My problem with Christianity

[bosk1]

Realistically, how could anyone know? I doubt Joseph and Mary were keeping a genealogy, and if they didn't know, nobody could.

Actually, it is pretty likely they did know, as it was VERY common (and in some cases, required) for Jews to keep track of their genealogy.  Although I do believe that they didn't necessarily keep compete ones with ever single step, so it would not be uncommon for genealogies to contain gaps.

Unless you are stipulating that either Luke or Matthew just "knew" this one day.

Well, of course I am.  Given that you know I believe the Holy Spirit dictated exactly what the writers were to write, you shouldn't be surprised that I would think Matthew and Luke knew, whether or not they got the information from Joseph or Mary (or their kids).

[hefdaddy42]

All that said, I still think that Christianity holds the truth.  I think that there is more than ample evidence for Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which is extremely improbable if there is no supernatural force.  Since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, performed miracles, and predicted the events that would surround his death and resurrection, I am extremely inclined to believe that if there is a door to the supernatural, Jesus is it.  He's the only link I can think of.  

I'm not sure that Jesus really claimed any such thing, or predicted any such things.  We don't have any primary sources from him, but second- and third-generation accounts written by other people.

However, in spite of historical evidence, scientific evidence steps in and blows a huge chunk of Christianity out of the water: the Old Testament.  We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000.  We have great reason to believe that all life stemmed from a single common ancestor, as opposed to each individual species being uniquely designed.

Yes, exactly.  Which all by itself is reason to throw out the claim that Scripture is inerrant, 100% literally true, and divinely inspired writing.  It simply isn't, and there is no convincing reason to believe that it is.

Not to mention, we have many contradictions throughout the Bible, which invalidate the Bible's claim to perfection.  We have no evidence for the existence of Abraham or Moses, or much of Israel's history outside of the Bible.  There are all sorts of issues you can uncover just by performing simple searches on the internet, or reading the Bible at face value without resorting to tricky interpretation when two passages don't match up.

This is just more evidence that the claims of inerrancy hold no water.

Yet Jesus' resurrection still hits me square in the face.  Do I go against my own judgment and say "Well, even though I have every reason to distrust the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, I'm going to just believe the resurrected man anyway"?  Is that what Christians are called to do?

I wouldn't say that you have reason to "distrust" the OT and NT.  You just have to realize that it is a collection of documents written by ordinary people just like you and me, and some things they got wrong...just like you and me.

[Portrucci]

Hef, I must say, I really admire your approach to Christianity and the Bible. Being able to admit those sort of imperfections isn't something I often witness. I do hope there are many more like you who can have a connection with God, without the absolute reliance on a text being completely divinely written.

[AcidLameLTE]

Agreed.

[Quadrochosis]

Yea, hef, you're one of the more inspiring Christians I've ever encountered. You really keep your faith grounded in reality, but at the same time understand that it is a big part of your life, and you seem to have found a very nice balance. Kudos!

[hefdaddy42]

Well, thanks.  I must say that my faith is a central focus in my life.  It isn't just a philosophical position or an opinion, but is something very real.  I feel the touch of the Spirit every day, and I have only arrived at my current position after years of study, prayer, and reflection.  I know how hard it can be to give some of that stuff up, because I went through it.  But I am more spiritually fulfilled now than I ever have been.

But I still can't get my Mom to give up the KJV.  Go figure.

[reo73]

I think this is an interesting article about the Bible and one I tend to agree with more than not (there are a few things I take issue with in the article).

https://chronicle.com/article/The-Bible-Is-Dead-Long-Live/127099/

One issue I have with the American Evangelical Church is that it has created this atmosphere of being in love with Jesus (being on fire) like it's a romantic feeling.  I have never found anywhere in the bible where Jesus calls us to feel our love for him.  Rather he asks us to act out our love for him by putting our faith in him as a redeemer of sin and by being obedient to him.  This is a love I can show I can do whether I feel like it or not.

I also don't like how the church has created this idea that the Bible is some magical book that was brought down from the heaven's on the wings of doves with an angelic chorus singing in the background.  My perception is, just like anything else that has human involvement, the Bible is not a perfect text.  the fact is, it was written by man, edited by man, and compiled by man, and i see plenty of room for errors.  But at the same time i do think the text was inspired by God and that the theology it promotes is truth even if it gets it facts wrong here and there.

I think the fundamental question you are asking is how much proof do you require, or how much margin for error are you able to accept, for you to live a life of Christian faith.  And faith takes a leap (Kierkegaard reference) because I don't believe anyone can 100% prove Christianity just as I believe it can't be 100% disproven.  So, looking at all the evidence, or different ways God has revealed himself to you, is that enough for you to leap to faith and step out in a life of putting your weight down in the trustworthiness of God.

[yeshaberto]

One issue I have with the American Evangelical Church is that it has created this atmosphere of being in love with Jesus (being on fire) like it's a romantic feeling.  I have never found anywhere in the bible where Jesus calls us to feel our love for him.  Rather he asks us to act out our love for him by putting our faith in him as a redeemer of sin and by being obedient to him.  This is a love I can show I can do whether I feel like it or not.

While I have no doubt that it could easily fall out of balance, I thought immediately of this exhortation at the end of letter to Corinth:  "If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!"  The term love there is phileo which is a much more casual type of love (usually used of a friendship or courting-like relationship).  "O Lord, come" is maranatha and implied the idea of a deep relationship.

[Jamesman42]

H, Over the past few months I've really grown to like you. Please, for the love of God, don't go on fire for Jesus. People like that are so fake, annoying, and hazardously dangerous to themselves and those around them. I know people that are like that, and every day they become more and more self delusional, it's really a sad sight to see.

I hope I offend no one with this post. Not my intention at all.

For a few years, these were the types I surrounded myself with. I've met some genuinely good people in the process, and I am still "connected" to the gang via facebook, but the way they are as opposed to what they do gets at me. They will put a billion Jesus statuses a day but if you saw them in real life, you wouldn't think they were a Christian. Even bringing up topics in Christianity made you get weird looks.

I used to think the people at the Church in Christ here in town were boring and uninspired, but the opposite of that is, like Quad said, dangerous. That kind of stuff affected me and my learning spiritual self. I felt like I was surrounded by hypocrites with these "Jesus freaks." I don't really hang out with any of them except the ones who are grounded in reality.

I love those people as brothers/sisters in the faith, but dangit, it's not worth it to associate myself with them anymore.

[rumborak]

I think that holds for both sides really. I have this friend who is "openly atheist" and goddamnit, he really gets on my nerves and makes me recoil at the association with atheism.

rumborak

[Quadrochosis]

I think that holds for both sides really. I have this friend who is "openly atheist" and goddamnit, he really gets on my nerves and makes me recoil at the association with atheism.

rumborak

Good point, it does indeed go both ways. There are clearly those on both sides of the spectrum that could use a reality check.

[Jamesman42]

I think that holds for both sides really. I have this friend who is "openly atheist" and goddamnit, he really gets on my nerves and makes me recoil at the association with atheism.

rumborak

Oh I bet...it's the whole militant stance on it.

Yeah, I want people to know Jesus and I share the gospel with them, but it isn't the "in your face" way...I only do it when it seems appropriate to even talk about it.

[El JoNNo]

Yeah, I have a militant Christian cousin. Always posting on facebook how Jesus is our savior. She killed so many with that sermon she posted a few days ago. I just don't know why so many Christians have to be so militant about there positions? Just last month a street street preacher wounded hundreds and killed many more there were bodies everywhere.

A couple of Jews disagreed with the preacher and now Kingston is nothing but a crater in the ground.   

[William Wallace]

I think this is an interesting article about the Bible and one I tend to agree with more than not (there are a few things I take issue with in the article).

https://chronicle.com/article/The-Bible-Is-Dead-Long-Live/127099/

One issue I have with the American Evangelical Church is that it has created this atmosphere of being in love with Jesus (being on fire) like it's a romantic feeling.  I have never found anywhere in the bible where Jesus calls us to feel our love for him.  Rather he asks us to act out our love for him by putting our faith in him as a redeemer of sin and by being obedient to him.  This is a love I can show I can do whether I feel like it or not.

I also don't like how the church has created this idea that the Bible is some magical book that was brought down from the heaven's on the wings of doves with an angelic chorus singing in the background.  My perception is, just like anything else that has human involvement, the Bible is not a perfect text.  the fact is, it was written by man, edited by man, and compiled by man, and i see plenty of room for errors.  But at the same time i do think the text was inspired by God and that the theology it promotes is truth even if it gets it facts wrong here and there.

I think the fundamental question you are asking is how much proof do you require, or how much margin for error are you able to accept, for you to live a life of Christian faith.  And faith takes a leap (Kierkegaard reference) because I don't believe anyone can 100% prove Christianity just as I believe it can't be 100% disproven.  So, looking at all the evidence, or different ways God has revealed himself to you, is that enough for you to leap to faith and step out in a life of putting your weight down in the trustworthiness of God.

I was thinking as I read, "that's solid analysis for a newspaper." Then I seen that it's written by a professor of religion and not published in a newspaper. The faith reference is incorrect, but it's a good article. 

[slycordinator]

We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000.

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old.

[William Wallace]

We have great reason to believe that the Earth is billions of years old, and not 6000.

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old.

What do you think of the genealogies in Genesis?

[slycordinator]

I don't accept the notion that the Earth only came into existence at the time of the genealogies, especially considering that everything else that exists on the Earth (water, animals, plants, etc) were created earlier in the story, hence the Earth already existed before those genealogies. And there's the fact that the length of time for the creation story is pretty loose since it was pretty allegorical.

[Jamesman42]

Yeah, I have a militant Christian cousin. Always posting on facebook how Jesus is our savior. She killed so many with that sermon she posted a few days ago. I just don't know why so many Christians have to be so militant about there positions? Just last month a street street preacher wounded hundreds and killed many more there were bodies everywhere.

A couple of Jews disagreed with the preacher and now Kingston is nothing but a crater in the ground.   

:tard

[monk]

I don't accept the notion that the Earth only came into existence at the time of the genealogies, especially considering that everything else that exists on the Earth (water, animals, plants, etc) were created earlier in the story, hence the Earth already existed before those genealogies. And there's the fact that the length of time for the creation story is pretty loose since it was pretty allegorical.

So old earth creationism where the days of creation are representative of ages of time?

H, if every part of the body of Christ were an eye how could we walk? You are a precious part of Christianity. I sometimes feel as if I'm stuck between the idea of a reasoned out faith and being on fire for God, from my understanding of where I am all it causes me to do is rely so much more on the Grace of God, I don't know who I am sometimes but find solace in him. I want to encourage you to pray and think about it heavily.

[Ħ]

So, I recently started an account at richarddawkins.net.  I must say, I am not at all swayed or convinced by any of their arguments.  But, of course, seeing as I'm in the minority, they think they are winning.  I think that I overgeneralize people, but based on how they are responding, they are worse than I am.  I even asked for their respect in keeping the mockery and ridicule (which is unfortunately common in Internet atheists, I've found) to a minimum, to which most replied that I deserve no respect seeing as I'm arguing for the resurrection.  It's pretty annoying, but w/e.  

If you want to see the topic I've been posting in, it's https://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig#page35.  Same username as here. starting at page 35.

[GuineaPig]

I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.

You'd be better off just posting here.

[Ħ]

I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.

You'd be better off just posting here.

I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.

[bosk1]

So, I recently started an account at richarddawkins.net.  I must say, I am not at all swayed or convinced by any of their arguments.  But, of course, seeing as I'm in the minority, they think they are winning.  I think that I overgeneralize people, but based on how they are responding, they are worse than I am.  I even asked for their respect in keeping the mockery and ridicule (which is unfortunately common in Internet atheists, I've found) to a minimum, to which most replied that I deserve no respect seeing as I'm arguing for the resurrection.  It's pretty annoying, but w/e.  

If you want to see the topic I've been posting in, it's https://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig#page35.  Same username as here. starting at page 35.

Sadly, the reaction you are getting there doesn't surprise me.  Not that all etheists are jerks who don't respect others--that clearly isn't the case, and there are plenty of people who don't believe but who are respectful and articulate.  But think about the fact that it is an Internet forum.  And think about what kind of Internet forum it is.  Yeah...

[bosk1]

I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.

You'd be better off just posting here.

I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.

Think about the fact that, not only did Jesus convince only a MINORITY of people he spoke to, but even the people in his hometown who had known him his whole life tried to kill him.

[Adami]

I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.

You'd be better off just posting here.

I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.

That is one of the attitudes that actually turns people off of christianity. When you go in with the attitude "You're all wrong, I'm right and I won't leave till you all admit how wrong your lives have been", then non christians really don't like that.

[Ħ]

I think the likelihood of you having a constructive discussion there are slim to none.

You'd be better off just posting here.

I think you're right. But...but...my pride is telling me I can't leave until all of them are convinced! ARGH.

That is one of the attitudes that actually turns people off of christianity. When you go in with the attitude "You're all wrong, I'm right and I won't leave till you all admit how wrong your lives have been", then non christians really don't like that.

Yeah, I know, it's something I'm trying to work on.

[William Wallace]

So, I recently started an account at richarddawkins.net.  I must say, I am not at all swayed or convinced by any of their arguments.  But, of course, seeing as I'm in the minority, they think they are winning.  I think that I overgeneralize people, but based on how they are responding, they are worse than I am.  I even asked for their respect in keeping the mockery and ridicule (which is unfortunately common in Internet atheists, I've found) to a minimum, to which most replied that I deserve no respect seeing as I'm arguing for the resurrection.  It's pretty annoying, but w/e.  

If you want to see the topic I've been posting in, it's https://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig#page35.  Same username as here. starting at page 35.

Your making good arguments, dude, especially about dates for the Gospels. But it's probably a waste of time to labor in that thread, as others have mentioned.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Remember, it's a Richard Dawkins forum, so you're likely to be met with the same crude and condescending rhetoric from most of the members there as the man they follow.  

[contest_sanity]

I wouldn't say I've been "on fire" (whatever that means) for Jesus in a while.

Throughout the last 10 years of my life, I've been at lots of different places with my life with Christ.

I have been that guy out on campus doing open-air preaching (though not the "you're all going to hell" type preaching).

I have been the charismatic believer who had deeply emotional encounters with the Spirit that manifested in strange ways (i.e. slain in the Spirit), encounters which I still believe were real.

I have been the intellectual seminary student studying all the relevant sources, sometimes to the point of arrogance towards others not "in the know" (whether an atheist or the Christian in some country Georgia church), other times to the point of not knowing what to believe anymore.

I have also dealt with severe mental illness (bipolar disorder) that nearly destroyed my marriage and life, during which I found very little support from a lot of the Christian "community" I belonged to (though there were some very important individuals who stood by me).

Now I find myself preparing to become a high school teacher, as opposed to the pastor or biblical scholar I thought I'd be just a few years ago.  I haven't attended church much at all the past 2 years because my current job in retail does not allow it.  I rarely read my Bible and don't often pray unless I have a strong need to.  I don't have any of the feelings of a "strong" or "on-fire" relationship with God.  Yet, I certainly consider myself a Christian, still think it contains the most truth, and my wife and I are trying our best to raise our son with a knowledge of Jesus.

I still have certain convictions which are very strong, such as recently when a lot of Christians I know were celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden.  My wife and I both are very much of a pacifistic bent, and the pro-militarism of our society disgusts me.  Yet I have friends who are like: "how are you going to speak out on that issue when you post rap songs on the internet that have cursing and glorify drugs, murder, etc.?"  While for the most part I feel like such friends are wrong and have a very restricted view of art, a part of me wonders if they have a point.

Sometimes I feel like the biggest hypocrite, but I remind myself that's it's still a relationship with Christ.  Sometimes in a relationship, you're not particularly close to the other person.  I wish I was closer to him (sometimes), but right now now I find myself kind of in this apathetic place.  

Or perhaps it's not apathy at all but that I mentally connect being "on fire" for Christ to all those things -- zealous witnessing, charismatic fervor, legalistic attitudes on cursing, etc. -- that I just can't go back to.  And maybe I just haven't fully become comfortable with this new way of being Christian that I am experiencing.

Anyway: thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season.

TL; DR.

[yeshaberto]

Thanks for sharing contest.  I have been learning that there is wisdom in pacing ourselves spiritually just as it is physically

[slycordinator]

I don't accept the notion that the Earth only came into existence at the time of the genealogies, especially considering that everything else that exists on the Earth (water, animals, plants, etc) were created earlier in the story, hence the Earth already existed before those genealogies. And there's the fact that the length of time for the creation story is pretty loose since it was pretty allegorical.

So old earth creationism where the days of creation are representative of ages of time?

I guess that's a close description of what I believe. Although, I wouldn't quite say each day really represents an age of time, since I think each day represents an amount of time that's not really defined (and it's not really necessary that each of those days truly represent the same amount of time either considering the allegorical nature I see in this particular story).

[hefdaddy42]

I've always found that the best way to be a Christian and express yourself in a Christian way and have an impact on others is (shocking, I know) to just do what Jesus said to do: love your neighbor, feed the hungry, comfort the weary, help the helpless.  Get off your ass and go be useful to someone.  Real Christianity isn't thinking but doing.  The rest is just details.

Jesus was kind of on to something there.

[Ħ]

Jesus was kind of on to something there.

Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God? 

And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?

[hefdaddy42]

Jesus was kind of on to something there.

Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?

Kind of.  It's complicated.

And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?

When he was on earth, walking around and teaching?  Yes.  But IMO, I don't think that matters much, because we don't know for certain what he actually said about any of that, so for me it's kind of a hypothetical question.

[Ħ]

Jesus was kind of on to something there.

Hef, I know you previously stated that you believed Jesus was the son of God, but do you believe that Jesus was God?

Kind of.  It's complicated.

I have trouble seeing how the answer to that question could be anything other than "yes" or "no".  Would you mind explaining?

And do you believe that Jesus could be mistaken in any of his claims, such as acknowledging the existence of Adam and the flood, or even acknowledging the existence of hell?

When he was on earth, walking around and teaching?  Yes.  But IMO, I don't think that matters much, because we don't know for certain what he actually said about any of that, so for me it's kind of a hypothetical question.

Well, I guess the natural follow-up question is, how do you decide what is God's teaching and what is man's teaching?  For example, if we assume that 50% of Jesus' sayings in the Bible were accurate, and 50% were fabricated, how do you know what is an what isn't?