question about the bible

[fr0d0]

Didn't you just exclude sects that are not "mainstream"?

Well.. if they're not churches by Christian standards that encompass those 30000 to 400000 you mentioned, then yeah, they're not Christian churches. Perhaps you think you're a Christian and also want to be included? Hell, make up some more rules for yourself and tell us how stupid they are again.

[The Grand Nudger]

I get the impression that the marketplace of religious thought is currently pretty well cornered. I suppose there's a young L Ron somewhere in the world ready to make his mark, just not my bag.

[fr0d0]

Well yeah... Dawkins et al have enjoyed a feeding frenzy, although there's been a distinct lack of anything new from them for a while now.

[searchingforanswers]

Well I hadn't responded to this three at all in a while. But I did research and was astounded by how little evidence there is for biblical claims. When it comes down to it, I just don't see ANY reason to believe whole heartedly in the bible. I told my friend this but he doesn't agree. But to me, placing your "faith" and morals in a book that cannot be proven is logically insane. How do ever determine what's true or not?

[Epimethean]

Well yeah... Dawkins et al have enjoyed a feeding frenzy, although there's been a distinct lack of anything new from them for a while now.

Might that be because the stuff they've put light on hasn't changed much itself?

[fr0d0]

Well I hadn't responded to this three at all in a while. But I did research and was astounded by how little evidence there is for biblical claims. When it comes down to it, I just don't see ANY reason to believe whole heartedly in the bible. I told my friend this but he doesn't agree. But to me, placing your "faith" and morals in a book that cannot be proven is logically insane. How do ever determine what's true or not?

How do you want it to be proven? The model presented is coherent if you want to check it out. The reason to believe it is because it presents a way to get the most out of your life. Faith, in the Christian sense isn't blind... it's based on knowledge that you trust to be true and then act upon. For the clear thinking discerning what's true or not is quite straight forward.

---

Might that be because the stuff they've put light on hasn't changed much itself?

The stuff has changed a lot, and the flaws in their ideas demonstrated. Dawkins TGD is particularly ignorant of it's subject. Dawkins knows better but wouldn't cripple his cash cow.

[thebigfudge]

[/quote]
How do you want it to be proven? The model presented is coherent if you want to check it out. The reason to believe it is because it presents a way to get the most out of your life. Faith, in the Christian sense isn't blind... it's based on knowledge that you trust to be true and then act upon. For the clear thinking discerning what's true or not is quite straight forward.

[/quote]

Hasnt the logic of Christianity changed over time. At one point it was perfectly logical to claim someone to be a heretic or a witch based on the bible. It was very logical that your salvation is work based untill the reformist changed it and the logic changed. AT one point it was logical that woman shouldn't be pastors or teach in a church setting.
The meaning of Christianity has changed throughout the years as has its logic. It has never been coherent. Thats why their are thousands of denominations all jostling over which view is right.

[Faith No More]

The reason to believe it is because it presents a way to get the most out of your life.

If this is true, then being able to get the most out of your life on your own is an equally valid reason not to believe.

[fr0d0]

The reason to believe it is because it presents a way to get the most out of your life.

If this is true, then being able to get the most out of your life on your own is an equally valid reason not to believe.

Absolutely. If that's what you're doing, you're replicating exactly biblical Christianity.

---

Hasnt the logic of Christianity changed over time. At one point it was perfectly logical to claim someone to be a heretic or a witch based on the bible.

No never. People got it horribly wrong, as people have the ability to do. Jesus spent most of his time telling the religious how wrong they were getting it.

It was very logical that your salvation is work based untill the reformist changed it and the logic changed.

The reformists changed it back to what Jesus actually taught you mean. From the 3rd century Christianity was hijacked by the lust for power and profit. There were literal rivers of blood. What went on was the opposite of Christ like.

AT one point it was logical that woman shouldn't be pastors or teach in a church setting.

Again... that's not what Jesus taught or did. We should try to interpret as exactly as we can what the original text says. The oppression of women is a secular moral thing. What you're opposing here are the secular morals of the time, and not Christianity. Christians went along with the societal norm, sure. But what they did against Christ wasn't 'Christian'.

The meaning of Christianity has changed throughout the years as has its logic. It has never been coherent. Thats why their are thousands of denominations all jostling over which view is right.

And the onus is upon you to demonstrate this. So far you've not made a single successful point.

[Epimethean]

Per FNM's line of reasoning, if you're getting the most out of being a Satanist, following Satanic tenets, does that mean you're living a christlike life, too? This could be the most convertible religion of all time.


BTW, I don't think Dawkins was wrong with TGD: It broke ground on understanding how theists can possibly think the way they do, and genetic research as well as further work on the idea of such wild and incongruous beliefs as christians, muslims, etc., hold with no problem, has continued to bear this out. Further work by both Dawkins and Dennett on memes and how infectious they can be, and by Sloan Wilson, et al., have opened many people's eyes to just how much of a disease religion may be-and not strictly in an allegorical sense as was once thought.