Paris

[Dogg Thang]

You say "have always" but I don't think that's true at all. Many people, generations were willing to kill and die on the subject of the Bible being literal. Most Muslims now also don't carry out the instructions word for word either. Did they ever? Not sure they did in a way that is any different to Christians.

[dvdx2]

I think it's class that you went to the trouble to ask someone to help answer Brad's question! And I think her distinction between science and faith is spot on. They're in two totally different categories.

A quick point about faith. I don't really like the word 'faith'. Not because faith isn't valuable, but because I think it's misunderstood. I see faith as a trust in something rather than an act of wishful thinking. What I mean is, as a Christian I have faith in Christ because there is substantial evidence for the resurrection (others disagree and that's fine). Therefore, I have faith in Christ and his teachings. Likewise, I have faith in Yu Suzuki that Shenmue 3 will be great because his track record gives me a reason to believe that it will be. My faith in Yu Suzuki is not blind.



Sure. I think what gets me is that everything on the planet is contingent upon something else. There is no thing (that we know of) that is responsible for its own existence. So the further you go back, the more it seems that you need some kind of miracle to get things started.

you then could start going down the route of who created god and then who created the creator of that god etc etc. I think the scientific explanation of the big bang at least gives us as a starting point.

[endo]

I think for me as well the question is often more important than the answer. Sometimes there isn't a single answer and that's where a scientist would struggle I guess. But the truth is sometimes there is no concrete answer particularly to the big questions of life and death, but wrestling with and journeying with the questions is just as valid and important.

As I see it, though, it's not necessary to wrestle with certain questions. Is there an ultimate purpose or meaning to life. I don't know, but personally I don't believe there is. Is it something I need to keep questioning? No, because it's not an issue that has any bearing on the way I live my life and it's certainly not something that keeps me up at night. Ditto for whether there's a god or not.

I can certainly understand why some religious folk seek answers to that kind of question in religion, because, it's true, scientific enquiry is unlikely to provide definitive answers there any time soon (well, unless a definitive origin of the universe can be proven, which I doubt it can be 100%, at least in any reasonable period of time). What perplexes me is why worry about those things in the first place? Say that tomorrow it were definitively proven - as in beyond doubt - that there is no god. Would that mean those who believe would stop living the way they already do? Of course not.

[endo]

ISure. I think what gets me is that everything on the planet is contingent upon something else. There is no thing (that we know of) that is responsible for its own existence. So the further you go back, the more it seems that you need some kind of miracle to get things started.

In a sense, energy is responsible for its own existence, in that it just 'is'. And what is matter? Condensed energy. What if, by some process that is not yet understood, energy just 'is' and always has been? I know some people might call that 'god', but, to my mind, calling something god implies it has some sort of relationship with us or some sort of consciousness, which energy doesn't have.

[Howiee]

This is why Christians don't venerate the actual text in the same manner that other religions hold theirs so dear - it's accepted that the text is flawed, because the text is the product of man, not God, and man is (in Christian teaching) incapable of perfection.

Are you sure about this? Venerating the bible is kind of a core doctrine of Christianity. Obviously there are some liberal takes on the bible by some denominations, but they're very much on the fringe.

Substantial evidence of resurrection? Really?

I can see how you want that to be true as it underpins your faith, but doubt (note not discount) the claim of evidence.

Yeah. There are a few facts that mainstream historians acknowledge as being solid: 1) A person named Jesus did exist and died on a Roman cross. We know this from the primary sources of historical documentation (certified dead by Roman soldiers, buried in a tomb with 100lb of spices as per Jewish custom). 2) The tomb was later found empty. If Jesus' body had been found, there would be no resurrection story. The resurrection account is what started the early church. Bear in mind, the authorities at this time were against Christ and his ideology. The authorities would have had every motive (and plenty of resources) to find the body. They didn't. 3) Historians acknowledge (there a few exceptions) that the disciples had an experience of some sort, which the disciples claimed to be a vision of the risen Christ. Of course, this can be disputed (that is was Christ), but it is generally not disputed that something happened. There are plenty of theories as to what might have happened (which you may be aware of), but I find them unsatisfactory explanations.

[dvdx2]

i think Stephen Hawkings sums it up rather well

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1401.Stephen_Hawking

I love this one

'We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star'.

I think human beings see themselves as way too important in the scale of the universe. Outside of this tiny blue dot we live, religions are nothing more than constructs of our brain.

[Asura]

Are you sure about this? Venerating the bible is kind of a core doctrine of Christianity. Obviously there are some liberal takes on the bible by some denominations, but they're very much on the fringe.

You're using "venerate" in the Christian sense though, rather than the more general sense. Just I was raised a Catholic under pretty strict teachings, and I was never taught that the Bible was a work of literal fact - for the reasons stated above. It was always presented to me that those who do see it that way are the fringe.

[Howiee]

you then could start going down the route of who created god and then who created the creator of that god etc etc. I think the scientific explanation of the big bang at least gives us as a starting point.

I don't think there is a scientific explanation just yet. Is there? But I would say that a big bang needs a big banger. That's not as rude as it sounds.

I think human beings see themselves as way too important in the scale of the universe. Outside of this tiny blue dot we live, religions are nothing more than constructs of our brain.

The problem I have with statements like this is that it fails its own test. Everything is a construct of our brains, including that statement. Why should I believe it? (or anything?)

[Dogg Thang]

You're using "venerate" in the Christian sense though, rather than the more general sense. Just I was raised a Catholic under pretty strict teachings, and I was never taught that the Bible was a work of literal fact - for the reasons stated above. It was always presented to me that those who do see it that way are the fringe.

That's cool but I think you're applying a single anecdotal situation across everywhere and throughout history. In our generation, it becomes much harder to take every word of the Bible as literal fact. That doesn't mean it isn't the word of God.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Lots of text there, wholly lacking in substantial evidence. It's almost like you want to believe it.......

[Asura]

That's cool but I think you're applying a single anecdotal situation across everywhere and throughout history. In our generation, it becomes much harder to take every word of the Bible as literal fact. That doesn't mean it isn't the word of God.

The phrase "word of god" here is a bit confusing though. The word, really, is "literal".

Just to make my stance clear, I would posit that there has never been a time where the bulk of Christianity believed the entire bible - every word - as literal, factual truth. They have always believed there are "truths" in every part, but not that the text describes, verbatim, how things happened like a history book. That's what I was always taught - even going as far back as the Crusades.

[Brad]

I assume Christians have an answer for the presence of fossilised dinosaur bones? Is it a standard explanation that all Christians have or are there multiple explanations? Also, if we discovered life on other planets or were visited by alien beings would that cause Christians to lose faith or could an explanation similar to that given for dinosaurs be applied?

[Howiee]

Lots of text there, wholly lacking in substantial evidence. It's almost like you want to believe it.......

Not really an answer, but ok. Me wanting wanting to believe it to be true has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually true. I'm making an objective claim. Engage with my claim, not my motives. They're irrelevant.

[Dogg Thang]

The phrase "word of god" here is a bit confusing though. The word, really, is "literal".

Just to make my stance clear, I would posit that there has never been a time where the bulk of Christianity believed the entire bible - every word - as literal, factual truth. They have always believed there are "truths" in every part, but not that the text describes, verbatim, how things happened like a history book. That's what I was always taught - even going as far back as the Crusades.

Ah okay. You originally used word of God. But you also used venerate in a direct comparison with the Koran as if Christians never quite respected their book as much and I don't think that is true. You've also got to take into account the head start some of the Bible had, with much of the Old Testament likely coming maybe more than 1000 years before the Crusades. So you're only taking into account half the timeline and, as I mentioned, many people lived or died since then on whether parts of the Bible was literal after that. Did people work around parts of the book that didn't suit them? Sure. Muslims do that too.

And we still have people today who think the world is a few thousand years old because they're taking what they read literally.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Not really an answer, but ok. Me wanting wanting to believe it to be true has nothing to do with whether it is actually true or not. I'm making an objective claim. Engage with my claim, not my motives. They're irrelevant.

The fact you used the phrase substantial evidence is highly suspect.

This cannot be viewed alone as you have already stated the event underpins your faith.

What was the method of certifying death 2000 years ago? Were soldiers qualified to state the case?

Lack of a body after being placed in a room with valuable spices does not equate to evidence. Quite the opposite, the evidence was removed.

Is seeing a vision an objective claim?