I just read through this entire thread in about 10 minutes so there are probably some details that I've skipped over. To give a brief overview of myself, I'm a 30 yr old CPA yuppie that was raised Catholic in South Louisiana. I've always felt that I wasn't taught to think logically through the history of Christianity, but rather to memorize various prayers and have faith that the teachings are accurate. I tend to side with martin in that I admit (and embrace) that I don't know all of the specifics of why we're here and whether God/Jesus is responsible. However, my life experiences have made me believe that there is something more to life than our time on earth. I pray occassionally (not enough) that I'm very thankful for everything and for guidance to live my life within the Christian teachings but usually begin my prayer with "Whoever you are" rather than "Lord Jesus Christ." About a year ago, a co-worker Christian gave me a book ("More than a Carpenter" or something like that) that analyzed Christianity on a more scientific basis. It addressed just about every doubt I've heard over the years. For example, I'd heard that the words of the Bible weren't actually written until hundreds of years after Jesus died but the book claims it was more like 60 yrs (two generations) and talks a little about how stories were often passed down word for word. There were also many other details regarding the apostles and others that stood up for Jesus and how their actions can only be explained by their witnessing of the resurrection. Before I read the book, I thought it was a less than 35% chance that Jesus was the son of God but now I'd put that % significantly over 50%. Unfortunately, I get the sense that a 70% belief (to give a figure) in Jesus/God is not enough. One of the issues I'm struggling to understand is how the Jews were the most civilized, intelligent, etc. people of the time yet they didn't believe Jesus was the son of God. Anyway, I'm always willing to hear both sides of the argument but have concluded that I may not ever be 100% convinced of the specifics. I hate calling myself a "kinda or part-time" Christian but I guess that's what I am. I definitely believe in living my life in a moral way and in some sort of after-life. If anyone has any good books on a scientific view of Christianity, feel free to provide a link. Like that "More than a Carpenter" states, if Christianity is a hoax, it's the most elaborate and successful hoax in the history of man. It's just difficult for someone like me to decipher the actual facts from those that are slanted to believe what they want you to believe(kinda like politics).
obviously there are two sorts of things you can assert, faith based, and reality based. imagine if you and i are clueless, we know nothing about anything, we are blank slates. we can speak, but we have literally zero knowledge of the world/universe. you might say: "i have noticed the sun rises every morning. i assert that the sun rises every day" and i would say "ok, i will take a look" and eventually we would realize that it is evident that what you said is true. and we would observe more, and make more assertions and do more research and recognize more and more things and progressively understand more and more about things. eventually we would accumulate lots of verifiable facts, we would be pretty advanced. would be researching string theory or quantum mechanics or whatever. all of it based on observation by either you, or other people who could verify what they are saying if you asked. this is reality. this is what we know. that is all. but what if someone postulated that jesus was lord? and we say "ok, maybe, lets check it out". but the only evidence we have is people saying that it is true, and a book that lists other people who say it is true. but we have other people saying it isnt true, because they know who god is, and it has nothing to do with jesus. and yet another group saying they have the book that lists who else has some thoughts about it. and there is literally no possible way for you to figure who is right. everyone is submitting their arguments without evidence, asking you to believe them over the others based on "faith". how do you pick who is right? how do you choose jesus over mohammad or L. ron hubbard? if the belief is based on faith, then how do you decide which faith? is it relevant how many other people have a particular faith? is it relevant that some of those people were your parents? if it is is relevant to you, should it be? a big part of the issue here is that so many of us are in a situation where not believing the correct legends will put us in a difficult situation with the people who matter to us. thats a HUGE problem. of course, voltaire said that if there was no god, it would be necessary for us to invent him. in the absence of of a personally revealed truth, how would a person know the difference between a real god and an invented one? faith? that dont wash, yall.
Many books in the bible were written down well before the Christian era. Most of the Bible is Jewish, after all. But the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written about 70 to 120 years after the time of Jesus. Some of them clearly used earlier manuscripts as sources, but no earlier documents have survived. All were originally written in Greek and both translation errors and transcription errors have been noted. Any student of oral tradition will tell you that it is quite impossible for stories to be passed from generation to generation without omissions, embellishments, misunderstandings, and other modifications entering the picture.
i dont think he meant the word "impossible" in the sense you are discussing. when people say "impossible" they generally mean improbable to the extent that is not worth discussing the possibility that what they are saying is not true. it is sort of waste of time to use "anything's possible" in the sense you are. sure, anything is possible. it is possible you are jesus and you have an office on the other side of jupiter and you could kill anyone of us with a snap of your fingers. i cant prove that isnt true. but i am not going to factor that possibility into my plans. red's point about the nature of folklore is perfectly valid. lsu99's book was christian propaganda, and you could find a similar set of arguments that has "rational" made-up arguments supporting any religion. and that is being generous. my experience with oral retelling of facts is that the actual truth rarely lasts one retelling, and the story is indistinguishable from nonsense in no time. not that it matters to anyone who is aware that magic alien men dont actually come down from the sky and cast spells and rise from the dead. in 2006 we should all understand that by now.
thanks. I'm quite fond of "virtually impossible" I've always had a healthy suspicion for absolute statements.
i would describe what you have as a needless literal interpretation of words. to the person who asks me in the feedback thing why i am "evangalizing" non-belief: 1, you cannot spell. 2. would you ask me this question if i were arguing against the roman gods or astrology? are we supposed to respect every belief merely because people said it out loud? are you aware that there is such a thing as nonsense? if people today worshipped tarot cards and i was opposing that would call that evangelizing non-belief? again, you people need to stop pretending that the current beliefs held by religious people are any less primitive than the stupidest thing you have ever heard of. u could use mad libs, fill in the blanks, and make a creed that outlines beliefs exactly as reasonable as any religion.
Would you say that it's good science to declare unprovable assertions as fact, absolute truths? How do you describe your non-belief in God? Quite impossible for a God to exist? Virtually impossible? Not probable? Do you think's its important for you to be exact in your words, to express this view? Cause when you do, i can only take you literally. And i'll use that info to judge you.
