A
Anonymous
Guest
hospitaller said:BTW, do you think every last word is untrue? If not which bits, and how can you tell which bits are true and aren't?
He asked that first!
hospitaller said:BTW, do you think every last word is untrue? If not which bits, and how can you tell which bits are true and aren't?
Conners_76 said:Sorry to be blunt, but that's completely untrue, Oll.
That's a shocking statement, round these parts (Holland) mate! :eek!!!!:Inverurie Jones said:You'd think a real fundamentalist would want to learn Greek, wouldn't you?
But how do the people who write the books know?
Adrian Veidt said:That's basically what I'm asking, yes. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose, but how can they? If one part of the bible is literally true, why is another part deemed to be allegorical, when there isn't any real evidence for either being true.
Because we're Forteans, it naturally interests us. All belief systems interest us, and this is the one that's "in our face" in our daily lives. We've not been subjected to the Book of Mormon much in London, If we were in Utah, no doubt we'd be "bothered" by that. (For "bothered" read "interested").hospitaller said:Why beat around the bush Adrian, this is a circumspect way of saying what you want to say. You should have been straight up and just posted:
"I think the bible is all B&^%*x, why differentiate between allegorical and literal when it's all false!"
Is this what you mean? I think that the Book of Mormon is complete fantasy, but I wouldn't bother my arse posting about it! Why does the issue bother you so?
Lord_Flashheart said:I guess you havent read the evidence for the basis on which the names atributed to the gospels were given...
For starters I find that very ofensive to sugest that such a thing is compleatly untrue just because it dosen't fit with your opinion, althogh I'm not an aithiest I do not go around makeing offensive statements about aithisam, I'm not B***** M********* and do try my best not to offend anyone whos belifs do not match my own and would hope that people would extend the same curticy to me. :sad:
originally posted by hospitaller
I think that many of those who hold a detrimental opinion of these texts don't base their personal faith (in whatever) on this opinion, but can't help but hold such an opinion because of what they alread believe in. Come on, as if a non-Christian is going to sing the praises of the bible That's expecting a bit much. What I find surprising is that they even bother thinking about these texts (and go on about them more so than do some Christians I know). One would wonder how sound their faith is when it has to be continually underpinned and reassured in this manner...
Who did that on this thread? Am I missing something obvious?Emperor Zombie said:Investigating (as you called it) 'history' and coming to the conclusion that it's a load of old bollocks, and telling the nearest catholic / christian / whatever denomination is perhaps the point being made....
athiasts read the bible because they don't have a secure faith? Why do christians then try to understand athiests?
The bible is not to viewed as historical fact and to beleve EVERYTHING in it (as some do) creats a faith structure wich is self contridictory.
we can be certain of the benedictine monks...but of mathew and john we cannot.
For me, the divinity of Christ is not essential to following the concepts as outlined and generally accepted as the basis of being a 'good person' within the 'Christian' paradigm. Mostly they're pretty damned good ideas.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels is a meaningless statement. You've no reason to think these people ever existed, and no basis for supposing that they authored the gospels that now bear their name. Pointing this fact out doesn't mean one holds a "detrimental opinion of these text". It just means one doesn't agree with your interpretation of the text.
I'm very interested now that you seem to feel so threatened by AV's enquiry.
hospitaller said:I have no idea why Christians in general would try to understand Atheists, or if they do, as a great deal of them (if not most IMHO) have been there, believed that and have the t-shirt.
Usually the other way around these days...
IMHO you're right Hugo. Belief in the divinity of Christ is not necessary in order to try to be a "good person". I think that the "good ideas" espoused within the "Christian paradigm" are more or less Jewish, and that's what Judaism is about isn't it? (Being a good person, but not believing in the divinity of Christ). Often Christians are slow to realise (or are ignorant of) the Jewish roots of their belief. This is evident in Jesus Christ tying for 13th place with Bill Clinton in a recent American poll for the 100 greatest Americans (please tell me it's a U/L!)
Rank shared by Jesus Christ and Bill Clinton among "the greatest Americans of all time," according to Americans : 13
Source: The Luntz Research Companies (Arlington, Va.)
I think your average Jew would say there is a bit more to being Jewish than what you suggest.
Everyone believing in the bible would prove it was wrong? How's that work?
So, are you suggesting some sort of gnostic message, something hermetic, hidden in the text? Something rather dualistic? Many are invited, but in the end, this is an exclusive club? How very elitist.hospitaller said:If the entire populace were to adopt solid beleif in all things biblical tomorrow, quite a nonsense would be made of the above. Not that believing in the text's veracity of itself would "save" them, but what can be safely assumed is that those who reject the Gospels as unreliable are not those referred to therein as entering by the narrow gate.