Re: Rational approach to Christianity
- From: checker@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:59:00 GMT
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:35:30 GMT, Tommi Leino <namhas@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It is hard for a modern rational man to adopt a religion that
demands such extreme faith amidst the strong indications that we
do not have proof of the historical basis even of the seemingly
one of the most important facts, the non-metaphoric resurrection
of Jesus, not to even speak of the lesser miracles that were
performed as a proof of Him being the only true Son of God.
Not so! "Modern rational man" accepts MANY things on faith alone,
such as the idea that when he sits in a chair it will be strong enough
to hold him and not crash to the floor. Often it even happens when
crossing the street, that we have faith that the guy in the big red
SUV will STOP at the stopsign!
But Christianity is not based on "blind" faith. Here is what
Christian faith is:
Heb 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen.
NKJV
Faith is SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.
There is more evidence for the Bible than there is for the existance
of dinosaurs or most extinct species of animals, imho.
It is hard to believe these facts even if we limit our search
only to the Bible and its Four Gospels, knowing the historical
context, of illiterate and superstition-driven people of the
ancient world. How they could have captured all of the details
from the beginning to the end with unfailing accuracy?
Since the Bible is not one single source, but is 66 different books
written by 40 or so different writers over a known period of at least
1,600 years, many of whom had no contact with the others, that makes
it about 40 different witnesses to the events that are in the overall
collection.
Was there
a scribe with Jesus all the time? Maybe there was, but for
instance, was there also a scribe with Mary, before the ministry
of Jesus, to record The Magnificat, her song of praise?
You leave out the possibility of God, the possibility of the Holy
Spirit. No, there were no internet nor computers there either.
Surely it must become apparent to reader of the Gospels,
especially when comparisons are made with the Four Gospels,
that the details of events, or even the number of events, do not
totally correlate.
If you watch someone get robbed in a grocery store parking lot, no
four witnesses saw the same exact thing either. Four different
Gospels by 4 different penmen, emphasizing 4 different perspectives of
the same events. Side-by-side comparisons make THAT very clear as
well.
The Evangelists must have used their artistic
freedom when converting the far-branching spoken account,
that must have been in wide circulation during the time period,
to a concise written text.
Not true. There is no reason to ASSUME that any "artistic freedom"
was added, nor that they didn't personally SEE what they recorded.
And the job only becomes harder when
the task is to filter through a rich of metaphysical metaphors
mingled with spirited exaggerations of genuine or make-believe
events.
Who says these things are there at all? Some language is metaphoric,
to be sure, but there is no reason at all to believe there are any "
spirited exaggerations of genuine or make-believe events."
Perhaps it would help if you actually READ the book with an open mind?
As a topping for the cake of disbelief comes the modern
assumption that the original Gospels were left anonymous[1],
and that the texts have been "corrected" later on in the
history,
And why would you ASSUME such a thing? Please don't tell me you
should do such a thing because wikipedia says so. ANYONE can put
ANYTHING on wikipedia, and anyone else can change it. The heads of
wikipedia themselves will be the first to tell you (as they have on
public radio) not to use wikipedia as any kind of "authorative source.
and that the apocryphal texts give ever wider scope of
who Jesus really was, not to speak of that the apocryphal texts
in some cases may seem to be even more authentic than the
anonymous, possibly heavily controlled canonical texts are.
The Apocrypha was written before Jesus was born. No, they don't give
any "wider scope" of who Jesus really was.
IF you are talking about the gnostic gospels, most were written
centuries after Jesus was crucified by people who never saw Him or
knew Him. Others are flat-out-forgeries.
Whether or not the significance or validity of the concerns
presented herein is enough to discredit the absolute
authenticity of the written Word in the Gospels for the average
rational mind, the question is still presented. What if
historical Jesus never existed? What if there is no life after
death? What then, is the value of Jesus?
Perhaps you should READ the book before making such statements.
And if there is no life after death? The Christian life iin itself is
a VERY rich and rewarding life, and we are still ahead.
Some say that it is a core part of being Christian to have an
absolute faith on the Gospels and that such a question is not to
be even contemplated on.
I have never heard of any Christian ever saying any such thing. I
think you are making a strawman argument.
But isn't this kind of reasoning in
odds with the figure of Jesus in the Gospels, who in many
occasions reproached scholars of mere written word and called us
to exceed them in righteousness[2]?
It does indeed contradict the Bible. The Bible says:
1 Thess 5:20-22
21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every
form of evil.
NKJV
Refusing to examine things would be contradictory to that command.
On the contrary, would it be acceptable if we would prepare the
way for letting the mass of unbelieving atheists understand the
core message of Jesus if we take the message out of its much
boasted and unverifiable supernatural context and save the
supernatural aspect and related issues for contemplation only
within the circles of so called "born-again Christians," so that
the newcomers, now with proper feasibility of assimilating the
core message could also have a possibility for being changed
from within and hence have the ability to join the inner circles
of Christians as true followers of Jesus?
Are you saying we should "dumb down" the message, take out everything
that is not "politically correct" and leave virtually nothing, just to
make the atheists happy? That is not what Jesus did. It is not what
Paul did. It was not done by ANY Christians recorded in the first
century Church.
If Christianity wishes to stand the test of time, now upon the
advent of literate, enlightened people, a change of approach in
our missionary work is in hot demand.
SOME "enlightened people!!!!!!!" There is more murder, more rape,
more theft, more self-demolition than ever before in history! We
cannot just go to the airport and get on a plane. . .we must be
scanned, searched, and all of our luggage searched too!
No, we are NOT very "enlightened.
I suspect we are not all that more literate than we were a hundred
years ago either! Our drop-out rates in schools reflect that, imho.
During the history each of
the generations and each of the movements within the realm of
Christianity have had their own individual approaches that fit
the surrounding context of history.
Some so-called "Christian religons" have. There has been however, a
core-group of Christians who have merely taught what the Bible teaches
and have NOT forced their own "approaches" into their ministries.
Why couldn't we also change
the emphasis of our preaching, for being more rationally
acceptable for the people of our time?
There is nothing irrational about becoming a Christian the Biblical
way or living the Christian life the Biblical way. There will always
be just as there were in the Bible, scoffers and unbelievers.
Christianity is not about "becoming saleable." It is about being
FAITHFUL to the God Whom we serve.
It would be a radical change, obviously,
I don't know where you worship, if you worship at all.
I DO know many many congregations who preach the message of the Bible
AS THE BIBLE GIVES IT, and that the message is not irrational or based
on "blind" faith, but is based on SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE, as scripture
says.
but so was the advent of technological
advances to past generations and yet it seems that the
Christianity is still essentially trusting on Middle Ageish
reasoning when presented with questions about the validity of
our message.
Not at all. Sin is still sin. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is
still murder. Look around you. Single Parents with children who are
VERY unbalanced in their outlooks (boys with NO good male role models,
girls with NO good female role models, kids farmed out to "day care
centers" where they are cared for like cattle or sheep, not learning
how to bond to or trust anyone).
Of course the Bible talks about MARRIED parents and PARENTS raising
their children. Our "enlightened" society is filling up with children
who have little or no conscience, have no sense of loyalty to anyone,
poor work ethics, MANY of whom are completely with no moral character,
etc. SOME "enlightened" society!
What is the core message, or teaching of Jesus, when taken out
of the supernatural context?
What is electricity when taken out of the context of electrons?
Why do you have such difficulty accepting that the supernatural
exists?
The Sermon on the Mount, for
instance, in Matthew's Gospel, describes in very down-to-earth
terms what kind of state of mind is expected of his followers
and none of the expectations explicitly demand fidelity to or
outright worship of a supernatural being and all the
supernatural references therein can be well taken in a
metaphorical sense.
LOL! Of course it ASSUMES that God is God and is speaking to people
who BELIEVE in God already.
Even with such drastic ripping of the
supernatural layer, the outcome well can lead to a more direct
relationship with God through this rational approach in
comparison to a Church-led submission to time-tested forms that
could well turn to simple idol-worship of Jesus[3], instead of
actually hearing and acting upon the wisdom inherent in the
written teachings of Jesus.
If you just tear out the parts you don't like, there IS no wisdom
left.
I <snipped the rest> because I have to take a pie out of the oven (the
first pie I have made in over 50 years!) It is a big experiment and I
don't want to mess it up.
I am curious about your responses to the things I have responded to
though, and will subscribe to this group for a while to see if you do
respond.
I am curious too to know if you are an atheist yourself, an agnostic,
or if you consider yourself to be a Christian. If the last, what KIND
of church you worship with.
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
.
- References:
- Rational approach to Christianity
- From: Tommi Leino
- Rational approach to Christianity
- Prev by Date: Re: 10 Questions For Sincere Christians!
- Next by Date: Re: Rational approach to Christianity
- Previous by thread: Re: Rational approach to Christianity
- Next by thread: Re: $11 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Westboro
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
