Is Christianity a religion of "No?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme.

And keep in mind—many of the writers of Scripture didn't even know each other.

Approximately 40 men were inspired to record the Word of God. They had no e-mail, no faxes, no phones. Imagine trying to pull together a project like this over a 1500-year period.

You sound like a booster for a Josh McDowell book - Evidence that Demands a Verdict! The Bible is an interesting humanly composed book but definitely not inspired or the word of a god. People over time have established hundreds of errors in it both large and small. If it were god's word why did he do such a poor job of having it transmitted and composed over time (lots of mistakes in transmission and composition that even fundamentalist scholars acknowledge and not all are trivial)? Even many small errors are still lots of errors - you'd think god would want its book perfect. The translation errors run into the 100's of thousands.

Also, the authors often disagree, if you read the Bible closely. In one place it will say one thing in another place something contradictory.


Coincidence? No coincidence, the Bible is the work of humans, so we would expect lots of factual errors, logical and other errors when being written by a hodgepodge of people.



I would disagree ... Matthew, Mark & Luke should be studied together. Agreed They are 3 different people giving their account ... No, they are three different people giving their particular spin. This is evident from Matthew and Luke copying Mark verbatim and adding their particular twist for their intended audience (propaganda?). they are not exactly the same however cover many of the same stories The Greek shows Luke and Matthew copied Mark - much of it word for word. The stories they add are either made up by them or taken from a mysterious lost source or sources. .... if they were exactly the same They are except where their purpose to make a certain point, where they will alter the story or create/use another one. The gospels aren't historical they are for the needs of the Christian communities they served... then it would indeed be suspicious. They don't contradict one another Yes they do, details of the resurrection for example don't agree in details at all. The birth story in Luke and Matthew cannot be harmonized. So which one is correct or are they both wrong?.... more or less details are given by each author. Same with the writings of Paul.

The message is cohesive throughout .... Jesus is God ... Jesus is the Messiah .... where is/are the contradiction(s) in that regard? Where does it say Jesus is god in Mark the first gospel written? Where does it say it clearly in Matthew and Luke, god equal to the father? We see an evolution to make Jesus more and more like a deity until John says he is equal to the father. However, this is exactly what to expect after about 60 or 70 years of oral transmission and reworking of who Jesus was in the minds of people. Scholarship has shown that myth creation of this sort (transforming a leader of a movement into a god) can easily happen much faster then this. Anyway, there is no evidence in Jesus time (about 4B.C. to A.D. 30) outside the Bible that Jesus did any miracles, was resurrected from the dead (common myth before Jesus time), had a miraculous birth (another common myth, used long before Jesus came along in the ancient world) and was a god. Most likely the gospels gave him these characteristics to make him seem special with people who were familiar with famous mythical people who had miraculous births, did miracles and were resurrected from the dead. Why did people with these characteristics exist long before Jesus came along? Were there other Christs? Why did god the father allow false Christs to exist before J.C. come along? Did he not have the power to stop them or does it just want to make it hard for us dumb humans?

When facing possible contradictions, it is important to remember that two statements may differ from each other without being contradictory. Some fail to make a distinction between contradiction and difference. Scholarship, science and common sense have taken all of these things into account and there are still impossible contradictions and problems in the Bible and about Jesus life. Only if you assume from the beginning that there are no contradictions, because of religious assumptions (Bible is infallible), can you cling to these types of ideas today. You have to remember that for perhaps all your life you have been constantly told - "The Bible is true", "the Bible is true", "the Bible is true", "the Bible is true"..... that kind of programming helps you to KNOW "the Bible is true"

If an event happens and say several people eye witness the event .... will they all tell the exact same story the same way? It depends. They may or they may not. However, all or most of the contradictory stories must be wrong. There can only be one right story. What contradictory stories tells us is that without people coming to an agreed upon story, we don't know much of anything at best. People have notoriously bad memories as has been shown by recent research in science. All of the accounts of Jesus resurrection could be so mixed up and made worse with oral transmission over time that none of the details are accurate at all. It is not uncommon for people to believe they have had experiences of dead people appearing after a traumatic death, speaking to them etc. These stories over time can be easily changed into a myth of a person be resurrected. Or the stories could have been made up. Or the disciples could have made up the stories or... there are lots of possibilities without having to jump to supernatural explanations. We just don't know based on the lack of evidence. Also, even if Jesus somehow did not die and was revived this would not demonstrate he was a god.... will their "accounts" be exactly the same? If one states something happened and another does not .... does that mean one of them is lying? or ... that none of it is true? No, but their accounts will be different (vary) ... does that mean they are contradictory? No it does not.
Coming to the conclusion that Jesus is god is either an emotional reaction when people are vulnerable and need something to believe in, manipulated by Ministers or Christians in various settings (such as at a revival or church service), other intense psychological situations or a placid acceptance of such by religious influencers over time. The person often (but not always) has a peak experience which they attributed to having a special religious experience and encounter with god. This helps to convince them and make them feel special. Similar experiences has been noted within other religions or groups or situations. It is purely natural and has no connection to a divine encounter.
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,036.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Christians are no better or worse according to studies than other people in general.
Sad but true.

The truth of Christianity however is not found in moral perfection. Holiness is discovered not in ascertaining how good we are, but is discovering whose we are. Augustine argued that there were wolves inside the fold and sheep outside the fold, or as the 39 Articles put it, 'In the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good'.

The strength of the Christian gospel is forgiveness far more than moral perfection. That does not mean that we should not try, and when we fail we know that all is not lost.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
This conclusion is false.

Jesus made it clear that there would be wheat and tares so of course there is immorality in the church as there was at the beginning. The laws of love are clearly spelled out but many claiming to be Christian are simply adherents to a system and have not had the encounter with God that permanently changes their moral compass.

So from a purely sociological point of view your observation stands. But the unique nature of the teachings of Jesus remains regarless of how far "Christendom" has wandered away from them.

I don't think Jesus teaching was that unique as you can find most of it in the ancient world. We have superseded much of it today with ideas such as human rights, animal rights, and environmental rights. Jesus also had some very bad beliefs such as hell which are much worse than the worst ideas or actions of god in the OT (such as god commanding genocide). "If you don't go along with our little group and our ideas about god, then you will be confined to eternal torment." I can't think of a more horrible idea in all of fiction.

I would like to meet some real wheat! Today the level of immorality, as you call it, would seem to be a very bad indicator (as perhaps a Puritan from the past would say) for most people, who call themselves Christians, to obtain their eternal reward. The moral compass seems to be broken so perhaps there are no real encounters any more with god. Even the Christians who follow their particular brand of "Christianity" seem not to be following another "Christianities" rules, encounters with god or ideas around grace. The proliferation of different Bibles doesn't help. Skeptics who say "which Bible is authoritative" have a good point. There are great differences between Bibles and lots of Christians don't dispute this. So which Bible? KJV/AV?
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,544.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think Jesus teaching was that unique as you can find most of it in the ancient world.

Definitely not so... My major was in phenomenology of religion - yet there are some common themes but the message of Jesus is truely unique, confirmed by His own resurrection.

I would like to meet some real wheat! Today the level of immorality, as you call it, would seem to be a very bad indicator (as perhaps a Puritan from the past would say) for most people, who call themselves Christians, to obtain their eternal reward. The moral compass seems to be broken so perhaps there are no real encounters any more with god.

Yes... I appreciate you concern but the Truth of Jesus hinges on His Words and Life not ours. He died for sinners.

Sadly I have to agree with your conclusion that encounters with God are more rare in this age but they do happen, and I do meet others that have been radically changed.


The proliferation of different Bibles doesn't help. Skeptics who say "which Bible is authoritative" have a good point. There are great differences between Bibles and lots of Christians don't dispute this. So which Bible? KJV/AV?

No bible is of any use without the help of God in understanding.

It is a closed book to those not given revelation by God's Spirit.

Final authority does not come from a book, it comes from Him.
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Sad but true.

The truth of Christianity however is not found in moral perfection. Holiness is discovered not in ascertaining how good we are, but is discovering whose we are. Augustine argued that there were wolves inside the fold and sheep outside the fold, or as the 39 Articles put it, 'In the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good'.

The strength of the Christian gospel is forgiveness far more than moral perfection. That does not mean that we should not try, and when we faiul we know that all is not lost.

Yes, I would agree that grace is what counts most - both as a contribution in the life blood of Christianity and to humanity at large. This concept is worthy of something nobly human and not the base ideas that so much of religion including what other "Christianities" hold onto. I like the Anglican form of Christianity because it likes to focus on much of what is high minded in the human experience. The KJV and the Book of Common Prayer are outstanding examples and the best of written English along with Shakespeare in my opinion. I respect the Anglican attempt to be inclusive in their fellowship and of-course their choral tradition. I also respect their scholarship (along with Catholic scholarship) although I don't think it can rescue Christianity from the influences of modern and postmodern society. Jesus as an influential historical figure seems predicated on so little real evidence as to make his actual contribution inconsequential. Paul and the Christian communities that have arisen since seem to be how we must judge the "Christianities" . Some have arisen to show very noble human qualities (as per the more humanitarian and social sides) and other not so much (sectarian violence, war, crusades, power politics, and death). I would like to see Jesus study scholarship take up Richard Carrier's challenge to modernize it even more by applying more quantitative methods.

I think also part of the best of the Christian message would be when it is truly inclusive. See that no one really is in the category of the other. Who and what we are is determined often by factors outside our control. As a fine Anglican had as his book title, ... In Understanding Be Men Christianity, in all its many forms, must grow up and evolve into the modern world giving up more and more its primitive ideas still tied to outdated ancient ideas, magic and superstition.
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Injustice is more than just punishing the wrong people.

I agree, there is much more to it. It is such things as:

1. Not proactively limiting evil;
2. Not proactively preventing evil;
3. Being naive about evil (think Allies appeasement policy toward A. Hitler)
4. Punishing the wrong people for the wrong reason
....
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
The consensus of biblical scholarship as you will find it in accredited institutions of higher learning, not at "Bible college" diploma mills.

Yes, unfortunately the Bible Colleges have a very low standard of academic excellence. They do not generally get into any critical thinking about the Bible - not at the undergrad level anyway. The thinking is all predicated on the assumption that the Bible is infallible. Kind of a critical thinking show stopper. The people who come out of these places and the associated seminaries are not committed to letting the evidence of critical scholarship, archeology and science lead them but preconceived assumptions about the Bible. This is not scholarship but apologetics. Those fundamentalists who were very good scholars and honest with themselves realized this and have given up these assumptions: people like Bart Ehrman, Hector Avalos and John Loftus. Any Christian that considers themselves openminded, should read these three authors.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,544.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like Egyptian and Canaanite children...

Like you cant comprehend the righteousness and hatred of sin of a Holy God without some personal encounter with His 'otherness'...

Consider the conversion of Paul... physically blinded for several days - radically changed from murderer to minister...

He was so impacted by the encounter that he discarded personal interpretation through his vast knowledge of scripture and did not discard the scripture itself, seeing that God has the perogative to act against sin and curruption as He wills - without fault.
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Well said BRW - a completely rational conclusion.

This thesis holds up perfectly as long as God does not exist...

I think the existence or non-existence of god is impossible to establish. However, unlike the old Vienna School, I don't think the question is meaningless. I also don't think one needs to use a philosophical principle to establish this (like the verification principle that self-destructs on itself), just pragmatic arguments from mathematics and science. To boot, it also conforms to traditional ideas of god predating people like Thomas Aquinas and his god existence arguments. As interesting as all these arguments are, for or against god, I see none as decisive. The logical problem of evil comes the closest, and seems to make the existence of god very unlikely - so the atheists have the edge. Also, everyone is an atheist anyway, except toward their particular belief (if they are religious).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Getting back to the OP for a moment...

Is Christianity a religion of "No?" Lately I've been thinking of all the CF threads having to do with the, "thou shalt nots" of the faith. Sometimes it seems to me that we spend a whole lot more time as Christians, leastwise here on CF, thinking and talking about what we are not supposed to do rather than what we are supposed to do as Christians.

Could it be that the "don'ts" simply draw more attention? All Christians know the positive admonitions like loving one's neighbor, forgiving people who have wronged you, and being fair and openminded in social and economic matters.

These are well-known by Christians, but hardly anyone finds fault with them, so they don't cause nearly as much controversy or hard feelings as some "don'ts" do.
 
Upvote 0

Bertrand Russell White

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2021
424
78
61
Brockville
✟21,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Married
Like you cant comprehend the righteousness and hatred of sin of a Holy God without some personal encounter with His 'otherness'...

I won't get into the problem with arguing this type of view. However, it still is problematic in the case of animals. Christians have had no ends of problems trying to do the mental contortions to justify god killing all the animals.

Most people today either don't see this story as historical or they see it as a way for the Jews justifying the stealing of other people's land. Say an infallible, all powerful/all knowing/all present and all good god told you it is okay. Yes, sir, we will get down to killing all those evil men, women, children and animals???! I myself will stick to blaming the Priests!! I don't think god had anything to do with it.


Consider the conversion of Paul... physically blinded for several days - radically changed from murderer to minister...

Yes, agreed! People who have medical conditions - such as neurological conditions have this type of experience all the time. We know this from science. Since we have no other real evidence to the contrary, it seem easier, more likely and more logical to explain something medically happened to Paul. We don't need to resort to a supernatural explanation when natural ones now exist. The only reason some of us still hold it is tradition and forgetting we are dealing with pre-modern people's explanation for natural occurrences.

He was so impacted by the encounter that he discarded personal interpretation through his vast knowledge of scripture and did not discard the scripture itself, seeing that God has the perogative to act against sin and curruption as He wills - without fault.

Actually no. Either something is wrong or it is not. If it is wrong, god can't say he is exempt because then it wouldn't be an objective ethical principle. god is not perfectly good if he can change whatever he does to suite himself and still claim things like ethical principles are objective. By this logic, he had no right to pass judgement on Adam and Eve for choosing as they did. So is it objectively right or wrong to mass kill men, women, children and animals. Answer - ..... Most people would say yes it is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Getting back to the OP for a moment...



Could it be that the "don'ts" simply draw more attention? All Christians know the positive admonitions like loving one's neighbor, forgiving people who have wronged you, and being fair and openminded in social and economic matters.

These are well-known by Christians, but hardly anyone finds fault with them, so they don't cause nearly as much controversy or hard feelings as some "don'ts" do.

Possibly so. But do we have our emphasis in the wrong place?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,544.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually no. Either something is wrong or it is not. If it is wrong, god can't say he is exempt because then it wouldn't be an objective ethical principle. god is not perfectly good if he can change whatever he does to suite himself and still claim things like ethical principles are objective. By this logic, he had no right to pass judgement on Adam and Eve for choosing as they did. So is it objectively right or wrong to mass kill men, women, children and animals. Answer - ..... Most people would say yes it is wrong.

Smile...

The irony is that when I studied the philosophy of science I was told in no uncertain terms that there was no place for absolutes in formal argument.

You have followed this rule perfectly.

You cant possibly prove the existence of God using that tool.

It is not surprising that Jesus requires of us a response from the heart, not the mind.

It took a long time for Pauls mind to catch up with what had happened in his heart.

Unless you become as a little Child you cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

And how can you claim that He requires that ethical principles are 'objective' in fact how would you know if you don't believe He exists?

Surely you are not suggesting some absolute beyond man???
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.