Why avoid considering God as noted?

[blarg]

I understand. We all want to do what we want to do. But if God made you, then it makes sense that he knows what is best for you.
It is very likely you will hate God if what you want to do isn't in keeping with his truth, even if what you want to do isn't good for you in the long run.
But not believing in him doesn't changes things, if indeed he exists and did make you.
So you have a choice. Do whatever you want, and risk his judgement. Or believe and live as he made us to live. To be most happy, whether we think it will or not at the time.

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Regarding women and submission, the other part of it is:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her"

ya when you make people who are not your puppets at some point they get to decide what's good for themselves

like I said if biblical god exists its evil

if theirs actually something that all people are happy with you don't need to punish them forever eventually they will gravitate to it on their own

their goes free will but hey

your not saying anything special live life along party lines make what we say is good good for you and what we say is bad bad for you do what we say and you will be happy

that's evil **** right their

so why exactly do I need to believe in a god have a special day of the week and only have sex with a woman im married to? what will happen if I don't?

and how is death or endless punishment good for any one?

join us or die or we will hurt you is not most happy and your just trying to get people to live the way you want them to take responsibility for it at least

 

[Cable]

ya when you make people who are not your puppets at some point they get to decide what's good for themselves
like I said if biblical god exists its evil
if theirs actually something that all people are happy with you don't need to punish them forever eventually they will gravitate to it on their own
their goes free will but hey
your not saying anything special live life along party lines make what we say is good good for you and what we say is bad bad for you do what we say and you will be happy
that's evil **** right their
so why exactly do I need to believe in a god have a special day of the week and only have sex with a woman im married to? what will happen if I don't?
and how is death or endless punishment good for any one?
join us or die or we will hurt you is not most happy and your just trying to get people to live the way you want them to take responsibility for it at least

That's certainly one way to look at it blarg. I guess we'll find out if it's good.

 

[roughdraft274]

In the current lexicon, there are more definitions of the word "cow" than there are of "faith". Precisely how faith is characterized doesn't change the action involved. So because I don't accept the definition offered, it would probably be better to end the conversation, and you can continue with your understanding, and I'll continue with mine unpersuaded.

Yes, you have the right to be wrong.

 

[humbolt]

Yes, you have the right to be wrong.

More precisely, I have the right to reject a definition that contains an erroneous assumption.

 

[Visbek]

This last part is due to our desire to understand him on our terms, not on his terms.

Actually, I'd say I am trying to understand him on "his terms," or to be more precise, in the context in which he lived.

You haven't made a case at all for Jesus' actions being anti-Roman. You'd think with all the books of the new testament the case would be easy for you to make. But it's just not there.

The New Testament is not intended to be a historical document. It's an attempt to spread the "good news" about Jesus, written by people at various points in time and with various attitudes towards the Jews, the Roman imperium, and Roman citizens, and at a time when open rebellion against the Imperium would result in an execution.

It is all but impossible to even infer your position from the historical record.

On the contrary, academics infer exactly what I'm saying from the materials available, that's how I became aware of this interpretation in the first place. It's no different than how they treat any other historical figure.

John Crossan's book The Historical Jesus can give you a pretty good overview.

I also don't think this necessarily detracts from one's religious beliefs. Many Jesus scholars (including Crossan) are practicing Christians.

 

[Cable]

Actually, I'd say I am trying to understand him on "his terms," or to be more precise, in the context in which he lived.

That's fine, but your premise just isn't supported by his teachings and practices.

The New Testament is not intended to be a historical document. It's an attempt to spread the "good news" about Jesus, written by people at various points in time and with various attitudes towards the Jews, the Roman imperium, and Roman citizens, and at a time when open rebellion against the Imperium would result in an execution.

It is strange that this wouldn't be taken as an historical document. It is in fact an historical document. Your statement below seems to indicate it is taken as such.

On the contrary, academics infer exactly what I'm saying from the materials available, that's how I became aware of this interpretation in the first place. It's no different than how they treat any other historical figure.
John Crossan's book The Historical Jesus can give you a pretty good overview.
I also don't think this necessarily detracts from one's religious beliefs. Many Jesus scholars (including Crossan) are practicing Christians.

It isn't surprising that some would infer your point of view. Alternate explanations for his life started very early in history.
Anything that attempts to explain his life as other than he claimed are detracting from him.
But don't be shocked, there are even many religions that claim him, but claim him as other than was indicated by his words and deeds.
This is one way one can know whether they are true or false churches.

 

[blarg]

the biblical origin of rainbows and different languages seem to be a good reasons not to take it as a work of non fiction chrisintty might be a more advanced work because it came up later with more to build on but how can it be true if the old testament is its foundation? not that it doesn't have its own issues

 

[roughdraft274]

More precisely, I have the right to reject a definition that contains an erroneous assumption.

The correct definition. That's why there are two of them. One for religious faith and one for the colloquial faith. This could not be made any easier, as I've already explained this to you in every way possible.

 

[humbolt]

The correct definition. That's why there are two of them. One for religious faith and one for the colloquial faith. This could not be made any easier, as I've already explained this to you in every way possible.

I suggest you go back to the post of the definition you provided. See if you can see anything that could be called into question at the outset.

 

[Visbek]

It is strange that this wouldn't be taken as an historical document. It is in fact an historical document. Your statement below seems to indicate it is taken as such.

Let me rephrase.

It is a source document, which dates back to that period. Contemporary scholars do use it -- since there is basically no mention of Jesus anywhere else.

However, its authors were not planning to write a text similar to The Annals by Tacitus, or The History of Rome by Livy, or the works of Thucydides and Herodotus and other ancient historians. They weren't trying to present a neutral document, or flat factual data. The purpose was to convert people to this new religion.

Anything that attempts to explain his life as other than he claimed are detracting from him.

Anything that tries to strip away the historical context of Jesus' life is going to wind up with an incorrect understanding of what he was saying, and what he was doing.

But don't be shocked, there are even many religions that claim him, but claim him as other than was indicated by his words and deeds.
This is one way one can know whether they are true or false churches.

Uh, yeah... the problem with that one is, pretty much everyone insists that they are the "true" church, and everyone winds up with slightly different ideas about what his ministry meant.

The goal of a historical analysis is to try and reintroduce the context, so that you can better understand what he was up to, preferably in a way that is neutral to those kinds of doctrinal disputes.

 

[Logicman]

On the contrary, academics infer exactly what I'm saying from the materials available, that's how I became aware of this interpretation in the first place. It's no different than how they treat any other historical figure.

John Crossan's book The Historical Jesus can give you a pretty good overview.

I can recommend a better one: The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

Crossan is a rabid anti-supernaturalist who bought into the highly discredited "Jesus Seminar". His book has a lot of warts.

A Christian review and response to John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

 

[Logicman]

Fulfilled prophecy.

Documenting A Miracle « The Righter Report

 

[Visbek]

Crossan is a rabid anti-supernaturalist who bought into the highly discredited "Jesus Seminar". His book has a lot of warts.

Funny, that review only reinforces my opinion that Crossan is going to be fairly neutral and a good choice. I suppose he's a bit too complex for some people.

Horvath also needs someone to explain copyright law to him. He doesn't need to put a copyright banner after every other paragraph.

Anyway. I would recommend Aslan, but I think he tilts too heavily towards the political explanations. The larger point is that there is plenty of scholarship which puts Jesus into these kinds of historical contexts. It's not just stuff I'm "making up," as the OP accused earlier in the thread.




A Christian review and response to John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry[/QUOTE]

 

[roughdraft274]

I suggest you go back to the post of the definition you provided. See if you can see anything that could be called into question at the outset.

You're comparing faith in god to me being secure in stepping into an elevator. I'm not the one that needs to reconsider my thinking here.

 

[Slyhunter]

You're comparing faith in god to me being secure in stepping into an elevator. I'm not the one that needs to reconsider my thinking here.

Yeah, faith in the elevator is easier than faith in a fairy tale.

 

[Cable]

Let me rephrase.
It is a source document, which dates back to that period. Contemporary scholars do use it -- since there is basically no mention of Jesus anywhere else.

However, its authors were not planning to write a text similar to The Annals by Tacitus, or The History of Rome by Livy, or the works of Thucydides and Herodotus and other ancient historians. They weren't trying to present a neutral document, or flat factual data. The purpose was to convert people to this new religion.

Anything that tries to strip away the historical context of Jesus' life is going to wind up with an incorrect understanding of what he was saying, and what he was doing.

Uh, yeah... the problem with that one is, pretty much everyone insists that they are the "true" church, and everyone winds up with slightly different ideas about what his ministry meant.
The goal of a historical analysis is to try and reintroduce the context, so that you can better understand what he was up to, preferably in a way that is neutral to those kinds of doctrinal disputes.

I get your points. You are right in that the Bible wasn't about recording history, but documenting the Christ and his message.
If one attempts to apply historical issues in such a way as to negate the message, then I would say that would be a misinterpretation of history and his message, and so, untrue.

There are indeed disagreements even in the Church on some details. These are not usually catastrophic to the message and are minor points of contention. When someone attempts to recast major items, that becomes a serious point of contention.
For instance the Muslim faith claims Christ as a prophet, which flies in the face of what he claimed about himself. In this way there is an attempt to destroy the real Christ and foist a false Christ onto the people.
Understanding these types of items is key in knowing the true Christ.

If one were to say that Christ was just a man trying to get the Jews together against Rome by claiming some religious status, that would be another major point. That was not his message at all as can be clearly and easily discerned by reading the biblical accounts.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The biblical accounts are edited redacted political statements made after the fact in every case.

 

[Andalublue]

The biblical accounts are edited redacted political statements made after the fact in every case.

Criticising the Bible for its lack of historicity is a bit like criticising A Brief History of Time for its lack of titty shots. Claiming it is historically accurate is as credible as calling Ulysses chick lit.

 

[Cable]

The biblical accounts are edited redacted political statements made after the fact in every case.

Political?

 

[blarg]

I understand. We all want to do what we want to do. But if God made you, then it makes sense that he knows what is best for you.
It is very likely you will hate God if what you want to do isn't in keeping with his truth, even if what you want to do isn't good for you in the long run.
But not believing in him doesn't changes things, if indeed he exists and did make you.
So you have a choice. Do whatever you want, and risk his judgement. Or believe and live as he made us to live. To be most happy, whether we think it will or not at the time.

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Regarding women and submission, the other part of it is:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her"

people should love one another with out being subject to one another along gender lines

putting half the people In charge over the other half and saying its ok because the ruling half is commanded to be on the honor system is crazy

and it dosent seem right even if you can get all the men to be honorable and loving

 

[humbolt]

You're comparing faith in god to me being secure in stepping into an elevator. I'm not the one that needs to reconsider my thinking here.

You didn't read the definition you provided. Look at that, and don't lecture me about your thinking or my thinking. You take care of yours, and I'll take care of mine. Read the definition and the assumption within it. It's clearly stated.

 

[roughdraft274]

You didn't read the definition you provided. Look at that, and don't lecture me about your thinking or my thinking. You take care of yours, and I'll take care of mine. Read the definition and the assumption within it. It's clearly stated.

When you advertise your "thinking" on a forum, you are subjecting it to criticism. And you are free to stick your fingers in your ears if you don't like being corrected.

 

[humbolt]

When you advertise your "thinking" on a forum, you are subjecting it to criticism. And you are free to stick your fingers in your ears if you don't like being corrected.

You've corrected me? I missed that. You offered a definition I reject. I am free to do that, and it doesn't involve sticking fingers in ears any more than your failure to address the assumption contained within your definition amounts to you putting your fingers in your ears.

 

[roughdraft274]

You've corrected me? I missed that. You offered a definition I reject. I am free to do that, and it doesn't involve sticking fingers in ears any more than your failure to address the assumption contained within your definition amounts to you putting your fingers in your ears.

No assumption needed.

 

[humbolt]

No assumption needed.

On the contrary, you've made a rather large one. First the arbitrary division in the definition of faith originates around the time of Kant. Faith was separated into that which was rational, and that which was considered irrational. There were reasons for this that had to do with the Catholic Church at the time, and a host of others which have no bearing on this discussion. It's an exhaustive topic in and of itself. I would have no objection to such a delineation except that somehow the differentiation has become a spring board for denigration of religious faith. Science endeavors to uncover all of the truths of the universe to achieve complete lucidity. How's that coming? Looks like those supporting that view have a long way to go to produce the evidence that such can be achieved. It seems, then, that taken at face value today, faith in science has the very same attributes as faith in religion. As it stands, no empirical evidence exists that either one has offered it's stated objectives. As such, they are on equally bad footing by the very measure you claim.