I don't want to get into it here, because that's not the topic of the thread. This thread isn't about me and I'm trying to keep it from being about me. What I personally believe now is irrelevant to the subject. I'm not trying to insult people, I'm just asking a question about how people believe in certain things I find quite fantastic. It's like if I started a thread about Young Earth Creationism. You can PM me, though. I am getting rather angry with the trolls ganging up on me and trying to make this thread about my personal beliefs/issues, because they have a personal issue with me that they need to keep to themselves. (Not that you're one of them.)
I get it. I do...I mean, I went from Christianity to Atheism to Buddhism to Islam to Deism to atheism then to Christianity. lol I think that now, I look back at the past few years of that as not so much a struggle, but maybe we can draw different teachings from each. Even Zoroastrianism intrigues me.
Back to the topic of your thread though - I don't take all of the Bible literally. Of the parts that seem illogical from an earthly view, I tend to accept some of it on faith. God is unfathomable, and honestly what makes Him most unfathomable IMO, is His mercy. His ability to love, when we don't love Him back. But, much of the Bible I think are tales told by different cultures as to how they might have viewed God, not all to be taken literally.
I was pointing out that the church you were dissing has standards. You were complaining that they didn't do things your way, when you were also rather pompous and self righteous about church teachings. You complained about not getting Communion when you weren't even close to eligible. Nobody goes through a Satanist period and then gets Communion, without at least going to Confession.
I was defending the Church that you claimed to believe in. I don't believe in It, but I love that Church. So it made me rather angry when you did that.
And I have kept my mouth shut for even longer than I thought. I don't respond to your posts. Apparently it's been a year.
But the deeply hypocritical irony of your OP in this thread pushed me out of the cage. A bit.
Tom
The Church doesn't hate you Frank. They just aren't going to change to suit you.
It is not the same.
I get along just fine with the Catholics. You could too. But Mother Church is not about you. You have to give back and recognize that other people are not like you.
Tom
Back to the topic of your thread though - I don't take all of the Bible literally. Of the parts that seem illogical from an earthly view, I tend to accept some of it on faith.
The Church doesn't hate you Frank. They just aren't going to change to suit you.
It is not the same.
I get along just fine with the Catholics. You could too. But Mother Church is not about you. You have to give back and recognize that other people are not like you.
Tom
It's easier to understand it literally. If the Scripture isn't literal, is Jesus lying, or is the Bible so much metaphor, that who knows what's going on?
Good question. But I think the vast diversity of denominations are evidence that a whole lot of people have different opinions as to the
answer to that question.
Breastfeeding is the best choice for this but when some unavoidable underlying issues avert you to breastfeed, ION Z child formulas are the excellent alternative considering the fact that it's a copy of the breast milk that involves some, but not all precise nutrients that are reward within the mothers breast. Iron youngster system is without doubt one of the first-class examples for this in view that breast milk largely involves iron.http://musclegainfast.com/ion-z/
How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?
Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?
Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.
How can you believe things like a man coming back from the dead, bringing a corpse back to life, walking on water, instantly healing the sick and disabled, changing the weather, ascending to heaven (did he float up into the air or what?), etc. literally happened, as historical events?
Seriously. This perplexes me. If someone was literally doing that stuff, it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Corpses coming back to life and walking around! But the only writings about are mythological writings from Christians, decades later at best. No one else noticed? Everyone just forgot? That's just irrational. If you make the claims that those things literally happened, I would expect some rather amazing evidence. But, we have nothing. What's going on here?
Now, if you take these things as metaphor or otherwise non-literally, that's fine, but this thread isn't directed towards that crowd.
Despite a seemingly difficult road you must have had in life, your questions are nonetheless very important.
The death and resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity and it is where Christianity stands or falls; and as a Rabbinic lawyer by the name of Paul said, "If Christ isn't risen from the dead we are of all men most miserable." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19) In other words, if the resurrection of Jesus didn't take place, Christianity is false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead then His life and teachings are vindicated. And Christianity has been willing to put itself on the line in that respect across the centuries.
To any thinking person when they question Jesus and the resurrection itself, is to rigorously determine what Christians had believed in for over 2,000 years through serious investigation of history. The best approach is to treat the Christian scripture as a secular scholar would treat it as any other historical document from antiquity as well as other non-Christian sources and how they line up.
I think it's important to note that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.
Professor Thomas Arnold
14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Brooke Foss Westcott
The English scholar said, "Raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
Dr Simon Greenleaf
Born on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. No stranger to truth, and to the proof of the truth, Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School and a world-renowned expert on evidence. Challenged by one of his students one day to “consider the evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Greenleaf set out to disprove it, but ended up concluding that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact, not fiction. Being a man of conviction and reason, and in accordance with his conclusions, Greenleaf converted from Agnosticism to Christianity.
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
It's about 900 pages long. I'm offering this one in case you're a very serious seeker and/or the type that considers reading a joyous pastime over outdoor activities . It is considered the definitive defense of the Resurrection of Jesus, and a compulsory resource to have on the bookshelf.
Despite a seemingly difficult road you must have had in life, your questions are nonetheless very important.
The death and resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity and it is where Christianity stands or falls; and as a Rabbinic lawyer by the name of Paul said, "If Christ isn't risen from the dead we are of all men most miserable." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19) In other words, if the resurrection of Jesus didn't take place, Christianity is false. Conversely, if Jesus did rise from the dead then His life and teachings are vindicated. And Christianity has been willing to put itself on the line in that respect across the centuries.
To any thinking person when they question Jesus and the resurrection itself, is to rigorously determine what Christians had believed in for over 2,000 years through serious investigation of history. The best approach is to treat the Christian scripture as a secular scholar would treat it as any other historical document from antiquity as well as other non-Christian sources and how they line up.
I think it's important to note that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.
Professor Thomas Arnold
14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
Brooke Foss Westcott
The English scholar said, "Raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."
Dr Simon Greenleaf
Born on December 5, 1783, Greenleaf was an agnostic, some say atheist, who believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ was either a hoax or a myth. No stranger to truth, and to the proof of the truth, Greenleaf was a principal founder of the Harvard Law School and a world-renowned expert on evidence. Challenged by one of his students one day to “consider the evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Greenleaf set out to disprove it, but ended up concluding that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact, not fiction. Being a man of conviction and reason, and in accordance with his conclusions, Greenleaf converted from Agnosticism to Christianity.
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
It's about 900 pages long. I'm offering this one in case you're a very serious seeker and/or the type that considers reading a joyous pastime over outdoor activities . It is considered the definitive defense of the Resurrection of Jesus, and a compulsory resource to have on the bookshelf.
So would that mean there is also evidence for this horrendous idea that we are all sinners doomed to eternal hell and that we must repent and confess our sins, lest we be condemned? If God were all just and all loving, then I would expect him to be someone like Santa Claus who is simply here to bring us joy, make us happy, give us what we want, and not expect anything from us or condemn/torture us. He would just expect us to be good people, but he wouldn't see everything we do as sin and condemn us to eternal torture for it.
