RE: My honest review of Christianity
October 20, 2014 at 8:00 am
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2014 at 8:59 am by Vivalarevolution.)
Hey this is not related to anything you're talking about because I was out of touch with what you were discussing. But I wish to add my feelings on the OP's first question.
I do not feel that the bible is to be taken literally and as divinely inspired.
Moreover, I think it could be potentially dangerous if you're thoughts on the subjects in the bible are rigid. What good is a rigid mind not open to acceptance of change and constructive criticism?
And even as a faithful christian I am against telling children about 6 day creation and that they're going to hell for a sin someone in the past did ( I know your reaction . . . I'll explain what my denomination believes later.)
It was okay in the past to base your understanding of the world with what was written on papyrus. The world has changed and our worldviews also need to change with it. Believing something else than what was written in the bible doesn't mean you can't be Christian.
1) the first seven books- Genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy, Joshua, judges was a set of narratives composed over centuries. I and many others do not take this to be factual. Sure some parts may really have happened, but in my opinion it's just written to explain the glory of god and what he did do for Israel.
2) Ruth, samuels, kings, chronicles may or may not be factual, but I think they are generally considered historical right? I'm going to finish reading 1 Samuel now but I don't think I'm going to make a claim whether they really happened or not.
3) writings- I'll be honest I haven't reached here yet, but from what I've seen they just seem like pieces of literature about god (Don't mention song of Solomon)
4) haven't read latter books like Daniel yet so no clue
5) gospels are just narrations of the life of jesus by various authors intended for various recipients. Matthew is more understandable for jews while luke is more apt for gentiles. To explain why I believe the gospels, would take a whole other thread.
6) apart from pauls conversion, I don't see anything in acts which could be contradicted by known history. I could be wrong though. I'm open to correction.
7) last writings- revelations and the epistles are just basically letters that have been found and compiled. Their original existence is unquestionable. Whether their content speaks truth is another issue.
So no, I don't blindly believe the bible , nor do I hold it sacred. It just provides me with the authors' insights as how they viewed god in their time. It allows me to understand what they felt about the creator and how views changed over 1500 years. There are stories which aim to put god in a picture which is suitable for the people. Doesn't mean I think they're right though. It's just that through the writings I can see the "evolution of worship. "
You know how literature is like a window to a nation's culture. Similarly, the stories of how they comprehended god serves as an insight into the culture that jesus was born in (and how his inclusion changed all that)
But the difference between new testament and old is that there is no longer a need for writings of gods witness. Jesus served as proof to the character of god witnessed by hundreds. So authors couldn't interpret god as they wished (as they could in old testament). Here there was a definite picture which had little chance of being changed or corrupted. The letters and all just magnify the greater picture that's all.
Sorry if it's too long. I just keep writing and writing
And just now I've realised I posted in the wrong thread so I feel like a jackass :p
I do not feel that the bible is to be taken literally and as divinely inspired.
Moreover, I think it could be potentially dangerous if you're thoughts on the subjects in the bible are rigid. What good is a rigid mind not open to acceptance of change and constructive criticism?
And even as a faithful christian I am against telling children about 6 day creation and that they're going to hell for a sin someone in the past did ( I know your reaction . . . I'll explain what my denomination believes later.)
It was okay in the past to base your understanding of the world with what was written on papyrus. The world has changed and our worldviews also need to change with it. Believing something else than what was written in the bible doesn't mean you can't be Christian.
1) the first seven books- Genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy, Joshua, judges was a set of narratives composed over centuries. I and many others do not take this to be factual. Sure some parts may really have happened, but in my opinion it's just written to explain the glory of god and what he did do for Israel.
2) Ruth, samuels, kings, chronicles may or may not be factual, but I think they are generally considered historical right? I'm going to finish reading 1 Samuel now but I don't think I'm going to make a claim whether they really happened or not.
3) writings- I'll be honest I haven't reached here yet, but from what I've seen they just seem like pieces of literature about god (Don't mention song of Solomon)
4) haven't read latter books like Daniel yet so no clue
5) gospels are just narrations of the life of jesus by various authors intended for various recipients. Matthew is more understandable for jews while luke is more apt for gentiles. To explain why I believe the gospels, would take a whole other thread.
6) apart from pauls conversion, I don't see anything in acts which could be contradicted by known history. I could be wrong though. I'm open to correction.
7) last writings- revelations and the epistles are just basically letters that have been found and compiled. Their original existence is unquestionable. Whether their content speaks truth is another issue.
So no, I don't blindly believe the bible , nor do I hold it sacred. It just provides me with the authors' insights as how they viewed god in their time. It allows me to understand what they felt about the creator and how views changed over 1500 years. There are stories which aim to put god in a picture which is suitable for the people. Doesn't mean I think they're right though. It's just that through the writings I can see the "evolution of worship. "
You know how literature is like a window to a nation's culture. Similarly, the stories of how they comprehended god serves as an insight into the culture that jesus was born in (and how his inclusion changed all that)
But the difference between new testament and old is that there is no longer a need for writings of gods witness. Jesus served as proof to the character of god witnessed by hundreds. So authors couldn't interpret god as they wished (as they could in old testament). Here there was a definite picture which had little chance of being changed or corrupted. The letters and all just magnify the greater picture that's all.
Sorry if it's too long. I just keep writing and writing
And just now I've realised I posted in the wrong thread so I feel like a jackass :p
