Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As example let's just take the story of the exodus. Over a million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. One would think that they would be traces of this found? Archaeologist have attempted for years to find traces to substantiate the stories. It hasn't happened yet.
There is nothing, & I am repeat nothing, in any peer reviewed literature that indicates the Exodus happened.
And of course no one has yet answered my question regarding The Walking Dead that came out of their graves. Most people would call them zombies.
That's one event. Many more events. You do realize that for it not be historically relevant would mean that all the events in it are irrelevant. So are you still suggesting that?
As example let's just take the story of the exodus. Over a million people wandering around the Sinai for 40 years. One would think that they would be traces of this found? Archaeologist have attempted for years to find traces to substantiate the stories. It hasn't happened yet.
There is nothing, & I am repeat nothing, in any peer reviewed literature that indicates the Exodus happened.
And of course no one has yet answered my question regarding The Walking Dead that came out of their graves. Most people would call them zombies.
As a an atheist you attack religion. That is way too easy!
Why don't you attack Saint Thomas of Aquinas, CS Lewis, or the origin of the Big Bang?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by trettep
That's one event. Many more events. You do realize that for it not be historically relevant would mean that all the events in it are irrelevant. So are you still suggesting that?
If you're going to take the Bible literally, then it needs to be able to stand up to the problems that are shown. If you're going to look at it metaphorically allegorically, and other words from a spiritual perspective, that is a whole different story.
If exodus can't shown if dead people walking around Jerusalem can't be shown, if earthquakes that supposedly happened at the time of the crucifixion can't be shown in geological records, then what part of the Bible should one believe in literally.
Pcamps, Nateswift, MysticD and others who appear to me to be universalists (how can you possibly believe God will not punish offenders of His commandments! ), have shown strong tendencies toward promoting the works of Christ through loving others. My belief as well.
Depends on what one means by "love."
I think the English language, while dynamic and constantly evolving, suffers a certain neglect linguistically when it comes to the various forms of loving, since the English vocabulary only has one word for the concept of loving, the single word "love."
Some of the Romance Languages have several words to express the different kinds of "love."
The character in this excellently crafted movie (written by a cradle Catholic) says, "The Church needs to change," that the Church needs to become "friendlier."
If you're going to take the Bible literally, then it needs to be able to stand up to the problems that are shown. If you're going to look at it metaphorically allegorically, and other words from a spiritual perspective, that is a whole different story.
If exodus can't shown if dead people walking around Jerusalem can't be shown, if earthquakes that supposedly happened at the time of the crucifixion can't be shown in geological records, then what part of the Bible should one believe in literally.
You are engaging in the same "all-or-nothing" rationale that the Bible literalists engage in, cupper . . . just on the opposite side of the issues. Both of you discount or reject the very capability for reason and rationality that we are employing in debate by calling reasoned analysis "cherry-picking." We have more than enough intellectual firepower to analyze any document and extract the wheat from the chaff. Only the Bible literalists and apparently you, cupper . . . seem to disagree.
It's an underlying tenet of the RCC. They can change and adapt however they see fit. If the RCC convened a new Eccumenical Council that decided that it is required of all good Catholics to wear hats and sunscreen, then to them that is direction directly from God and completely valid.
I think the principal of it is quite valid: When the weather changes or new unforeseen dangers appear in the waters, God should have the ability to actually steer the ship. I just do personally not accept that the RCC's authority to receive that direction from God. Their history of extreme abuse of this presumed right to steer the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth is contradictory. I seriously doubt God is in the business of bloody conquest, prostitution, bribery, Simony, nepotism, torture, massacre of members of the flock that have strayed, forced conversion on penalty of death, bloody persecution of non-Christians, practices directly contradicting the teachings of Christ and the apostles and widespread corruption. I think the Church and Kingdom of God had long since lost its way by the time the Council of Nicaea happens. I think the seeds of disunity were sown long before 325 AD. Christianity was mostly just doing the best they could with what was left of the original genuine Church and Kingdom of God. They tried to force unity. This worked for a time, but without God leading the way disunity was a foregone conclusion. Just a matter of time really.
But as I said, the RCC does claim the right to adapt and change with the times in whatever way they see fit.
I'm born and raised American (USA), and was reared in Catholicism. I would say 2,000 years of Catholic Church history looks rather good next to U.S. history. And U.S. history is far shorter.
Actually, as a Catholic I participated in Desert Storm, one of a many U.S. "bloody conquests" and I've never went to any war (violently) for Catholicism.
I've read a good bit about Catholic history on my own, and there's not much in it that bothers me tremendously.
My biggest obstacle to Christianity was slavery in the Bible that was supported by Paul and Jesus. That was my biggest obstacle, because today we say slavery is wrong (although it's U.S. Constitutionally allowed for those incarcerated), but both Paul and Jesus tell slaves to obey their masters. Neither were abolitionists. So, how can Protestant and Catholic teaching change to be anti-slavery?
The Catholic answer is a little easier because the Pope in Petrine authority can bind and loose on earth and that will be bound and loosed in heaven. Also, Jesus stated we humans at the time He walked the earth were not yet ready to hear all His teachings, and He insinuated He held back teaching us certain things because of that.
If you're going to take the Bible literally, then it needs to be able to stand up to the problems that are shown. If you're going to look at it metaphorically allegorically, and other words from a spiritual perspective, that is a whole different story.
If exodus can't shown if dead people walking around Jerusalem can't be shown, if earthquakes that supposedly happened at the time of the crucifixion can't be shown in geological records, then what part of the Bible should one believe in literally.
The Bible is to be taken both ways in different parts. For example, when Jesus said that Two Swords was enough, He wasn't talking about TWO literal swords at all. But I have no contrary reason to disregard the Exodus as a real event. There is more evidence to support it than to show that it didn't happen. In fact, if your basing things on evidence then to NOT believe in the Exodus as a literal event would be a more illogical conclusion.
If God, faith, CHRISTianity, religion, personal opinion, truth and preference were all synonymous, then there would be no basis for taking exception to anything! This is often the view of those who declare that all 'truth' is relative or equal ... or, with equal foolishness (or lack or substance), that the Bible is only an 'old book of superstitions, contrived by the ancients.'
If that were the case, then anyone with a whim to declare themselves a 'Christian,' could do so with equal authority as those who might similarly choose to announce that they were 'unicorns' ... or whatever else they chose to label themselves.
But, then, CHRIST would not really be 'Christ' and CHRISTianity, would not really be 'Christianity' would it? -- Christ could (with equal authority) be simply declared a prophet, teacher, lunatic, fable ... or whatever else one might choose. (certainly not God incarnate ... or other 'peculiar Bible-based notions'). Likewise, Christianity would not really need to incorporate any hint of 'following Christ' in their faith, but, could simply be declared “Christians” by their 'good intentions,' 'pleasant thoughts' or mystical 'intuition.'
The problem with all this “Truth is whatever anyone thinks it is - relativism", is that it ignores a real, living God … or worse, declares man to be 'god' - with no reciprocal accountability by man. The ancients attempted to do that in the worship of statues, Ashroth poles, rocks and other objects made by human hands ... but, God refused to 'bow down to man.'
God is Holy and righteous. Christ is God incarnate. The Holy Spirit is God in Spirit. God has revealed Himself to mankind in His inspired Word (not in clouds, rattled bones or mythology). Since God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and God's Word have already been revealed and given to mankind, man has no authority to 'redefine them' as he sees fit.
For His own purposes and reasons, God has ordained Christ's followers to spread His Word of Truth and Gospel message .... to a lost and dying world. There is no Plan B and nobody else has been given this charter (or Great Commission). The 'Christian's choice' is to obey God, follow Christ and spread His truth .... or NOT. The non-Christian's choice is to believe, trust God in Christ, accept His truth ... or NOT. Each individual is ultimately accountable before GOD (not opinion polls) for their choices in this lifetime.
Since all 'faiths' are neither equal or 'Christianity' --- they cannot and do not all agree. Thus, dissension results whenever folks attempt to declare them all one-in-the-same. But, then, God knew that would happen and (like so many things), uses this dissension to build true faith (like ‘iron sharpening iron’).
The original Christian Church, the RCC is pure. However, the men that run the church are imperfect. But, these men are no more or less perfect than the men that run other churches.
Her are some additional changes: Accepting evolution and the Big Bang under the direction of God, the creator.
To expect Christians from this era to have the primitive barbaric mindset of biblical times is extremely naive.
The Communion of Saints were then and are now pure. The Communion of Saints are part of the Church.
The Church expressed here on earth, welcoming in sinners, was then as now un-pure.
Aside from the fact Jesus picked Judas (who betrayed him) and appeared in vision to Paul (who returned a slave to his master, admonishing the slave to be loyal to his master--in other words Paul was no modern day liberal nor abolitionist of the 1800s) to follow Him, the Early Church was full of bickering and false teachers as well.
Most liberal Christians today would not have wanted to live in the Early Church of the Apostles after the death of Jesus. They were hardcore compared to the "friendly" Christianity of today. The Church has gradually softened over the centuries. That includes in penance prescribed from confession. What we regard as "tough, old, meanies" today would be regarded as limp wrist sissies in the Early Church.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,943,087 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You are engaging in the same "all-or-nothing" rationale that the Bible literalists engage in, cupper . . . just on the opposite side of the issues. Both of you discount or reject the very capability for reason and rationality that we are employing in debate by calling reasoned analysis "cherry-picking." We have more than enough intellectual firepower to analyze any document and extract the wheat from the chaff. Only the Bible literalists and apparently you, cupper . . . seem to disagree.
But there are so many who quickly quote a chapter and verse to substantially their belief, right?
Who determines if any part of the Bible should be taken literally? Look at it allegorically and metaphorically I can see it being a spiritual guide. But anyone who wants to look at the Bible and says it is the word of God, is opening the door to others to point out the inconsistencies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), have shown strong tendencies toward promoting the works of Christ through loving others. My belief as well.
