I'm conflicted about the Bible. Will you discuss it with me?

[s_lone]

I have no agenda. My intent is to let this conversation take its own course, so I'll just leave it there for the moment.

Well here is a question that ought to get the ball rolling.

Do you think Jesus was an ordinary man or truly ''the Son of God'' and that he died and came back to life three days later?

It's something (Christ's divinity) I took for granted as a child, as I'm sure many others have, but now that I can think on my own, I would betray my intellect not to question the validity of this.

I was baptized and raised as a catholic and I consider myself a Christian in the sense that I am moved and inspired by Jesus's philosophy of love, charity and solidarity, something which our world greatly needs. On the other hand, my unapologetic doubts about his divinity would put me in the non-chrisitian territory. And I don't see any good reason to deny the positive messages present in other religions as well. How about you?

As for science, I don't see any good reasons to deny such evidences as evolution. But that doesn't make me an atheist. I consider myself more of a pantheist. I don't see science as a one way ticket to naturalistic materialism but rather as an effective tool to help us understand how the world works. It's an attempt at grasping objective reality and a great way to help us manipulate this reality through technology. But science can't tell us how or to what end we ought to manipulate the world we live in. Science's language is descriptive, not evaluative. And that is why we need some form of spirituality to guide us. There's nothing incompatible between spirituality and science.

 

[MHz]

There's nothing incompatible between spirituality and science.

There is such a thing as 'bang for the $buck$' and a 'customer' to either place shout get the best deal around, lets call that 'the truth as known at the time of the question'. Religion and the understanding about the knowledge about God that is contained in the Bible is a 3 week course (eat-work-sleep) that is needed once a person has reached an age where his thinking is considered to be 'critical but flexible'. From that point on it should be a matter of using the same process should more questions come up (as should be the case if you talk about it at all once those few weeks are over) Today it is more of a money making machine that requires all members donate much time and money over their lifetime, and not get any real answers in any of that time.

The Bible's story should only change slightly as time goes on, science might have to do radical redesigns from time to time as 'more pieces to the puzzle are uncovered'. Neither is willing to abandon current levels of thinking.

 

[lone wolf]

Who collects the money for this three-week course?

Faith is free ... it's learning the rules that costs

 

[MHz]

Who collects the money for this three-week course?

Faith is free ... it's learning the rules that costs

The answer to that will cost you $50 (to me). That isn't a lot to pay to find out the course is free except for your time. (trick is picking a time when the spirit and flesh are both willing)

 

[L Gilbert]

Greetings everyone. I found this forum through a web search. I'm brand new here. I would describe myself as a "believer", but I'd be reluctant to call myself a "Christian." There are things in the Bible that I cannot help but believe. However, there are also things in the Bible that I simply cannot reconcile.

I would welcome an honest, civil discussion of the Bible in a general sense. I'm not as interested in doctrinal views as I am in general issues of faith and interpretation. If you'd be willing to engage in an open dialogue of this nature, please respond with your comments.

Thank you.

You just walked into a hornet's nest. You're going to hear all kinds of stuff starting from fundie interpretations to stuff like Yahweh is really an alien. lol

 

[MHz]

....Yahweh is really an alien. lol

Is that your contribution?

 

[L Gilbert]

No. Evolution does not refer to the change undertaken by a single organism in its lifetime. That is called metamorphosis.

Evolution refers to the genetic changes that happen to entire populations over centuries.

Well, I'd have said "over time" rather than "over centuries". Creatures with fast metabolisms and short lives generate populations very quickly; like virii and insects, etc. For instance a flu virus can generate a resistant population inside a year. Leafrollers can do the same inside 3 years. And so on.

Is that your contribution?

What's it to you?

 

[MHz]

What's it to you?

Nothing really, just thought it might be part of the 'general theme' of these words, "Will you discuss it with me?". I can live with you wanting that to remain a 'private conversation'. Bye.

 

[lone wolf]

The answer to that will cost you $50 (to me). That isn't a lot to pay to find out the course is free except for your time. (trick is picking a time when the spirit and flesh are both willing)

I have a freer one. It's called a look out the window and an utterance of "magnificent". Why? Because it's there....

 

[MHz]

Never once uttered the 'damn, that sucks (to be me)' when the weather in no as pleasant as it could be.

 

[lone wolf]

Who said anything about weather?

 

[L Gilbert]

Red herrings and other such nonsense from MHz aside, Conflicted, I must say that I'm an atheist and I think it's perfectly fine to have faith in whatever you wish, or have whatever interpretation of the Bible you wish, etc. I'd suggest that expecting everyone else to conform to whatever views you have isn't a good plan. For me, evidence speaks much clearer than bombastic and empty claims.
Besides the issue of a lack of evidence, I think the probabilities of the existences of gods are so miniscule as to be negligible.

Welcome to CC, BTW.

I have a freer one. It's called a look out the window and an utterance of "magnificent". Why? Because it's there....

lol Reminds me of an old thought of mine that if humans had never existed to bring up the ideas of gods n goblins, there'd still be life on the planet.

 

[lone wolf]

If you have a roof over your head, enough food to survive on and peace of mind - and can be thankful for all of it - then you have about all the faith you really need.

Much more than that causes the brain to sprain....

 

[Ron in Regina]

Well, I've been through several stages in my life. I spent a few years in a protestant church, both as a child and as an adult. I've run the gamut from being a zealous evangelical to an extremely bitter atheist. At this point in my life, I'm just a conflicted believer.

I can't prove that God even exists. No one can. It's a faith thing. However, when I look at the precision of the universe and the splendor of nature, I see the signature of a creator. That may not be enough for some of you, but it is for me.

I have mixed feelings about evolution. A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly. Is that a microcosm of evolution? Or a grand display of a creator's whim? I simply don't know.

In spite of its contradictions, mysteries and imaginative constructs, I find the Bible to be a profoundly fascinating exposition. I mentioned previously that I don't believe in a literal hell. My intellect will not allow me to reconcile a literal hell with Christianity. Thus, just one example of my "conflicted" positions.

I have no agenda. My intent is to let this conversation take its own course, so I'll just leave it there for the moment.

Oh....Wow. This may or may not be what you want to hear, but.....
I think you're normal. Welcome to the majority of the Human race,
and welcome to Canadian Content Forums! :lol:

 

[gerryh]

Thanks for the replies. At least I know someone is listening. Here's a partial breakdown of what I've concluded thus far in my life:

1. I do believe in a creator. I don't think we are the product of evolution.

I believe in God as the creator of all, and I believe in evolution without any conflict.

2. I do believe there is something extraordinary about the Bible and the message it contains. I believe it contains both literal and figurative dialogue, and this is where I'm most conflicted.

Not only is it literal and figurative but it was also written by men with an agenda and was assembled by men with an agenda. I studied it, prayed and contemplated and have done similar to what Karrie has done. Thrown out that which does not mesh with what I believe in my heart is Christ's true message.

3. I don't believe in a literal Hell, but I do believe in divine justice.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but when it comes to divine justice, I don't agree with what any of the "literalists" say about it. God's love is unconditional. To me this means that the threats of fire and brimstone is so much fearmongering by man. Inserted into the Holy Bible as a way to control the "masses".

These are conclusions I have arrived at through my own study of the Bible, my life experiences and reflective thoughts. I offer this to begin the conversation.

as are the above conclusions I have drawn. To give you an idea as to how much of the Bible I have put aside.... all of revelations because of something Christ said regarding his return. Most of what Paul of Tarsis writes because of his heavy reliance on OT Jewish Law. Christ stated that he brought a new and everlasting covenant. This would mean a replacement of the previous covenant God had made with Israel. He also stated that the 10 commandants carry over.


This is a small look into the why's and what's of what I believe. I also want to make it clear that discounting Paul as the ultimate messenger of God and appostle of Christ was not an easy thing to do as I was raised Roman Catholic and do still identify with the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Since many of the Catholic Churches teachings rely heavily on Pauls writings and his letters this was an agonizing decision for me.

 

[Conflicted]

Well here is a question that ought to get the ball rolling.

Do you think Jesus was an ordinary man or truly ''the Son of God'' and that he died and came back to life three days later?

It's something (Christ's divinity) I took for granted as a child, as I'm sure many others have, but now that I can think on my own, I would betray my intellect not to question the validity of this.

I was baptized and raised as a catholic and I consider myself a Christian in the sense that I am moved and inspired by Jesus's philosophy of love, charity and solidarity, something which our world greatly needs. On the other hand, my unapologetic doubts about his divinity would put me in the non-chrisitian territory. And I don't see any good reason to deny the positive messages present in other religions as well. How about you?

As for science, I don't see any good reasons to deny such evidences as evolution. But that doesn't make me an atheist. I consider myself more of a pantheist. I don't see science as a one way ticket to naturalistic materialism but rather as an effective tool to help us understand how the world works. It's an attempt at grasping objective reality and a great way to help us manipulate this reality through technology. But science can't tell us how or to what end we ought to manipulate the world we live in. Science's language is descriptive, not evaluative. And that is why we need some form of spirituality to guide us. There's nothing incompatible between spirituality and science.

This thread is moving right along, so I'll have to offer some brief responses to some of these questions in order to keep up. I'm not sure what to conclude about Jesus. I have far more questions than answers. Here are just a few "conflicts" that I have with this particular matter:

-Was Jesus a real person who actually walked this earth, or could his presence in the Bible be representative of something?
-Some insist that God and Christ are one. If so, who did Christ pray to? Who did He cry out to from the cross?
-I mean no offense to Christians here for saying this, but as horrific as the death of Christ was, I fail to see it as a greater sacrifice than what many of his own disciples suffered. Or missionaries throughout history. Or any ordinary person who has ever suffered and died for another for whatever reason. In fact, a literal take on this allegory would seem to make it even less notable given that Christ would have had the absolute assurance of coming back from the grave. Mortal men who have made such sacrifices could only hope that to be the case.

Please understand that these questions are prompted by reason, not blasphemy. I believe my creator gave me the ability to reason, so I wouldn't expect Him to be shocked by my desire to pursue understanding. If the answer to these questions is found in the scriptures, I have been unable to discern them.

 

[lone wolf]

I figure Christ could be one person or a lot of people just like me who lived life as best he/she/they could in the face of an oppressive regime and around a lot of weasely sell-out type people. He/she/they remained true to faith (in whichever way is comfortable) to the end. Whether there were mystic cures or magic wine or any other attributed miracles isn't really mine to know. Logical me says no. Romantic me thinks it's sort of a cool part of the story. Guess maybe we gonna share the same lightning bolt?

 

[Conflicted]

I'm going to list a few more random thoughts about my conflicted understanding of the Bible. Almost everything I point out could become a thread of its own, but I'm trying to focus on the overall difficulty of making sense of the various challenges posed by the scriptures themselves.

-There appear to be two versions of the creation story. Genesis 1 does not appear to be consistent with Genesis 2. This is the very beginning of the "book of life." Why would God allow an inconsistency at all, much less when the reader is first beginning with the story?
-Most Christians I know believe that Adam and Eve were real people. They believe we all descended from them. I was taught this in every church I ever attended. Furthermore, these churches insisted that Adam's sin led to a curse upon all mankind. This is a huge conflict for me. Am I to accept that the God of the universe would condemn an entire creation for the act of one man literally eating a piece of fruit?
-How many people died in the flood? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Tens of millions? We're told that the waters covered the entire earth. We're told that God was angered by the sin he saw and sent this flood as punishment. But when the waters receded, sin was still present and continues to this day. What are we to make of this mass slaughter which appears to have served no purpose but to appease an angry God? How can the God who presumably personifies love be capable of such hate and vengeance? Could it be possible that it was not a literal event, but a metaphorical description of a spiritual construct? If so, how do we reconcile that with the historical lineage that the Bible clearly traces back to Noah's family?

Just a few more thoughts that vex me in my quest for understanding.

Since first beginning this thread, I've been warned repeatedly about the radicals who would swoop in to chastise me. Yet, there are almost forty posts thus far and no sign of any harsh critics.

Curious.

 

[gopher]

A true church will make the Bible come true by finding me a wealthy wife.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The Bible allows for adaption and changes like that, it does nor allow for one, two, and three toed flesh to interact and produce reproducing off-spring.

Neither does evolution.