Questions about violence, change, churches and history

[nomadwanderer]

Hi,

I'm hoping you can help me with some areas of questioning I have as I am keen to see if Christianity might be my path. I'm in a point of transition right now and I'm looking for someway to settle my soul.

But first, it's probably important that you know from where I am coming spiritually and intellectually so you can better understand my questions. I'm a university graduate who believes strongly in evidence based analysis. I have a keen interest in ancient history and have a minor in it. Therefore, when examining my own beliefs I have to put those skills to work.

In the past I've stayed away from Christianity, mostly because the people in my family or friends who are Christians have been of an unquestioned belief sort and been unable to answer my questions in a way that provides me with peace of mind. Also, I don't mean to cause anyone offence by the nature of my questions.

I should probably warn you that I don't and probably will never see the bible as without error or omission. There are simply too many places where it contradicts itself, repeats differently, changes it's message or simply it is no longer applicable to justify it's standpoint. I promise that I have actually read it and continue to do so, it has amazing value

But in contrast to this boubt, I do have a belief in God. Simply by the facts of existence and our internal struggle can his presence be seen. We historically have needed God, every culture has needed to find religion. And the most successful is those religions of Abraham. Presumably because it speaks to peoples minds, hearts and souls. And it's followers are quite persuasive

After looking at most religions of the world, Christianity appears to call to me the best. It can if understood right offer it's followers hope and joy, connection to ourselves and all others and a strong moral code. It believes in the ethic of reciprocity, give charitably, non-violence, etc. In addition, Jesus showed women respect, access to his teachings and the ability to be involved in worship in a time when we were still considered possessions of their father or husband and were forbidden from learning the scriptures.

I know that most people questioning faith talk about evil and why God created it. I accept good and evil as facets of existence. They are in every action and inaction, and are simply aspects of creation and life. This is not an issue for me.

But here is where the questioning starts.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

Thanks again!!!!

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a christian yet.

 

[ChristianT]

Hi,

I'm hoping you can help me with some areas of questioning I have as I am keen to see if Christianity might be my path. I'm in a point of transition right now and I'm looking for someway to settle my soul.

But first, it's probably important that you know from where I am coming spiritually and intellectually so you can better understand my questions. I'm a university graduate who believes strongly in evidence based analysis. I have a keen interest in ancient history and have a minor in it. Therefore, when examining my own beliefs I have to put those skills to work.

In the past I've stayed away from Christianity, mostly because the people in my family or friends who are Christians have been of an unquestioned belief sort and been unable to answer my questions in a way that provides me with peace of mind. Also, I don't mean to cause anyone offence by the nature of my questions.

I should probably warn you that I don't and probably will never see the bible as without error or omission. There are simply too many places where it contradicts itself, repeats differently, changes it's message or simply it is no longer applicable to justify it's standpoint. I promise that I have actually read it and continue to do so, it has amazing value

But in contrast to this boubt, I do have a belief in God. Simply by the facts of existence and our internal struggle can his presence be seen. We historically have needed God, every culture has needed to find religion. And the most successful is those religions of Abraham. Presumably because it speaks to peoples minds, hearts and souls. And it's followers are quite persuasive

After looking at most religions of the world, Christianity appears to call to me the best. It can if understood right offer it's followers hope and joy, connection to ourselves and all others and a strong moral code. It believes in the ethic of reciprocity, give charitably, non-violence, etc. In addition, Jesus showed women respect, access to his teachings and the ability to be involved in worship in a time when we were still considered possessions of their father or husband and were forbidden from learning the scriptures.

I know that most people questioning faith talk about evil and why God created it. I accept good and evil as facets of existence. They are in every action and inaction, and are simply aspects of creation and life. This is not an issue for me.

But here is where the questioning starts.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

A church is NOT a place where you get all your beliefs (although it is usually ok), it would help to form a strong faith by looking all over in your life and find areas where you can build faith in G-d. A church is basically a place where Christians come together to worship G-d. And help others to worship G-d. (Anyone can do this at home, but it's better to worship with your whole life, not just sundays, or tuesdays, etc.) p.s. welcome!

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

Good point, I'll research it.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

Yes, it changes, but only the stuff tied to culture. (notice slavery, rights, marriage are all tied to culture). Simply because such things are not salvific (salvific = necassary to be saved by Jesus Christ)

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

Simple: Corruption. Over time, people get caught up in the power they get from being the leader of a church, i.e.: a Catholic church, popes and such have power. I'm not saying they're evil, but some may have been corrupt. Especially in the middle ages, or dark ages, it was dark for everyone. "Christians" were killing people for some crazy stuff. I think it was referred to as "killing heretics." But such is not necessary. If we talked to them about Jesus Christ and loved them, they might've converted... People back then were scared and confused. However, I might be mistaken. After all I am only human.

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

! It's great to have faith, but faith provides answers, and answers may provide a foundation for faith. These questions sound genuine and honest!

At least you're not asking if G-d can make a rock He can't lift, or if he can make a square with 3 sides...

Thanks again!!!!

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a christian yet.

Hmm, good idea! But I think this, and the rest of the "Outreach" forums are it. Regardless, welcome to CF! I at least am happy to see a possible Christian who will accompany us in heaven with G-d forever. When you accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins (if you haven't already), I think it's said or written that even the angels in Heaven have a party. Anyway, don't "accept Jesus" because I said so or to make angels happy. Do it because you want to and to make yourself happy of a godly type. Questions welcome, bogus philosophical 'questions' are frowned upon.

Peace, Joy, and Love from your brother through Christ!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi,

I'm hoping you can help me with some areas of questioning I have as I am keen to see if Christianity might be my path. I'm in a point of transition right now and I'm looking for someway to settle my soul.

But first, it's probably important that you know from where I am coming spiritually and intellectually so you can better understand my questions. I'm a university graduate who believes strongly in evidence based analysis. I have a keen interest in ancient history and have a minor in it. Therefore, when examining my own beliefs I have to put those skills to work.

In the past I've stayed away from Christianity, mostly because the people in my family or friends who are Christians have been of an unquestioned belief sort and been unable to answer my questions in a way that provides me with peace of mind. Also, I don't mean to cause anyone offence by the nature of my questions.

I should probably warn you that I don't and probably will never see the bible as without error or omission. There are simply too many places where it contradicts itself, repeats differently, changes it's message or simply it is no longer applicable to justify it's standpoint. I promise that I have actually read it and continue to do so, it has amazing value

Don't worry, not all Christians are inerrantists. I'm not. I still see the Bible as holy and inspired, but I don't think it's entirely without error in every little bit of its minutia.

But in contrast to this boubt, I do have a belief in God. Simply by the facts of existence and our internal struggle can his presence be seen. We historically have needed God, every culture has needed to find religion. And the most successful is those religions of Abraham. Presumably because it speaks to peoples minds, hearts and souls. And it's followers are quite persuasive

After looking at most religions of the world, Christianity appears to call to me the best. It can if understood right offer it's followers hope and joy, connection to ourselves and all others and a strong moral code. It believes in the ethic of reciprocity, give charitably, non-violence, etc. In addition, Jesus showed women respect, access to his teachings and the ability to be involved in worship in a time when we were still considered possessions of their father or husband and were forbidden from learning the scriptures.

I know that most people questioning faith talk about evil and why God created it. I accept good and evil as facets of existence. They are in every action and inaction, and are simply aspects of creation and life. This is not an issue for me.

But here is where the questioning starts.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

It might help to understand that a great deal of those denominations are different denominations of a single theological tradition, and at times it's simply a matter of national jurisdiction. For example, my church, the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is a Lutheran denomination within the United States, however like the LCMS (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) and other Lutheran bodies in the United States we're all still Lutheran. Additionally, for example, the ELCA and the ELCIC (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada) often work together. Further, the ELCA is part of larger bodies of Christian cooperation and participation, the Lutheran World Federation, the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, among others. The ELCA also has "pulpit and altar fellowship" with other churches, such as the ECUSA (Episcopal Church USA, part of the Anglican Communion), PCUSA (Presbyteria Church USA), Reformed Church in America, United Church of Christ, the Moravian Church and United Methodist Church--that means there is full communion among these denominations here in the US.

There is also often a lot of cooperation, at local levels, between congregations and parishes of Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, and so forth.

So naturally the number given is technically accurate, but there is also a lot of ecumenical, inter-church and para-church work done and those visible divisions aren't always as stark as they might at first seem.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

Zoroastrian thought was definitely influential, though both Judaism and Christianity historically reject notions of cosmic dualism (equal Good and Evil forces in competition). I don't think this ought to be too big a problem, in the Nativity Story as relayed in Matthew's Gospel the "wise men" who visit the Christ Child are magi, these are Zoroastrian priests from Persia.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

Many of us, myself included, would argue that it's not about change, so much as about recognizing that to be true to the Gospel message, re-evaluating what it means to be a faithful Christian means not allowing cultural mores become a substitute for Christian ethics and moral formation. To that end, external forms fashioned and formed by culture can, do and ought to change; what shouldn't change is the Christian message and religion itself. The call to love our neighbor is far more important than what culture is saying, the preaching of forgiveness and repentance ought to transcend culture and reach people where they are. The message of God's compassion, the message of grace, the gospel of Jesus Christ shouldn't be at the whim of an ever-changing cultural landscape because it becomes irrelevant and rather meaningless at that point.

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

They can't be rationalized within the framework of Christianity. That's my argument at least. The fact of the matter is that for the first three or four centuries Christianity was radically non-violent and proclaimed the total absence of violence. Justification for limited violence came when the State was "baptized" and Christian leaders had to figure out how a State that called itself Christian could sustain itself and survive; so this gives birth to the Christian Just War tradition (where war is justified only upon certain and highly strict conditions). The problem is that power corrupts and that's as true of Christian civil authorities as non-Christian civil authorities. It's difficult to be an emperor, king or president and also be a Christian, the two callings are in many ways in total conflict.

So my position is that taking the Sermon on the Mount seriously, means taking non-violence very seriously.

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

Thanks again!!!!

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a christian yet.

I think this is the closest thing to that. And no, you're not being insensitive.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jeff4life]

Nomadwanderer, I am glad that you brought your questions here and I am not at all offended by them. I have had many similar questions in the past, and I want you to know that there are good answers.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered...

Despite the diversity there is surprising similarity among all of these Churches. I have never come across a Christian Church that did not confess the Nicene Creed. Because of the similarities, I would feel comfortable going into Christian any Church that I am among my spiritual brothers and sisters despite the differences.

...and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church.But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

One reason that I would advise doing it on your own is that a big part of the Christian faith is fellowship with other Christians. You become, (as odd as it may sound) part of one body, the body of Christ. And you need your body to fully function, just as a hand needs a body and feet to keep that body standing. (see 1 Corinthians 12:12-19)

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

I can't recall hearing this before which makes me wonder if it is not a minority position among scholars. Also, it is usually impossible to really know for sure, in things like this, whether Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity, or if they just shared similar beliefs.

In any case, say they shared a ton of similar beliefs, it still wouldn't show that the Hebrews got their beliefs from Zoroastrianism. According to Christianity, there is such a thing as "natural revelation," where God shows humanity His character through nature and created things (other than the bible or appearing in visions or things like that). Of course, I don't expect a historian doing history to take "natural revelation" as a possible explanation for similarities between Zoroastrianism and Christianity, and indeed they wouldn't be allowed to, but that doesn't mean it is false.

The idea of Natural Revelation is supported most by this verse in Paul, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..." (Romans 1:20)

Further support of this is that Aristotle and other Greek philosophers discovered many of the properties of God without biblical (special) revelation, such that Aquinas was able to draw upon Aristotle's arguments. Also note that, if I am not mistaken, most (if not all) of the religions we know about at the moment writing began were monotheistic. Now this doesn't prove Natural Revelation is true, but it seems to make it more plausible.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

One thing that is recognized in the New Testament is that Old Testament laws are old, and no longer applicable. (Galatians 3:24, Romans 7:4, 10:4, etc...) These laws were not intended to be the perfect moral requirement for humans. As Jesus says, some of them were written 'for the hardness of their hearts.' (Mark 10:3)

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

It is very sad that so much violence has been committed in the name of Christianity. However, it is true that the earliest Christians were much closer to pacifists as they refused to participate in the Roman army. There has been a lot of twisting of the scriptures that has gone on to justify all of the violence, but I think that goes to show the capability in humanity for self-delusion, and not the fault of the Christian God or His true followers. One way that violence has been rationalized was to identify the Kingdom of God with earthly kingdoms. It is really sad, especially because of the fact that Jesus said,

"Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest..." (John 18:36)

I enjoyed responding to your questions. Feel free to ask more or to challenge me on anything.

Cheers,

- Jeff

 

[earagun]

Hi,

I'm hoping you can help me with some areas of questioning I have as I am keen to see if Christianity might be my path. I'm in a point of transition right now and I'm looking for someway to settle my soul.

But first, it's probably important that you know from where I am coming spiritually and intellectually so you can better understand my questions. I'm a university graduate who believes strongly in evidence based analysis. I have a keen interest in ancient history and have a minor in it. Therefore, when examining my own beliefs I have to put those skills to work.

In the past I've stayed away from Christianity, mostly because the people in my family or friends who are Christians have been of an unquestioned belief sort and been unable to answer my questions in a way that provides me with peace of mind. Also, I don't mean to cause anyone offence by the nature of my questions.

I should probably warn you that I don't and probably will never see the bible as without error or omission. There are simply too many places where it contradicts itself, repeats differently, changes it's message or simply it is no longer applicable to justify it's standpoint. I promise that I have actually read it and continue to do so, it has amazing value

But in contrast to this boubt, I do have a belief in God. Simply by the facts of existence and our internal struggle can his presence be seen. We historically have needed God, every culture has needed to find religion. And the most successful is those religions of Abraham. Presumably because it speaks to peoples minds, hearts and souls. And it's followers are quite persuasive

After looking at most religions of the world, Christianity appears to call to me the best. It can if understood right offer it's followers hope and joy, connection to ourselves and all others and a strong moral code. It believes in the ethic of reciprocity, give charitably, non-violence, etc. In addition, Jesus showed women respect, access to his teachings and the ability to be involved in worship in a time when we were still considered possessions of their father or husband and were forbidden from learning the scriptures.

I know that most people questioning faith talk about evil and why God created it. I accept good and evil as facets of existence. They are in every action and inaction, and are simply aspects of creation and life. This is not an issue for me.

But here is where the questioning starts.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

Thanks again!!!!

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a christian yet.

Its pretty simple anyone who killed people under the banner of some form christianity were antichrist, stay as far away as you can from these folks. Jesus wouldn't condone killing anyone for their beliefs or unbeliefs, at least not before He comes again, this is a period of grace and mercy, the time when people can turn from sin and repent and recieve forgivness.....many of these christian organizations should do just that, they should publically repent of their past historic actions, and stop trying to hide and delete what everyone knows to be truth. If these organizations would just humble themselves and stop trying to hide their wrong doing it would probably do them a world of good

 

[drich0150]

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

First understand that what Christ and subsequently the apostles did was not to establish another rule based religion. In Christ there is freedom to be found. Freedom from the Law as a way to try and obtain righteousness. This freedom not only provides forgiveness for sin it also provides 'forgiveness' for those who do not worship, as others do. The corner stone of faith has shifted from the hundreds of different points of the Moral Social and ceremonial law to just two points. Love Your Lord God with all of your Heart, Mind, Spirit, and Strength, and Love your neighbor as your self.
This means because we are all different this complete form of love will look different.(Apparently 34,000 kinds of different)

This means, A man who is strong in academic worship could not worship God effectively in a charismatic setting, and vise versa. The command switched from worship Me a certain way, to worship Me with every fiber of your being. For this to be possible "we" must have the freedom to express what love is to us.

Which brings us to why you can not go it alone. Do you honestly think your Best effort would be through your own efforts rather than through a group of like minded believers?? Look at your questions. They are keeping you from God, and no offense, but these questions are elementary at best. What happens when you face a real problem, especially if you have no support? We are told the Devil is a roaring lion constantly looking for one he can devour. Do you know how lions hunt? They cordon off one straggler from the heard and attack. Going it alone would ensure an early demise.


2.

I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts

According to my research Zoroastrianism started in or around 6BCE which makes this religion about 2017 years old. Judaism can be traced back 3000 years. which makes Judaism a tad bit older.

(in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil,

God and Satan are not opposing forces in the Jewish texts (look at the book of Job and their interactions)

the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,).

Actually none of this is true. did you study this religion or just hear about it? Every single one of these points are mentioned to a degree, but are in no way similar to Jewish beliefs.

Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

As this religion is indeed not older these concerns are moot.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents.

Actually as God does not change, neither does His standards.

Can/does Christianity change with time?

However our understanding of His standards do change.

Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so?

Actually no. None of these standards have changed at all we still have rules and regulations to address anyone owning or happens to be a slave/servant/employee. The same goes for the rest of scripture. Our P/C terminology may change but God's principles do not.

Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

Again no. It is a belief system that represents the one true unchanging God.

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both to wards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalized within the framework of Christianity?

Those who committed such acts simply used the name of the religion to promote their own agenda. You will find there are two primary divisions in Christianity as identified by Christ Himself. Those who just take the name of Christ, and those who follow Christ. (Sheep and the Goats, The wheat and the weeds, the Wheat and the chaff.) Those who follow Christ in earnest will be taken to Him, after this life is over, and those who simply take the name will be separated and consumed by the fire.

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

I enjoy answering any and all questions according to what I have been given to understand. So if you have anything else please ask away.

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a Christian yet.

you posted in the right place, and Welcome to CF.

 

[Sketcher]

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

Most of them will agree on the most fundamental of truths. Most of the fragmentation is in the details, and in disagreements over how to obey the truth that we've been given.

Furthermore, what every Christian is supposed to have is an attitude that is faithful, available, and teachable. Bad splits happen when one or more of those traits is absent in people. You should take this attitude to whatever church you go to, though you shouldn't be pressed into "availability" right away, since you are learning and seeking - you've got to be fed before you can feed - bottom line is, go to church willing and open to learning, and not abandoning it at the first little snag you hit in your faith.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

If you are going to say that Judaism evolved from Zorastrianism, then you have to say that God did not appear to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. If you are going to say that, then you have to say that they all had the exact same group hallucination on a national scale. And that they carefully preserved both strict laws and unflattering traditions which are completely illogical if you do not presume the existence and involvement of the God they believe in.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

How is it that you believe Christianity changed on these issues?

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

Many of them can't, and were politically motivated. Also, one could say there is a loophole in Jesus' command to turn the other cheek. He used it to contradict the idea of morally acceptable revenge, which was a perversion of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," and thus said if someone was striking you on the cheek, or taking your tunic, or forcing you to go a mile, to not resist. What he didn't explicitly forbid is fighting on behalf of someone else who is being so abused*. Some people have taken this, and ran with it.

* This can be argued against based on the Bible as well, and rather effectively. After all, the church bore persecution together before Constantine rather than one member fighting for another.

 

[nomadwanderer]

Thank you guys for answering so quickly! Fantastic!!!

ChristianT, ViaCrucis earagun and Jeff4life, your answers have given so much insight and there is a lot I now need to consider (and read) before I write an undoubtedly long reply probably full of more question You guys have given me a great gift, thank you!!!

drich0150, I'm afraid that it's your sort of answers that made it hard for me to approach Christians in the first place. It took quite a while for me to even consider posting here and calling my questions 'elementary' and dismissing what I believe is not helping me. Also, Zoroastrianism is generally accepted to have originated somewhere between 1500 and 1000BCE, the latest date I have yet to find in any source is 600BCE. Also prior to Judaism encountering Zoroastrianism many of their beliefs were significantly different from what they are today. For instance they believed instead of entering paradise (a word originating from the Persian) or hell that they would all go to Sheol which roughly translates to pit or abyss. It was Zoroastrianism that had this concept first.

"There is plenty of evidence that the post-exilic religious development of the Hebrews was affected by the teachings of Zarathushtra, and that among the international influences to which the development of Hebrew morals was exposed, we must include also the teachings of the great Medo-Persian Prophet."James Henry Breasted, The Dawn of Consciousness, P. 345

Here is more info for you on this interesting religion

Shapurji Aspaniarji Kapadia, "The Teachings of Zoroaster, and the Philosophy of the Parsi Religion," (1908; reprinted in 2010).
Farhand Mehr, "The Zoroastrian Tradition", Element Books, (1991).
Piloo Nanavutty, "The Gathas of Zarathushtra: Hymns in Praise of Wisdom (2006).
S. A. Nigosian, "The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research,"[bless and do not curse](1993).
Loren Harper Whitney, "Life and Teachings of Zoroaster, the Great Persian," (2008).



Thanks again everyone...I'm off to read your responses again You have been a huge help!!!!!

 

[nomadwanderer]

Hi Sketcher, thanks for the notes.

When I talk about change, here is what I mean:

Women's rights: in the OT women are treated quite poorly and as property. In the NT Jesus radically changed this aspect. Here is some info from religioustolerence.org

Change in status: Jesus' radical treatment of women

Christ overthrew many centuries of Jewish law and custom. He consistently treated women and men as equals. He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which specified gender inequality. He refused to follow the behavioral rules established by the three main Jewish religious groups of the day: the Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. "The actions of Jesus of Nazareth towards women were therefore revolutionary." 1 Some examples are:

He ignored ritual impurity laws: Mark 5:25-34 describes Jesus' cure of a woman who suffered from menstrual bleeding for 12 years. In Judean society of the day, it was a major transgression for a man to talk to a woman other than his wife or children.

He talked to foreign women: John 4:7 to 5:30 describes Jesus' conversation with a woman of Samaria. She was doubly ritually unclean since she was both a foreigner and a woman. Men were not allowed to talk to women, except within their own families. Jesus also helped a Canaanite woman, another foreigner, in Matthew 15:22-28. Although he described non-Jews as "dogs", he was willing to talk to her, and is recorded as having cured her daughter of demon-possession.

He taught women students: Jewish tradition at the time was to not allow women to be taught. Rabbi Eliezer wrote in the 1st century CE: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman...Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her obscenity." 5 Jesus overthrew centuries of tradition. In Luke 10:38-42, he taught Mary, sister of Martha.

He used terminology which treated women as equal to men:
Luke 13:16 describes how he cured a woman from an indwelling Satanic spirit. He called her a daughter of Abraham, thus implying that she had equal status with sons of Abraham. "The expression 'son of Abraham' was commonly used to respectfully refer to a Jew, but 'daughter of Abraham', was an unknown parallel phrase...It occurs nowhere else in the Bible." 4 It seems to be a designation created by Jesus.

Luke 7:35 to 8:50 describes how Jesus' forgave a woman's sins. He refers to women and men (i.e. "all" people) as children of wisdom.

He accepted women in his inner circle: Luke 8:1-3 describes the inner circle of Jesus' followers: 12 male disciples and an unspecified number female supporters (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna and "many others.") It would appear that about half of his closest followers were women.

He appeared first to one or more women after his resurrection: Matthew 28:9-10 describes how Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" were the first followers of Jesus to meet him after his resurrection. (However, this account is contradicted by passages in 1 Corinthians, which state that the first person to see Jesus was Cleopas, Peter or all of the disciples.)

Mostly women were present at Jesus' execution: Matthew 27:55-56 and Mark 15:40-41 describe many women who followed Jesus from Galilee and were present at his crucifixion. The men had fled from the scene. (John 19:25-27 contradicts this; the author describes John as being present with the women.)

He told parallel male/female stories: The author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts shows many parallel episodes: one relating to a woman, the other to a man. For example:
Simeon and Hannah in Luke 2:25-38
Widow of Sarepta and Naaman in Luke 4:25-38
Healing of a man possessed by a demon and the healing of the mother of Peter's wife, starting in Luke 4:31
The woman who had lived a sinful life and Simon, starting in Luke 7:36
A man and woman sleeping together in Luke 17:34
Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11
Dionysius and Damaris in Acts 17:34
Lydia and the jailer's conversion in Acts 16:14-34
The book "Women in the Earliest Churches" lists 9 additional parallels. 3 Author Ben Witherington III quotes H. Flender:

"Luke expresses by this arrangement that man and woman stand together and side by side before God. They are equal in honor and grace; they are endowed with the same gifts and have the same responsibilities."

Some theologians have speculated that the author of the Gospel of Luke might well have been a woman.

He expressed concern for widows: Jesus repeated the importance of supporting widows throughout his ministry. The Gospel of Luke alone contains 6 references to widows: (Luke 2:36, 4:26, 7:11, 18:1, 20:47 and 21:1)

Divorce: In Jesus' time, a man could divorce his wife, but the wife had no right to divorce her husband. This practice is supported by seven references in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) in which a husband can unilaterally give his wife a bill of divorce. There were no references to a woman giving her husband such a bill. In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus overthrows this tradition and states that neither spouse can divorce the other; he treats the wife and husband equally.

or

The Transferability of Sin.

The bible says "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Exodus 20:5
But it also says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."Deuteronomy 24:1 This shows a change of belief.

You see what I mean? In most instances I'm talking about obvious ones, like how polygamy was previously practiced but Jesus taught a one man/one woman policy.

Cheers!

 

[ebia]

I should probably warn you that I don't and probably will never see the bible as without error or omission. There are simply too many places where it contradicts itself, repeats differently, changes it's message or simply it is no longer applicable to justify it's standpoint. I promise that I have actually read it and continue to do so, it has amazing value

and remember it's an (ongoing) story, not a collection of facts and precepts.

But here is where the questioning starts.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

Christianity isn't something you can do on your own. It's the story of the people of God. You need to be part of a community, while recognizing that the truth is too big for any such community to have a perfect gasp on it.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

Judaism borrows ideas from elsewhere when they enhance the way it understands what God is doing. But it's also worth understanding what resurrection meant to different people at different points in it's development. We also need to note that while Zorastrianism is very ancient, what we know about it in detail comes from very late texts. We actually have very little concrete idea of what it looked like in the mid-Second Temple period when resurrection emerges as a significant factor in Jewish thinking.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

the challenge is to live an ongoing story in character with what has gone before. Neither living in the past nor disregarding it.

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

we often get things wrong

 

[Daniel25]

But first, it's probably important that you know from where I am coming spiritually and intellectually so you can better understand my questions. I'm a university graduate who believes strongly in evidence based analysis. I have a keen interest in ancient history and have a minor in it. Therefore, when examining my own beliefs I have to put those skills to work.

In what, out of curiosity?

In the past I've stayed away from Christianity, mostly because the people in my family or friends who are Christians have been of an unquestioned belief sort and been unable to answer my questions in a way that provides me with peace of mind. Also, I don't mean to cause anyone offence by the nature of my questions.

You won't find any more comfort in a God of the philosophers. There is virtue in naive faith; consider Matthew 18:

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5“And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.


--------------------------------------------------------

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

The issue is authority. The protestant sects derive their authority from the Bible. The Catholic (as well as the Orthodox) churches were the ones who canonized the Bible; transitively the protestant churches derive their authority from the apostolic ones.

The apostolic ones are rather inconvienant for your lifestyle, however. Poor tolstoy and dostovesky were both driven mad by the orthodox, for example.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

The christian church does not hold satan to an evil deity equal in any way to God. This is the core of zoroastrianism thought; you can draw similiarities if you wish, but they are incidental rather than critical.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

Our culture is the result of our belief system, not the other way around.

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

Some of it was justified, some of it was not. Most of it was tangential to the faith.

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

Faith is fidelity, not credulousness.

 

[drich0150]

drich0150, I'm afraid that it's your sort of answers that made it hard for me to approach Christians in the first place. It took quite a while for me to even consider posting here and calling my questions 'elementary' and dismissing what I believe is not helping me.

If I dismissed you questions i would not have taken the time to answer them. Do you know what the term Elementary actually means?
el·e·men·ta·ry

   /ˌɛl

əˈmɛn

tə

ri, -tri/ Show Spelled[el-uh-men-tuh-ree, -tree] Show IPA
adjective 1. pertaining to or dealing with elements, rudiments, or first principles: an elementary grammar.

When I told you not to take offense i was hoping you would be able to look beyond a slight to your pride. I was simply trying to tell you that your questions are basic knoweledge questions, and that even these basic knoweledge questions are keeping you from developing a faith. I wanted you to have a genuine grounded perspective, so as to logically rationalize the need to be in a fellowship of believers.

If however you can not look past your injured pride then this is a issue in of itself. Because no one with a proud heart can approach God, and expect Him to kneel to your pride.

Also, Zoroastrianism knowledgeknowledgeis generally accepted to have originated somewhere between 1500 and 1000BCE, the latest date I have yet to find in any source is 600BCE.

Zoroastrianism - ReligionFacts
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANISM

All first page references from Google. that point to 6BCE as the origins to this religion.

Also prior to Judaism encountering Zoroastrianism many of their beliefs were significantly different from what they are today. For instance they believed instead of entering paradise (a word originating from the Persian) or hell that they would all go to Sheol which roughly translates to pit or abyss. It was Zoroastrianism that had this concept first.

again they just look like a bunch of Johnny come latelys at 6BCE.

"There is plenty of evidence that the post-exilic religious development of the Hebrews was affected by the teachings of Zarathushtra, and that among the international influences to which the development of Hebrew morals was exposed, we must include also the teachings of the great Medo-Persian Prophet."James Henry Breasted, The Dawn of Consciousness, P. 345

Here is more info for you on this interesting religion

Shapurji Aspaniarji Kapadia, "The Teachings of Zoroaster, and the Philosophy of the Parsi Religion," (1908; reprinted in 2010).
Farhand Mehr, "The Zoroastrian Tradition", Element Books, (1991).
Piloo Nanavutty, "The Gathas of Zarathushtra: Hymns in Praise of Wisdom (2006).
S. A. Nigosian, "The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research,"[bless and do not curse](1993).
Loren Harper Whitney, "Life and Teachings of Zoroaster, the Great Persian," (2008).

I guess "we" can find what we want to substaintiate what we want to believe.

 

[Sketcher]

Hi Sketcher, thanks for the notes.

When I talk about change, here is what I mean:

Women's rights: in the OT women are treated quite poorly and as property. In the NT Jesus radically changed this aspect.

Jesus broke tradition, but not the OT law when he did this.

The Transferability of Sin.

The bible says "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Exodus 20:5
But it also says "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."Deuteronomy 24:1 This shows a change of belief.

This does not indicate a change, since Deuteronomy 5:9 says the same thing as Exodus 20:5, and Deuteronomy was the second reading of the whole OT Law. Notice that in Deut. 5:9, God is doing the punishing, and in Deut. 24:16 (the correct reference for the verse), he is limiting what man can lawfully do to punish evil. It's easy to have guilt by association in a mob mentality. God gave this law to protect people from injustice in this way. Furthermore, Deut. 5:9 does not have God committing unjust acts, because he also promises kindness to those who repent and love him, such as how he treated Josiah and Hezekiah.

You see what I mean? In most instances I'm talking about obvious ones, like how polygamy was previously practiced but Jesus taught a one man/one woman policy.

Describing is not the same as prescribing. The OT describes many sins, and when Jesus laid down one man with one woman, he was going back to the creation account as justification. The older the rule, the more validity it had in first-century Jewish thought.

 

[Hentenza]

Hi Nomadwanderer,

But here is where the questioning starts.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

Actually there are not 34,000 plus Christian churches (denominations) in the world. The study done by David Barrett, which is used by many sites including Encyclopedia Britannica and adherents.com among many, defines a denomination as an organized Christian group within a country, consequently his numbers are highly inflated since denominations that exist in one country are often the same denomination found in another country. For example he cites Roman Catholics as having 242 denominations, Eastern Orthodox as having 781denominations, Baptists as having 322 denominations, Lutherans as having 253 denominations, etc., however, these same churches are in many countries. You can find the study numbers by following this link. There is much more wrong with the study but I think this highlights my main issue with it.

I'll try to get to some of your other questions as I have time.

 

[razeontherock]

In the past I've stayed away from Christianity, mostly because the people in my family or friends who are Christians have been of an unquestioned belief

Hello again. I came to the Lord via cold hard logic, and find He stands up to scrutiny quite well.

I don't and probably will never see the bible as without error or omission. There are simply too many places where it contradicts itself, repeats differently, changes it's message or simply it is no longer applicable to justify it's standpoint.

This needs to be addressed, as it will become more important the more you pursue Christianity. First of all, on CF we have sincere believers that have tackled this valid issue in seemingly every possible way. With the exception of it "repeating differently," (8 vs 18) contradictions can all be harmonized, and need to be. I've found the results of that process to place you in a precarious position right now, meaning that from where you are now, to the time you can harmonize the apparent contradictions, you need to reserve judgment and resist the habit of human closure.

Think you can do that? If you can, it will add to the value you find immeasurably. I have found the message hasn't changed, and that the (true, underlying) message is as relevant today as it ever was.

I do have a belief in God. Simply by the facts of existence and our internal struggle can his presence be seen.

Correct!

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches

If you look into the calculation of that number, you see that every different Nation of the same denomination = "a different denomination." So right off the bat you realize this # is intentionally inflated. Next up, the overwhelming majority of those distinctions are minute, to the point that the main division is which individual wants to be the leader.

By the time you boil this down to legitimate differences, how many are you left with? Not that many. And among those, what elements are in common? THOSE things are what you should primarily concern yourself with!

A. Who is Jesus?
B. His Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and role as our High Priest
Just learning that much will take you quite a bit further than the bulk of people Faithfully sitting in a pew every Sunday

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

You could attempt to become a Zoroastrian, but consensus seems to be you will find no one to support you. You could also become a Noahide. Why does it seem strange that Abraham had Tradition handed to him, and that others in the same general vicinity would've been familiar with it before he was born?

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

The first phrase I bolded is perhaps the biggest key to resolving some of the issues you've expressed with the Bible. This is shown through the building of altars in the OT, when G-d "became" something new to an individual. Note that G-d did not change, it was the perception of the individual that grew. We can learn from each of those moments, and have our hearts prepared for our own similar experiences that G-d wishes to share with us. He does Love you, you know!

Anyway I don't see that Christianity ever changed on polygamy or "transferability of sin." As far as change, it is in the middle of it as we speak. Whether that's for better or worse ... you can find many on either side of that aisle on CF

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

ONLY ONE WAY: such behavior was outside of Christendom. How G-d may Judge those, is His business. This very issue was a biggie amongst those who were forerunners to Martin Luther; the straw that broke the camel's back, you might say. Fortunately for us the protestant reformation brought about the catholic counter-reformation, and those ills (including the IRA) seem to be entirely behind us. (FWIW, EO never tortured, maimed, or killed fellow believers over their belief, and for that reason alone is worth looking into:
The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox - Christian Forums

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a christian yet.

I think you've posted in the best place, if you're looking for Christian input. Fortunately, you seem to be realistic that you will have a lot to wade through, and CF is no exception. May I suggest to start reading the Gospel of John?

 

[GrayAngel]

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

There are many reasons for the divisions between the churches. Part of it is that Christianity has been around for nearly 2000 years now, and there has been plenty of time for lies to slip in and distort the truth.

Second, as I alluded to already, there have been people to distort the Bible. Christ warned us that this would happen, but we should diligently seek out the truth, dispelling all the lies.

You say that you don't believe that the Bible is perfect. That's okay. You have a right to believe what you want. But the problem is not with the Bible as it was written. Some Bible translations are not word-for-word translations, and so they paraphrase, distorting what was originally said and sometimes omitting the important parts.

Also, the more we search, the more we find early manuscripts reveal extra verses that have slipped their way into the Bible. If you ever see parentheses around a section of verses, that tells you that that entire section was likely not in the original text, but that someone added it in later.

Finally, there are language and cultural barriers that make understanding the scripture a challenge at times. This doesn't mean it is impossible to understand the Bible, but that it takes more effort than sitting down to read the Bible ten minutes a day.

I say all this because some denominations lean on improper understanding of the Bible. If you want proper instruction in the Bible, you need a church that believes that scripture is the inerrant Word of God. Otherwise, they will be cherry-picking verses in whatever way is most convenient for themselves.

Also, even though many churches will claim to follow the Bible, many of them do not. If you find that they teach things that are clearly contrary to what the Bible teaches, or if they take verses out of context and twist them around for their own purposes, it's time to move on.

One last thing, while we do not agree on all things, many of us get along just fine. Denominations are silly when they're used to form an us-vs-them mentality. There is only one church, and that is the saved. Denomination should be nothing but a simple and easy clue as to the opinions of those who wear that banner.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

I don't buy that. From what I've read, Zoroastrianism is believed to have first appeared before the 6th Century BC, which would be only 600 years before Christ. Judaism, however, has no set date, but we know it was around longer than that.

People who say that Judaism got its "inspiration" from other religions are operating with an agenda. I have no reason to believe that Zoroastrians didn't receive their inspiration from the Jews. Where are they getting their information? What are they basing these assumptions on?

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

Depends on what you mean by change. God's standards never change, and His will is always perfect. However, God has set rules according to how He knew people would respond to them. In the Old Testament days, God saw that the Hebrew men were divorcing left and right in favor of new women. Scripture tells us that God permitted them to divorce, but He put a reign around them so that they wouldn't victimize the divorced wives.

The hearts of the Hebrews were too hard to receive God's real command, which was to never divorce. But Jesus came along later to make this clear.

Matthew 5:31-32 - "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:2-12 - Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

“What did Moses command you?” he replied.

They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

So yes, God did adjust to the moral capacity of His followers, but what we have of the Bible is perfect and complete. It tells us all we need to know, including the all-encompassing greatest commandments, which were found both in the OT and the NT:

1. Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Follow these laws perfectly, and you will do no wrong.

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

God's people have never been very good with the application of their faith. The first century Christians were probably the best there ever was, but even they had their flaws.

All of the Bible's greatest heroes, except for Jesus, have major flaws. David--the "man after God's own heart"--was an adulterer. Sampson was a murderer. Jonah wanted to see the whole city of Nineveh go up in flames and was miserable to the point of suicide when God showed them mercy.

Yet we learn from these people. All of us are sinners, capable of doing monstrous things. Paul urges us to look at those of us who are following the Christ-like lifestyle and to learn from them, but we will never be worthy of God. The beauty of the Gospel is that we don't have to be. God accepts us despite all we've done and all we will ever do. The Cross has justified us and purified us in God's eyes.

If you choose to address any of these. Thank you. I have asked other questions before and been told I'm being insensitive or simply that I need to find and have faith and nothing else matters. I can't, I'll go without belief before handing over my faith blindly, that is just me. If it's true then it should stand up to scrutiny

Thanks again!!!!

No problem.

Some people will attack you for your questions, but keep in mind that they have some good reason to react that way. Many of the regular posters here are not people seeking to learn, as you are, but they come to start arguments and to try to convince us that we're wrong and they're right. Because of this, you may find some hostility if people mistake you for one of them.

However, the Bible teaches that we should be ready to give an answer for the hope we believe in, and that we should do so in gentleness and respect. If you ever find that people can't respond to you in a kind and gentle manner, ignore them. They may be angry because you revealed a chink in their armor, an area in which they were unprepared to speak.

 

[hedrick]

I'm a university graduate who believes strongly in evidence based analysis.

Me, too.

IAfter looking at most religions of the world, Christianity appears to call to me the best. It can if understood right offer it's followers hope and joy, connection to ourselves and all others and a strong moral code. It believes in the ethic of reciprocity, give charitably, non-violence, etc.

I agree. As long as you understand the context. Jesus saw these not just as a good way to live, but as ethics appropriate to the Kingdom of God. He specifically motivates many of these things by reference to God's actions.

1. There are 34000+ 'Christian' churches currently operating around the world. This fragmentation is disturbing, with consensus seemingly impossible to reach. I can only conclude that the flock has somehow scattered and where does that leave me? I'm not going to join a church at random and therefore I have to choose my own beliefs and match that to a church. But if I'm going to do that then why should I join one at all? Might as well just follow my own interpretation and be done with churches and church leaders.

You've already gotten a couple of reasonable responses. There aren't 34,000 significant theological traditions. Someone with your viewpoint will probably be interested in the "mainline" churches, or the more liberal end of evangelicals. I consider such moderately liberal churches closer to Jesus' teachings. These churches agree on most things, with a few different emphases coming from their specific traditions. Once you understand your basic approach, you typically look for a local church that shares it and which you like for other reasons: e.g. its programs match your needs, or you have friends going there.

The primary reason for a church isn't so someone can tell you what to believe.
* It's useful for your own spiritual development to be with others in the presence of God.
* While you want to make your own decisions, it doesn't make sense to start from scratch. Christians have been thinking about things for centuries. Probably some of us know something worthwhile.
* Jesus calls us to do things. Churches can help you do that. A lot of service activities are easier to do in an organization that has some structure, has contacts in the community, etc.
* Jesus didn't preach individualism. He was concerned about people reacting to him personally, but the kingdom is a community. We are built to live and function in community, and God works with us that way.

2. I originally and incorrectly assumed that Christianity followed from Judaism which came about it's beliefs independently early on and they have been stable over it's history. I have since learnt that Zoroastrianism not only pre-dates Judaism but also provided Judaism with many of the core concepts (in God and Satan as opposing forces of good and evil, the messiah, heaven and hell, the Angels as divine beings created by god that interact with man, the resurrection, the end of days etc,). Therefore, this calls into doubt the reliability of all of the old testament. It also begs the question, what about Zoroastrianism, where did it gain these 'truths' and is it more correct than I had previously thought?

Christianity certainly came from Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. In brief terms, two things happened (1) most Jews didn't accept Jesus as Messiah. The consequences of accepting him were sufficiently major that people who accepted Jesus were no longer regarded as proper Jews; (2) the early Church decided that you didn't have to accept the Jewish law to be Christian. There are a number of ideas and practices that came over into Christianity, but there were plenty that did not. The situation was complicated by hostility that developed between Jews and Christians. That tended to cause Christianity to avoid ideas that looked Jewish, as odd as that sounds for a religion using the Jewish Scriptures as its own. Also, as Christianity became primarily non-Jewish, Jesus started being understood in terms taken from the surrounding non-Jewish culture. It's really only in the 20th Cent that scholars have started trying to restore the Jewish context to understand Jesus. I think this is a valuable effort.

As you obviously know, some people think that Judaism took some thoughts from Persia during the exile. Modern Zoroastrianism is actually later than this, but many of the ideas were certainly there when Jews were in Persia. It's not the idea of God that is claimed to come from there, but rather the detailed picture of the afterlife, and a more robust concept of Satan than in the OT.

I claim that the basis for these ideas was already present in the OT, and that these developments were natural. They probably would have happened anyway, but contact with Persian religion may have affected the form somewhat. There was always a concept that God would make things right in the end, and that this included doing justice to wrongdoers. Clearer ideas of judgement, heaven and hell are natural developments. There was always the idea of a supra-personal force of evil. In the OT you see images of the chaos monster, and the sea, at various times. The image changed to Satan, but the basic idea of an evil force that transcends individuals was always there. It's probably inevitable. There are times when it becomes clear that there is some beyond just individual bad people. Whether you conceive of it as an actual supernatural being seems less important. The liberal churches don't tend to emphasize Satan as an actual person anyway. Note that Judaism never accepted the dualistic context from Persian religion. Satan never became the evil counterpart to God. He was always a created being.

3. What about change? Change in culture, morals, ethics and beliefs. For any system to work, it must match the people it represents. Can/does Christianity change with time? Obviously it has on many issues (slavery, women's rights, polygamy, transferability of sin, etc) but can it continue to do so? Is it a belief system for the modern world, one that represents our culture and not that of 2000 years ago?

This is an answer on which you'll find lots of disagreements. Everyone understands that new questions come up, and we need to answer them. Fortunately Jesus taught by inspiring people with stories, and his ethics are based on broad principles. So we have the resources to deal with new questions.

Also, very early in Christian history, there was an effort to present Christianity to the culture then current. This involved translating ideas that originally came from a Jewish background into concepts from Greek thought. The result is various theological ideas such as the Trinity. The Trinity is not in the Bible, but is a summary of Biblical evidence presented using terms from the culture at the time. There's no reason similar adaptations can't be made as the culture changes.

How much we do further adaptation is, as I noted, a matter of controversy. The more liberal churches, of which I'm a proponent, believe that changes in both moral guidance and theology are possible, as long as we continue to base ourselves on Jesus' teachings and what we learn about God from his work with Israel, and from Jesus' life and teachings. Plenty of Christian thinkers have tried to develop theology using modern thought-forms. You don't tend to see them here, but if you study Christianity in a college religion course or the seminaries where pastors are trained, much of your reading will be these modern writers. The more liberal churches tend to be influenced by them a bit more. [One practical problem is that the Internet is based on open documents. The works of Calvin and Augustine are easily available online. More modern writers are not.]

4. Violence. Christianity teaches that we should 'turn the other cheek' – non-violence. However, in practice it has a long history of violence both towards it's own members and non-members. How can these acts be rationalised within the framework of Christianity?

There are several reasons:
* Jesus may not have been totally pacifist. He taught reconciliation, but there are times when restraining an evil person may prevent a lot of damage. I don't think Jesus clearly prohibits force in that situation.
* No State has been really Christian. Kings fight wars, even if the religious leaders tell them not to. There was a serous attempt during the middle ages to restrain violence. They tried various ways to limit the scope, but couldn't get people to stop making war. Ironically, the Crusades were an attempt to prevent violence in Europe. The thought was to send all the victims of testosterone poisoning someplace where force was really needed.
* It's amazing what having power will do to you. Augustine taught that there should be no force in matters of religion until he had the power to do something. At that point he decided that if we really love people, we need to stop heretics in order to prevent them from corrupting lots of people and sending them to hell. Separation of Church and State has now been widely accepted as a way to prevent this.

In general, Christians have a long history of being highly imperfect, but also often haven't had as much control as you might think. But I also think that Jesus ideals aren't quite as influential among Christians as they ought to be. Note in the modern US the attitude of Christians to various wars and "police actions" in the last few decades. Liberal Christians, while not always completely pacifist have generally been critical. Others have not. As usual, I think moderately liberal Christianity is closer to Jesus' teaching than conservative Christianity.

p.s. is there a forum for possible believers. I wasn't sure exactly where to post this as I'm not exactly a non-believer but I'm also not a christian yet.

Yes, Exploring Christianity. Based on your statements and questions, you might also want to try the liberal Christianity forum. It is open to inquirers. Actually, so are other Christian forums, but for other forums, in principle non-Christians are only supposed to ask questions. That's not always observed.