings to reconcile them?

[the stranger]

I still believe Matthew's and Luke's account to be literal. Both facts in Matthew and in Luke are true, and to be taken literally. I have only showed that they had different reasons to write their story, not that both were not literal.

 

Can you show me where I have taken either account for something other than literal?

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger,

 

You have ignored my posted inconsistencies - why? I posted four separate ones. Do you care to address them?

 

Thanks,

Pappy

[Mister Pappy]

Stranger,

 

I am actually waiting for you to tackle these, before moving on to some even more blatant problems with a Bible filled with errors.

 

Pappy

[the stranger]

Mister Pappy, I am sorry about not responding. Do me a favor! Pick your favorite! I will respond to that one for now. Time does have away of keeping me tight in chains at times, but I want to hold your responses off no longer.

[Mister Pappy]

Mister Pappy, I am sorry about not responding. Do me a favor! Pick your favorite! I will respond to that one for now. Time does have away of keeping me tight in chains at times, but I want to hold your responses off no longer.

Heck, lets just start with the first one I posted. I will note that I was a bit confused about where I posted it. It was actually originally posted in the inerrancy thread, but here will do fine.

 

David had many sons. Let's focus of two of them - Solomon and Nathan. It is supposed, according to the teachings of Christianity, that Jesus was descended from David."He must have been if he were to fulfill the qualifications of the messiah". We will not get into the fact that he would have, more particularly, had to descend from David through Solomon directly in order to fulfill such a role. We can save that argument for another time.

 

Matthew claims that Jesus came through Solomon. The author of this book was forever attempting to insure that Jesus fulfill prophecy, so by default, he placed him in the lineage of Solomon.

 

Matthew 1:6 - And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon ...

 

This is the beginning of the book of Matthew's lineage of Jesus and goes right on up to Jesus. So ... he has Jesus being a descendant of David by his son Solomon.

 

Next comes the author of Luke with his lineage.

 

Luke 3:31 - ... which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David ...

 

This is the author of Luke's idea of Jesus being descended from David, but through his son Nathan, not Solomon, as did the author of Matthew.

 

I think it stands to reason that both these authors cannot have it right. One person cannot be descended from another, very distant ancestor though he may be, through two very distinct and individual sons. Someone got it wrong.

 

 

[the stranger]

Mister Pappy, great question. I will get back to ya a little later. I have some ideas already based on earlier reading, but I want to really get something that stands to reason.

 

 

==================

 

Cits, I have a little bit of a confession to make. I tell you that I always try to keep things in context and with the flow of scripture, but for some reason the way I had typed it down, I just could not feel real easy about that. When we read the Matthew account in the flow in which it runs, the version that I laid out would be hard to grasp seeing the way it reads. In all honesty, I probably should of thought about things a little longer first.

 

Pappy, I think first I would like to finish addressing the Matthew Luke account regarding the Centurion first.

 

I think much of what I stated earlier had some truth to it for sure, but again, the version I have out is hard to fit in context. Cits, I want to look into this a little more to come up with what i believe is a far more reasonable solution for the differences. I am really not content with what I have put out there as a whole, that is, in detailing the scripture.

 

I will get back to you,Cits, and you, Pappy, in hopefully a better time frame than as of late.

 

Thanks for reading and being patient.

[Mister Pappy]

... the version I have out is hard to fit in context. Cits, I want to look into this a little more to come up with what i believe is a far more reasonable solution for the differences. I am really not content with what I have put out there as a whole, that is, in detailing the scripture.

Stranger,

 

If you will start doing your own research, instead of hitting Google for your answers, you will most likely be more satisfied with your conclusions. Simply gobbling up what someone else has to say is much like eating someone else's feces. It "stinks in the end" - pun intended. Come to terms with your own mind. Find your own answers. Think for yourself. You can do it. If you can't, you should be asking yourself other questions, more important to you personally than the ones we are asking you.

 

Pappy

[Mister Pappy]

I have some ideas already based on earlier reading, but I want to really get something that stands to reason.

Are you saying that you already have answers, but they do not stand up to reason? If so, I am not sure that the "new answers" you come up with will be much different. One who accepts answers that are not reasonable, in one instance, is very likely to develop this behavior into a pattern. I have found that the acceptance of "unreasonable" answers by Christians is a general pattern. It seems that you may be developing into the kind of person who does not accept the canned stupidity of Christian apologetics as gospel truth. I see potential in you. I am at least very happy, and surprised, to see that you are seeking a different side of the brain than the stereotype. Good on you Stranger.

[the stranger]

If you will start doing your own research, instead of hitting Google for your answers, you will most likely be more satisfied with your conclusions. Simply gobbling up what someone else has to say is much like eating someone else's feces. It "stinks in the end" - pun intended. Come to terms with your own mind. Find your own answers. Think for yourself. You can do it. If you can't, you should be asking yourself other questions, more important to you personally than the ones we are asking you.

 

Mister Pappy, I thank you for those kind words of advice. I generally do side with you on this, and try to do this often, but sometimes I myself need another prospective on things that I can not right away see myself. It does not mean some one else has the right prospective, but it does mean there are at least general ideas out there to began with. I think at times, we all turn to others for help and/or answers. In the end, however, your so right on. We must be convinced in our own mind in spirit that what we believe is probable and most likely correct.

 

At first posting, something was missing, and after second posting, still something. I will admit when I am having a little trouble with some questions, and I will also take back statements that, though at the time seem OK, do not hold up on the easy chair of my soul and brain. I am often not satisfied with what every body else thinks, and generally do not feel more at ease until a question is answered with what I believe is a high likelihood, though not necessarily in agreement with every one else. I think that we all must be satisfied with our own answers, and believe in the likelihood of such.

 

 

I see potential in you. I am at least very happy, and surprised, to see that you are seeking a different side of the brain than the stereotype. Good on you Stranger.

 

I really do appreciate your comments, but please keep in mind, what I may come up with as reasonable or likely may not be what you believe. Just like we have been discussing, I am coming from a mind set that the bible has to be true, and therefor probably am more likely to settle on possible or likely conclusions than most likely you will or would be. Not that my opinion over rides yours by any stretch, but just that our burden of likelihood or probability I am sure will differ. I am in the mindset, with good reason, just like all other writings, we do not and will not have a complete story on anything, thus missing time gaps are not a problem for me. However, scripture flow I tend to think is important. We can get this same picture simply by watching different slants on the news, such as Fox versing NBC. However, again, thank you.

 

I just spent a drop more time in research, but apparently still not enough. LOL I hopefully will have this down by tonight. Right after, I do want to get to your question, Pappy.

[Mister Pappy]

just like all other writings, we do not and will not have a complete story on anything, thus missing time gaps are not a problem for me.

I assure you that it is no problem for me either. In fact, I can promise you, in advance, that I will never insult your intelligence by presenting something as easily blown away as that. I ask that you not insult mine by presenting answers that make no sense. We will get along marvelously with a little respect.

[Mister Pappy]

I am coming from a mind set that the bible has to be true ...

Do you seek the truth, or do you seek only to prove what you already believe? It is very difficult to find truth when one starts from the preconception that his present view must be proven correct at all costs. Ask yourself, "Why must the bible be true?". If you will stop to think on it objectively, you will see how absurd it is to assume that anything that someone, or a group of people, writes MUST be true. Perhaps it is truly what they believe to be true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true, as you suggest. There is zero basis in fact for you to make such a claim and as one interested in being real with himself, you should give that some thoughtful consideration.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I still believe Matthew's and Luke's account to be literal. Both facts in Matthew and in Luke are true, and to be taken literally. I have only showed that they had different reasons to write their story, not that both were not literal.

 

Can you show me where I have taken either account for something other than literal?

 

Matthew says that the Centurion came unto Jesus. You tried to turn that into the Centurion not going to Jesus, but going to the vicinity in which Jesus was. Thus, you were postulating a non-literal meaning for Matthew, even after you clearly stated that it was meant literally (before you realized there was a contradiction you'd need to reconcile).

 

Cits, I have a little bit of a confession to make. I tell you that I always try to keep things in context and with the flow of scripture, but for some reason the way I had typed it down, I just could not feel real easy about that. When we read the Matthew account in the flow in which it runs, the version that I laid out would be hard to grasp seeing the way it reads. In all honesty, I probably should of thought about things a little longer first.

 

It's good that you're thinking. A major problem with apologetics attempts like you posted is that they ignore the clear, straight-forward meaning of at least one of the texts in question. Details are ignored, or the overall flow is ignored, etc. Upholding a preconceived assumption of inerrancy becomes more important than looking at the text honestly. That's one of the biggest problems with apologetics.

 

In case you're curious, this contradiction between Matthew and Luke about whether or not the Centurion went to Jesus was the first contradiction I really realized is in the Bible. It's what started me scratching my head. The Nativity inconsistencies were next. And then, after seeing other contradictions, and then studying the allegedly fulfilled prophecies only to find that they were fabricated by taking OT texts completely out of context (several of which I've detailed earlier in this thread, which you have yet to address), the whole thing just fell apart for me. The Bible is NOT what inerrantists claim it is. Period.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I am coming from a mind set that the bible has to be true ...

Do you seek the truth, or do you seek only to prove what you already believe? It is very difficult to find truth when one starts from the preconception that his present view must be proven correct at all costs. Ask yourself, "Why must the bible be true?". If you will stop to think on it objectively, you will see how absurd it is to assume that anything that someone, or a group of people, writes MUST be true. Perhaps it is truly what they believe to be true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true, as you suggest. There is zero basis in fact for you to make such a claim and as one interested in being real with himself, you should give that some thoughtful consideration.

 

Exactly, Pappy. Unfortunately, what the Stranger is doing is what all inerrantists do. They start with the assumption that the Bible must be 100% true, without any evidence leading them to that as a conclusion, and then they do whatever they can to try to make the Bible appear to be consistent with what they have merely assumed to be true. I used to do exactly the same thing, because I was very brainwashed with inerrancy, just like the Stranger has been.

[Antlerman]

I am coming from a mind set that the bible has to be true ...

Do you seek the truth, or do you seek only to prove what you already believe? It is very difficult to find truth when one starts from the preconception that his present view must be proven correct at all costs. Ask yourself, "Why must the bible be true?". If you will stop to think on it objectively, you will see how absurd it is to assume that anything that someone, or a group of people, writes MUST be true. Perhaps it is truly what they believe to be true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true, as you suggest. There is zero basis in fact for you to make such a claim and as one interested in being real with himself, you should give that some thoughtful consideration.

 

Exactly, Pappy. Unfortunately, what the Stranger is doing is what all inerrantists do. They start with the assumption that the Bible must be 100% true, without any evidence leading them to that as a conclusion, and then they do whatever they can to try to make the Bible appear to be consistent with what they have merely assumed to be true. I used to do exactly the same thing, because I was very brainwashed with inerrancy, just like the Stranger has been.

All of what you say is true, but I take it a step further and look at the underlying reasons why such an approach is done, and why such ensuing gymnastics are given such efforts to defend those. I appreciate and feel its necessary to demonstrate that the assumptions are not pre-given facts at all, by showing how they don't stand up objective scrutiny. Where I go is hoping to shed light on the underlying motives, the psychological, social, and spiritual reasons why such a view is assumed in the first place, and subsequently defended as preserving life itself.

 

Awhile back someone in the Science and Religion Forum asked the question about why people have such a hard time accepting the Theory of Evolution, to the point of knee-jerk rejecting it without actually having any real understanding of it. I came up with some thoughts about it that pertains to this point above about the belief in Biblical Inerrancy. It is very much along the same path as Young Earth Creationism. Someone suggested it was because if the Bible is based on historical facts, then the entire doctrine of original sin isn't true, and the need for Jesus as savior is negated. I thought it went deeper than that and posted this, and will get to my greater point following a repost of it here:

 

This does raise a really good question as to the degree of resistance to the theory of evolution, not just by a bunch of Christian ideologues raging against any views that challenges their beliefs, but even your average non-zealous, non-evangelical Christian American who doesn't spend much energy thinking about much of anything. The idea jars even them it seems. So why?

 

I understand the argument about Adam and Eve, to sin, to Jesus, to the Church and the whole house of cards falling, but that is more a response in religious dogma to what I see as the greater anxiety that it causes. It's not about changing views about their religion, or their theologies, but I see it more a profound anxiety about loosing their perception of themselves as the centerpiece of creation! The universe no longer has us as its primary focus! Humans are facing growing up, and we're doing so kicking and crying about it!

 

Every stage we go though in our development as children is a movement further and further away from an early stage pure egocentrism. Each stage moves us further and further out from a "me" centered view of the world through our perception of ourself. We move from a bodyself identity, to a egocentric identity, to a groupcentric identity, to a sociocentric identity, eventually becoming globalcentric, and finally identify with the entire universe as self. So sociologically, our average-mode consciousness has likewise moved through these same stages of lessening "Me" centered universe, to tribe, to community, etc, further and further away from Me centered view of the universe.

 

Each stage is a painful letting go off that previous way of viewing themselves, and growth pangs occur. So now the news hits their ear, "Guess what? You are one of millions of species that evolved. It didn't have you in mind specifically." Yikes! Their view of themselves has just been unseated, trying to open their minds to a larger worldview which has them more as part of it, than the focus of it. It not about their religious doctrines, but the psychological terror at growing up.

 

A great question. This has really helped me answer some things elsewhere I've been pondering.

 

So the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is similar to this, in that it seeks to have moral and existential truths be outside of us, told to us, demanded of us from above, with us viewing ourselves as the focus and intention of the Greater truth and always maintaining that role of Parent and Child. It avoids the existential terror of growing up and navigating the uncharted waters of life with ourselves as captains. It seeks group conformity by external codes and rule enforced by a mythological symbol of a Book handed to the group by their God itself.

 

That terrifying place to go is what I would call that place of becoming. We move from the center and focus of the universe, to becoming the Universe beyond ourselves. We move from the role of Parent and Child, to fully Realized Adult. I touched on this this morning in another thread about moral codes:

 

The thing is, Love, is creative. It acts in creative ways, and cannot be defined by or achieved by adhering to a prescribed book of actions. It is natural and flowing and comes from within to without, from without to within in an ever manifesting circle of Life. That cannot come from a list of do's and don'ts, but by achieving that internal state which becomes external reality. Anything that works against that Goal, is to be avoided or overcome. That's your standard. To move beyond self to becoming Self. It's an internal standard.

 

The Biblical Inerrantist is at that place where the codes, or truths they hope to find are external to them. They have not been internalized. They are not truths that come from inside, and a such they need to defend the Book of their God, the Book of their Group, which contains these because what they hope for is not yet Realized; they are either approaching them as group conformity rules (i.e. religion), or as higher truths that if they follow will save them; either in some narcissistic sense of avoiding hell or gaining a shiny gold house in the sky, or in some desire to avoid self-destruction from the dysfunction of their own lives in the here and now.

 

But to maintain it outside themselves, creates this illusory place of safety by the creation of a separation of Man and God. It avoids that place of self realization, or Actualization, which requires a dissolution of that division, a death to the idea of a self, to move beyond the illusion of safety, and instead performing actions to appease that deep existential anxiety of non-self, by symbolic actions, sacrifices if you will, to preserve that illusion of a separate self. All of religious projects that create systems of sacrifice are all about preserving that separate self.

 

In short, Biblical Inerrancy is a reactionary doctrine spawned out of a deep religious anxiety brought to bear on the religious world through the rise of Enlightenment philosophies challenging assumptions of religious beliefs from within, and as such today they rationally fall short and rather display this underlying angst, at least in how I see it. It can only be preserved by belief driven by anxiety, avoiding God, so to speak, ironically. Make the Bible God. Keep it outside to tell us what to do.

[★ Citsonga ★]

This does raise a really good question as to the degree of resistance to the theory of evolution, not just by a bunch of Christian ideologues raging against any views that challenges their beliefs, but even your average non-zealous, non-evangelical Christian American who doesn't spend much energy thinking about much of anything. The idea jars even them it seems. So why?

 

I understand the argument about Adam and Eve, to sin, to Jesus, to the Church and the whole house of cards falling, but that is more a response in religious dogma to what I see as the greater anxiety that it causes. It's not about changing views about their religion, or their theologies, but I see it more a profound anxiety about loosing their perception of themselves as the centerpiece of creation! The universe no longer has us as its primary focus! Humans are facing growing up, and we're doing so kicking and crying about it!

 

Every stage we go though in our development as children is a movement further and further away from an early stage pure egocentrism. Each stage moves us further and further out from a "me" centered view of the world through our perception of ourself. We move from a bodyself identity, to a egocentric identity, to a groupcentric identity, to a sociocentric identity, eventually becoming globalcentric, and finally identify with the entire universe as self. So sociologically, our average-mode consciousness has likewise moved through these same stages of lessening "Me" centered universe, to tribe, to community, etc, further and further away from Me centered view of the universe.

 

I can't speak for others, of course, but as a former creationist who rejected evolution myself, your "me" description there is way off base in my case. I was not a "me" centered person, I had just been indoctrinated with the firm belief that the Bible was true, and since the Bible didn't agree with evolution, I rejected evolution. It was absolutely just as simple as that.

[Antlerman]

I can't speak for others, of course, but as a former creationist who rejected evolution myself, your "me" description there is way off base in my case. I was not a "me" centered person, I had just been indoctrinated with the firm belief that the Bible was true, and since the Bible didn't agree with evolution, I rejected evolution. It was absolutely just as simple as that.

And part of that indoctrination has 'you' at the center of God's universe. It's the underlying message, "God created man in his own image", puts him in the Garden, saves him to be with him in heaven. The mindset is present and inherent in the entire system, whether someone is consciously aware of that in the forethought of their mind. It's a background truth that resonates through its symbolic base. It's what mythology does. We are unaware of its influence on our very perception of reality. They both reflect and shape how we perceive the world and ourselves.

 

That you rejected it because it was in a defense of the Bible is secondary. You defended the system in that rejection of Evolution. I would suggest that your motive, why you believed it in the first place was driven by social and psychological needs - just as it was for me and everyone else, whether we were indoctrinated into or adopted it later through conversion. Defending the system, is defending ourselves, protecting our investments, or groundings, or support structures. And those support structures of the Literalist Christian camp are in fact what I said. It is the underlying message in its myth structures. A defense of the structure is a defense of its message to those who are part of it - whether indoctrinated or converted - they are part of it and it part of them.

 

I wasn't meaning to suggest you consciously were aware of this and therefore were consciously doing this. I'm looking at this from a macroscopic view, not a microscopic detail of immediate responses. Make sense? We are marvelous creatures driven by things we are unaware of that flood our underlying views of reality, on a subconscious level. And I'm simply saying as a average-mode thought, an anthrocentric view of reality is where we're moving away from, and our myth structures are struggling to follow. Biblical Inerrancy is symptomatic of that.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I can't speak for others, of course, but as a former creationist who rejected evolution myself, your "me" description there is way off base in my case. I was not a "me" centered person, I had just been indoctrinated with the firm belief that the Bible was true, and since the Bible didn't agree with evolution, I rejected evolution. It was absolutely just as simple as that.

And part of that indoctrination has 'you' at the center of God's universe. It's the underlying message, "God created man in his own image", puts him in the Garden, saves him to be with him in heaven. The mindset is present and inherent in the entire system, whether someone is consciously aware of that in the forethought of their mind. It's a background truth that resonates through its symbolic base. It's what mythology does. We are unaware of its influence on our very perception of reality. They both reflect and shape how we perceive the world and ourselves.

 

That you rejected it because it was in a defense of the Bible is secondary. You defended the system in that rejection of Evolution. I would suggest that your motive, why you believed it in the first place was driven by social and psychological needs - just as it was for me and everyone else, whether we were indoctrinated into or adopted it later through conversion. Defending the system, is defending ourselves, protecting our investments, or groundings, or support structures. And those support structures of the Literalist Christian camp are in fact what I said. It is the underlying message in its myth structures. A defense of the structure is a defense of its message to those who are part of it - whether indoctrinated or converted - they are part of it and it part of them.

 

I wasn't meaning to suggest you consciously were aware of this and therefore were consciously doing this. I'm looking at this from a macroscopic view, not a microscopic detail of immediate responses. Make sense? We are marvelous creatures driven by things we are unaware of that flood our underlying views of reality, on a subconscious level. And I'm simply saying as a average-mode thought, an anthrocentric view of reality is where we're moving away from, and our myth structures are struggling to follow. Biblical Inerrancy is symptomatic of that.

 

Let me put it to you this way: If the Bible had taught evolution, then I would have believed in evolution. All that stuff you're talking about is what is secondary to the issue, as far as I can see. The only reason I believed creation instead of evolution is because of what the Bible says, and if the Bible had presented the opposite as true, then I would have believed that instead. Make sense?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

And part of that indoctrination has 'you' at the center of God's universe. It's the underlying message, "God created man in his own image", puts him in the Garden, saves him to be with him in heaven. The mindset is present and inherent in the entire system, whether someone is consciously aware of that in the forethought of their mind. It's a background truth that resonates through its symbolic base. It's what mythology does. We are unaware of its influence on our very perception of reality. They both reflect and shape how we perceive the world and ourselves.

 

I was pressed for time with my previous reply, so now I want to take a moment and address this claim.

 

When I was a Christian, I did NOT see myself as "the center of God's universe," I saw GOD as the center. My focus was on God, not myself. (That this "God" was imaginary is irrelevant to the point at hand.) I was merely a "servant" whose deeds were but "filthy rags" to God. My place in the world was based not on any merit or specialness of my own, nor was my "salvation" considered something accomplished on my own; it was ALL about GOD and his glory.

 

Now, what you've said is quite possibly valid in reference to how the creation myth came to be, but I certainly didn't approach it that way with my belief in creation.

 

Does this help clarify the faultiness of your assertion?

[the stranger]

Let me put it to you this way: If the Bible had taught evolution, then I would have believed in evolution. All that stuff you're talking about is what is secondary to the issue, as far as I can see. The only reason I believed creation instead of evolution is because of what the Bible says, and if the Bible had presented the opposite as true, then I would have believed that instead. Make sense?

 

Scary Cits, you were once just like me. You understand my head already. Is this where I should start running?

 

A defense of the structure is a defense of its message to those who are part of it - whether indoctrinated or converted - they are part of it and it part of them.

 

It's not about changing views about their religion, or their theologies, but I see it more a profound anxiety about loosing their perception of themselves as the centerpiece of creation

 

So the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is similar to this, in that it seeks to have moral and existential truths be outside of us, told to us, demanded of us from above, with us viewing ourselves as the focus and intention of the Greater truth and always maintaining that role of Parent and Child.

 

A lot of these statements certainly have some truth to them. There are many other aspects, however, that I would love to get into later.

 

In case you're curious, this contradiction between Matthew and Luke about whether or not the Centurion went to Jesus was the first contradiction I really realized is in the Bible. It's what started me scratching my head. The Nativity inconsistencies were next. And then, after seeing other contradictions, and then studying the allegedly fulfilled prophecies only to find that they were fabricated by taking OT texts completely out of context (several of which I've detailed earlier in this thread, which you have yet to address), the whole thing just fell apart for me. The Bible is NOT what inerrantists claim it is. Period.

 

And this, Cits, is why I love talking with you. At one time, we probably would have been good church buddies LOL. Point being, you understand my way of thinking to some degree, and so you are more able to confront me based on that belief. There is a lot to talk about, Cits. It should continue to be interesting.

 

Do you seek the truth, or do you seek only to prove what you already believe?

 

I think is was pointed out a while back, the way of Christian thinking is like this:

 

All truth comes from God

 

Apart from God there is no truth.

 

Gods word is truth, being directly from God.

 

If one does not believe that Gods word is true, than one does not have the truth.

 

This would or could be a typical Sunday service. My point is just to let you know the mind set of a Christian.

 

There is zero basis in fact for you to make such a claim and as one interested in being real with himself, you should give that some thoughtful consideration.

 

What is fact? Is Kentucky grass really blue? From what i hear it can appear to give off that color in some conditions, but on general terms, of course, it is green ---- or brown, depending on the season. What if one was blind. Would he believe you just based on your word? Could you prove it to him? Would he have any reason to believe you if his mail source of info was from his blind friends? Further more, would it matter to him?

 

Bottom line out of all that nonsense is just that facts are only what one believes to be true. It was fact years ago that the earth was flat, or was it? Is it fact that there is no God?

 

You can say, the sky is blue, but is that fact? It appears blue in our own vision (well, most of us anyway) but from what I understand, animals do not see the same as us when it comes to colors. For us, it may be fact that the sky is blue, but for them? Maybe it is all just a figment of our imagination. You get the point. Facts are really just what we presume to be true, thus "facts" differ from person to person.

 

Mister Pappy, I will try my best to answer with answers that seem to make a little more sense in the future. I agree that this last effort was a little short sighted.

[Antlerman]

I can't speak for others, of course, but as a former creationist who rejected evolution myself, your "me" description there is way off base in my case. I was not a "me" centered person, I had just been indoctrinated with the firm belief that the Bible was true, and since the Bible didn't agree with evolution, I rejected evolution. It was absolutely just as simple as that.

And part of that indoctrination has 'you' at the center of God's universe. It's the underlying message, "God created man in his own image", puts him in the Garden, saves him to be with him in heaven. The mindset is present and inherent in the entire system, whether someone is consciously aware of that in the forethought of their mind. It's a background truth that resonates through its symbolic base. It's what mythology does. We are unaware of its influence on our very perception of reality. They both reflect and shape how we perceive the world and ourselves.

 

That you rejected it because it was in a defense of the Bible is secondary. You defended the system in that rejection of Evolution. I would suggest that your motive, why you believed it in the first place was driven by social and psychological needs - just as it was for me and everyone else, whether we were indoctrinated into or adopted it later through conversion. Defending the system, is defending ourselves, protecting our investments, or groundings, or support structures. And those support structures of the Literalist Christian camp are in fact what I said. It is the underlying message in its myth structures. A defense of the structure is a defense of its message to those who are part of it - whether indoctrinated or converted - they are part of it and it part of them.

 

I wasn't meaning to suggest you consciously were aware of this and therefore were consciously doing this. I'm looking at this from a macroscopic view, not a microscopic detail of immediate responses. Make sense? We are marvelous creatures driven by things we are unaware of that flood our underlying views of reality, on a subconscious level. And I'm simply saying as a average-mode thought, an anthrocentric view of reality is where we're moving away from, and our myth structures are struggling to follow. Biblical Inerrancy is symptomatic of that.

 

Let me put it to you this way: If the Bible had taught evolution, then I would have believed in evolution. All that stuff you're talking about is what is secondary to the issue, as far as I can see. The only reason I believed creation instead of evolution is because of what the Bible says, and if the Bible had presented the opposite as true, then I would have believed that instead. Make sense?

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense. It is a underscores what I said. Doesn't matter what it taught, you were motivated to defend it, because.... why?

 

 

I was pressed for time with my previous reply, so now I want to take a moment and address this claim.

 

When I was a Christian, I did NOT see myself as "the center of God's universe," I saw GOD as the center. My focus was on God, not myself.

Not consciously, as I said. Tried to make a point to say. Why else would you be so bent on defending your system, if not for self? This isn't a judgment of you. The same can be said of anyone in that system. I just simply find it helpful to look beyond the "truth" or "untruth" of a system to the motivations behind believing in them. What is the ultimate focus? Someone can say, "I would do anything for God!" What I hear, is "I would do anything to defend my beliefs!" "God" symbolized those beliefs. The defense of them, was a defense of yourself, objectified as "God". "It was for God!", is really, "It was for my beliefs". "It doesn't matter what the Bible said, I would defend it!," says exactly that.

 

My point is that to recognize the role of belief systems and the relative nature of them, helps to understanding the reasons behind why we believe, or how we believe in the first place - and that can apply to any belief.

 

(That this "God" was imaginary is irrelevant to the point at hand.) I was merely a "servant" whose deeds were but "filthy rags" to God. My place in the world was based not on any merit or specialness of my own, nor was my "salvation" considered something accomplished on my own; it was ALL about GOD and his glory.

As the object of your faith. Seriously, I don't mean this to distress you. I of course respect you, but I'm simply saying that throwing oneself into dedication and defense of a system, in fact does have the individual and their needs at its core. I have beliefs, I have opinions, I have certain models of understanding that make sense to me and help me navigate the world of my emotion, spiritual, and intellectual spaces, but I also understand the fluidity of them. I may defend them in an effort to challenge challenges to them, but if the challenges make more sense, then I adjust to them. It's not about the models, it's not about the beliefs, it's genuinely about growth.

 

To say you would defend a doctrine and a belief no matter what, is more about self, and less about growth - or God, to put that word to it. And this is speaking the The Stranger. Hopefully you can hear the spirit of which I'm saying this in. It's not to judge you. Not at all. I'm only hoping to shed a certain perspective I've come to recognize.

 

Now, what you've said is quite possibly valid in reference to how the creation myth came to be, but I certainly didn't approach it that way with my belief in creation.

Actually, creation myths coming into being have very little to do with how the modern Evolution Deniers see them! I would have a greater respect for them if they actual did understand better, but as such they get zero out of them in their bastardized, literalist, anti-rational, anti-science defense of their religious beliefs, above God as it were.

 

 

Does this help clarify the faultiness of your assertion?

No faultiness. It's just a restatement of what I observed.