What makes you believe?

Denerick

Hello there,

Personally I'm an agnostic, but have always had a huge amount of respect for the more individualistic and thoughtful strands of Christianity, such as the Methodist Church. I was reared a Catholic but I'm afraid I simply 'amn't bothered' for various reasons.

I'd be interested to know what motivates the average Christian on the forum. How can you believe? Do you often question the existance of God? How do you deal with doubts? Do you believe in an afterlife?

I'm one of these people that would love to be a Christian if I could just find a way of shutting up the cold voice in my head that demands 'EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!' (That voice is a bit of a Nazi really!) Not that demanding evidence is a bad thing by any means, but I often find that I find it hard to trust the average Joe on the street or humanity at large with this mindset, and I've seen enough works of art and read enough books and lived long enough to know that there is such a thing as 'perfection' in this world, beyond my comprehension as a mere mortal.

wolfsbane

Denerick wrote: »

Hello there,

Personally I'm an agnostic, but have always had a huge amount of respect for the more individualistic and thoughtful strands of Christianity, such as the Methodist Church. I was reared a Catholic but I'm afraid I simply 'amn't bothered' for various reasons.

I'd be interested to know what motivates the average Christian on the forum. How can you believe? Do you often question the existance of God? How do you deal with doubts? Do you believe in an afterlife?

I'm one of these people that would love to be a Christian if I could just find a way of shutting up the cold voice in my head that demands 'EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!' (That voice is a bit of a Nazi really!) Not that demanding evidence is a bad thing by any means, but I often find that I find it hard to trust the average Joe on the street or humanity at large with this mindset, and I've seen enough works of art and read enough books and lived long enough to know that there is such a thing as 'perfection' in this world, beyond my comprehension as a mere mortal.

I believe because God has given me the assurance that His word is true. That is the basic cause - the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

I find support for that in the many times God has specifically intervened for me in answer to prayer, and in seeing Him do so for others.

Supporting evidence is also found in how history has developed in regard to the survival of the Jews and the survival of the gospel and the Church.

The message of the Bible also makes sense of the world we see - accounts for its beauty and horror, accounts for man and his meaning/purpose.

I only occasionally question if God is real or am I imagining it all. Once I review the evidence, I am fully persuaded.

Specific doubts - can so many scientists be right about evolution and so few contradict, if the Bible is true? I examine the way the majority of scientists arrive at their conclusions, how they treat other competing theories, and how they answer the creationist scientists. That gives me reasonable assurance that their case is far from water-tight. I move on to the more certain ground of the Bible and see if it is open to re-interpretation. I find it not on the basic evolutionary case. So I am even more assured that what I have found trustworthy on heavenly matters is also trustworthy on earthly matters.

Yes, I believe in an eternity of happiness in Heaven with God, and an eternity of woe in Gehenna without God.

Your innate sense of 'perfection' is what God put in each of our hearts. We all know life is not the materialist accident atheism proclaims - but our hearts are naturally in rebellion against God and we suppress much of it or subvert it to belief in false gods.

Here's some good news for you:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Genghiz Cohen

Back in the day when I considered myself Christian, it was the idea that there had to be something more than this. Life had to come from somewhere and we didn't just pop out of holes in the ground!

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's some good news for you:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

Beautiful. I read this with Amazing Grace (music only) playing in the background, and it was a perfect fit.

lmaopml

Hi Denerick,

This is a really cool thread title....and something that I have often wondered about...how God works on the individual etc.

I can only speak from a personal stance, and I'll try to be honest. I guess, at one stage in my life I didn't feel there was anything much 'out there' as such, and I just 'got on with it'. I never really felt alone though - and some of the things that have happened in my somewhat (shortish) life so far I don't think I was actually coping with, and some of it I have amazed myself that I did even....I defo 'felt' I was being held up.....I just didn't know by whom. I think God found me tbh, rather than the other way around...at least that's how it feels...

..and I'm no weak cookie..lol..

I see him in the quiet moments in life. When I wake up in the morning and just look out at the glory of the day - or when I see 'people' who seem to be full up with 'God' and his presence.....I think people who have a very deep, genuine and unpresuming or with no 'intentions' faith show me so much more about God and I see him in them...It's truely beatiful....Unconditional...

Anyway, no matter what is said here...nobody will ever be able to 'show' you God, we just approach him in our own unique way, so long as it's with good heart and an open mind, I truely feel he does the rest....and perhaps we are all meant to be where we are.

St Paul once said that each and every one of us is given a 'measure' of grace - we just need to look inside and see it and recognise it for what it is.....without feeling ashamed or looking for the EVIDENCE...lol...that you speak of so highly....I come from a background of EVIDENCE...:)

Faith is a journey, and sometimes it's rocky, and sometimes it's really hard to always try to do the right thing in the name of God, but I think when we do, then the path we choose may look more difficult - but it's not, it's infinitly lighter a burden. He carries us....and guides us. It takes practice and effort, but it's really only opening the door to him - that's the single biggest step...

Hope this helps.

Denerick

wolfsbane wrote: »

I believe because God has given me the assurance that His word is true. That is the basic cause - the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

Hi, please don't take this the wrong way but your post highlighted some of my reservations about Christians (But not Christianity as the abstract concept.)

I find support for that in the many times God has specifically intervened for me in answer to prayer, and in seeing Him do so for others.

How? How can you be sure it wasn't a coincidence?

Supporting evidence is also found in how history has developed in regard to the survival of the Jews and the survival of the gospel and the Church.

Why is the survival of the Jews in any way 'evidence'? How is the survival of the Gospel? What of Plato's 'Republic'? Or any of the Greek epics? They predate the Gospels? Why is it important that the Gospels survived? Its not particularly unusual.

And whats this about the 'survival of the church'? Why is that unusual in your eyes? How is that even remotely relevant as some kind of historical evidence which proves the authenticity of the Christian faith? What about the various religions which predate Christianity and still thrive in the world today? How does the fact of Christianity's continued survival actually prove anything?

The message of the Bible also makes sense of the world we see - accounts for its beauty and horror, accounts for man and his meaning/purpose.

But so does Dickens! And Huxley, and Eco, and Golding, and Steinbeck, and Hugo, and Zola, and pretty much any half talented author in the history of the world! I don't see how this is re-inforcing your faith to be honest!?

I only occasionally question if God is real or am I imagining it all. Once I review the evidence, I am fully persuaded.

Do you not stop to question your own assumptions though? I'm plagued by these doubts. I'm a doubting agnostic you might almost say

Specific doubts - can so many scientists be right about evolution and so few contradict, if the Bible is true? I examine the way the majority of scientists arrive at their conclusions, how they treat other competing theories, and how they answer the creationist scientists. That gives me reasonable assurance that their case is far from water-tight. I move on to the more certain ground of the Bible and see if it is open to re-interpretation. I find it not on the basic evolutionary case. So I am even more assured that what I have found trustworthy on heavenly matters is also trustworthy on earthly matters.

I'm sorry, but it is getting hard to take this argument seriously. Spirituality and science are by nature polar opposites, but they don't have to endure apartheid. The scientific method is all about doubt and questioning consensus - this doesn't mean that the scientific method is incorrect, in fact it proves that it works. You don't have to make it into a bipolar argument i.e, 'well if science got x wrong, then surely its wrong about y as well'? I'm confused.

Yes, I believe in an eternity of happiness in Heaven with God, and an eternity of woe in Gehenna without God.

Why?

Your innate sense of 'perfection' is what God put in each of our hearts. We all know life is not the materialist accident atheism proclaims - but our hearts are naturally in rebellion against God and we suppress much of it or subvert it to belief in false gods.

I also find this rather hard to stomach. How can you speak on behalf of any atheist? Its rather arrogant. My heart is not in 'rebellion' against God, its in rebellion are irrationality. I'm trying to explore whether faith and reason can co-incide - I believe they can, but it requires a certain amount of 'leaping'.

Here's some good news for you:
Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why St. Paul is in anyway relevant. He's not Jesus Christ, and to be honest the way people like to quote anything other than Christ from the gospels in conversations like these are one of the main reasons why I'm suspicious of Christians as a whole. (In case that comes out wrong, I mean to say that I'm suspicious about whether you stop to think if Jesus is the centre of your faith, or if those who came before and after him are? In my unlearned opinion, the Christian religion should begin and end with the gospels that deal with the life and times of Jesus Christ)

I hope you don't take offense - that wasn't necessarily directed at you personally, but on the mindset of Christianity you represent. Anyone is free to respond and I apologise if I come off as being a little harsh.

philologos

Denerick wrote: »

How can you believe?

The main motivation behind my belief is that I decided at one point that I needed to understand if there was an underlying meaning to life, I decided to give Christianity a shot, reading the Bible, praying and exploring. I found it yielded results that were beyond my expectations. I believe I was filled with the Holy Spirit for the first time while doing so. This experience is the strongest conviction I personally have for believing in the Gospel.

I'm a curious person, I've never been satisfied with answers like "that's it", "that's all there is", "it just is". Such answers tell me that it is likely there is something else behind what we actually know. The question is, do we really want to find out what that something else is, and do we want to accept the implications in doing so?

Denerick wrote: »

Do you often question the existence of God?

I have done in the past, and I do occasionally still when doubts creep in. I wouldn't say that it is a regular occurrence however.

Denerick wrote: »

How do you deal with doubts?

Reading, finding out more about the area in particular I'm doubting. I often pray to God in times like this that He would help me to find a solution, or an answer in what I am doubting about.

Denerick wrote: »

Do you believe in an afterlife?

Yes.

Denerick wrote: »

I'm one of these people that would love to be a Christian if I could just find a way of shutting up the cold voice in my head that demands 'EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!' (That voice is a bit of a Nazi really!) Not that demanding evidence is a bad thing by any means, but I often find that I find it hard to trust the average Joe on the street or humanity at large with this mindset, and I've seen enough works of art and read enough books and lived long enough to know that there is such a thing as 'perfection' in this world, beyond my comprehension as a mere mortal.

If we are considering evidence as material that would point us towards God's existence, much can be considered to be evidence for God's existence.

If we are considering evidence as absolute proof, there isn't any.

One has to determine for ones self what is more probable, that there is a God, or that there isn't.

Good luck with the search.

Edit: As for Paul and his relevance. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, and the Apostles by the guiding power of the Holy Spirit elected Paul to be a missionary to the Gentiles. According to the Scriptures he had a direct encounter with Jesus after being a persecutor of Christians, and received visions while on his missionary trips. He brought the Gospel to the non-Jews in a very big way, and this is why he is important.

antiskeptic

Denerick wrote: »

Hello there, Personally I'm an agnostic, but have always had a huge amount of respect for the more individualistic and thoughtful strands of Christianity, such as the Methodist Church. I was reared a Catholic but I'm afraid I simply 'amn't bothered' for various reasons.

Hi Denerick,

As others will have no doubt pointed out, God is about one-to-one relationship (man with God) and corporate relationship amongst men (man with man). The Roman Catholic church forgoes (by and large) the first category of relationship by installing itself between man and God. Which only results in a dead church/Religion.

-

I'd be interested to know what motivates the average Christian on the forum. How can you believe? Do you often question the existance of God? How do you deal with doubts? Do you believe in an afterlife?

I believe because God has made himself known to me - personally. That's the only reason my belief has any foundation. And when you think of it, that's the only reason you believe anything: because evidence which satisfies the criteria for belief is available. It doesn't matter that that evidence in this case is non-empirical - all that matters is that you have the information necessary to believe available to you.

I've never gotten to the point of questioning whether God exists or not (not since he first turned up about 8 years ago). Sometimes I can detect him close up. Other times it appears as if he's miles away. But that's the same as in any relationship - I don't quit believing in the existance of my mates just because the relationship has dwindled somewhat.

I believe in an afterlife as biblically described. And I'm certain I'm going to be with God for eternity in a place "where only righteousness dwelleth"

My motivation to come on this forum has largely to do with sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Rather than tackle things directly however, I tend towards talking of elements of the gospel whilst wrapping things up in the guise of 'apologetics'. I don't believe reasoned argumentation can cause a person to believe in God's existance. But I do believe the gospel of God contains "the power of God unto salvation" - and so I deliver that when and where I can.

-

I'm one of these people that would love to be a Christian if I could just find a way of shutting up the cold voice in my head that demands 'EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE!' (That voice is a bit of a Nazi really!) Not that demanding evidence is a bad thing by any means, but I often find that I find it hard to trust the average Joe on the street or humanity at large with this mindset, and I've seen enough works of art and read enough books and lived long enough to know that there is such a thing as 'perfection' in this world, beyond my comprehension as a mere mortal.

As stated, I'm not convinced that anyone can be reasoned into the kingdom of God. Nor do I believe that an anything like iron-clad case can be made from any of the physical evidences (which certainly permit notions of a greater intelligence than our own.). Rather, I believe that God must bring you to the necessary convictions regarding your position before him and that if he manages to do so, you will reach a point where he can himself turn up - and so you will believe he exists.

It seems to me that God's job is to convince you of what is called "sin, righteousness and judgement". That is something he can achieve without you necessarily having to believe in God's existance. Which is good news! Arrival at the convinction (or belief) that you are a vile sinner (for example) doesn't require that you formally identify with the biblical description of sin. It's more down to earth and pragmatic than that - all that's required is that you see yourself as you actually are when all the excuses and rationalisations that mask that truth about you have been stripped back. At that point you'll see yourself as you are: somehow rotten at core but understanding that that's not the way it should be and yearning to be otherwise - but finding it impossible to dig yourself out of the hole you're in.

Conviction of sin might not mean you attach the name 'sinner' to yourself (how could you if you're not a believer?). It will mean though, that you will be disturbed about your state and your heart and your motivations and your thoughts and desires.

You are right in demanding evidence. But the correct category of evidence you need at this stage in the process isn't that for Gods existance - that evidence would come later - after you are saved. What's required first in your case is that you be convinced of your rotteness (for example). And the person best placed to decide on the evidence of that .. is you. The evidence is the fact of your thoughts, words and deeds. It's for you to evaluate you based on that evidence.

PDN

I believe because of evidence.

The evidence contained in the writings of the early Christians as to their faith, particularly in the New Testament.

The evidence of people's lives transformed by the Gospel.

The evidence of my own life transformed by the Gospel.

The evidence of answered prayer.

The evidence of miracles.

Denerick

There's a whole lot of talk about God 'being there', or that its impossible to reason his existance - how then, can you believe? The argument can be flipped around so easily to say that you believe that an elephant with nine noses commands the fate of the cosmos... I really don't understand how anyone can believe on these grounds alone. I'm sorry, as much respect as I have for the more thoughtful brands of Christianity (Rowan Williams might make me an anglican yet!) I find it rather difficult to stomach the dogmatic variation.

PDN

Denerick wrote: »

I'm sorry, as much respect as I have for the more thoughtful brands of Christianity (Rowan Williams might make me an anglican yet!) I find it rather difficult to stomach the dogmatic variation.

No need to apologise. Everyone has their prejudices, so I'm sure we should allow you yours.

philologos

Denerick wrote: »

There's a whole lot of talk about God 'being there', or that its impossible to reason his existance - how then, can you believe? The argument can be flipped around so easily to say that you believe that an elephant with nine noses commands the fate of the cosmos... I really don't understand how anyone can believe on these grounds alone. I'm sorry, as much respect as I have for the more thoughtful brands of Christianity (Rowan Williams might make me an anglican yet!) I find it rather difficult to stomach the dogmatic variation.

Nobody said it is impossible to reason God's existence. It is impossible to absolutely prove God, but it isn't difficult to reason as to why God probably does exist.

Christians have been doing this for centuries.

I don't think PDN is dogmatic in the slightest. He's just making it clear there is evidence for God's existence.

Denerick

PDN wrote: »

No need to apologise. Everyone has their prejudices, so I'm sure we should allow you yours.

Thanks for dragging polemics in. A class act. I wasn't even referring to your post.

PDN

Denerick wrote: »

Thanks for dragging polemics in. A class act. I wasn't even referring to your post.

No polemics. I merely noted your prejudices against the views of some others.

Did you really think you should criticise other's positions, but that your own is somehow sacrosanct?

Denerick

Jakkass wrote: »

Nobody said it is impossible to reason God's existence. It is impossible to absolutely prove God, but it isn't difficult to reason as to why God probably does exist.

Christians have been doing this for centuries.

I don't think PDN is dogmatic in the slightest. He's just making it clear there is evidence for God's existence.

I think he's saying that good things happen as a result of a belief in God - to drag in a rather cheeky analogy, good things happen to some patients when doctors prescribe placebo's! Over the last couple of years I've been trying to work out whether my impulses towards God are a placebo (In other words an invention of my head) or the real deal.

Denerick

PDN wrote: »

No polemics. I merely noted your prejudices against the views of some others.

Did you really think you should criticise other's positions, but that your own is somehow sacrosanct?

How am I being prejudiced? I'm respectfully disagreeing. Its not a prejudice. Is a protestant prejudiced against a Catholic when he tells him that he doesn't believe in transubstantiation?

Please do stop trying to aggravate me. Its not behaviour befitting a moderator (Or a Christian for that matter )

Dr. Loon

PDN wrote: »

I believe because of evidence.

The evidence contained in the writings of the early Christians as to their faith, particularly in the New Testament.

The evidence of people's lives transformed by the Gospel.

The evidence of my own life transformed by the Gospel.

The evidence of answered prayer.

The evidence of miracles.

What evidence? There is none.

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

I believe because of evidence.

The evidence contained in the writings of the early Christians as to their faith, particularly in the New Testament.

The evidence of people's lives transformed by the Gospel.

The evidence of my own life transformed by the Gospel.

The evidence of answered prayer.

The evidence of miracles.

Why not some other religion? I'm sure that there is at least one Muslim, one Jew, one Hindu (and so on) that would quote those exact reasons for their belief (change a few words here and there of course ).

So why do you chose this one?

Fannymcslap

wolfsbane wrote: »

I only occasionally question if God is real or am I imagining it all. Once I review the evidence, I am fully persuaded.

[/COLOR]

Please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to flame at all, I'm merely curious as to specifically what evidence you're referring to here?

Denerick

Please lads, this thread was exciting before somebody decided to initiate a polemics war. Don't let rip with the 'Atheist V Christian war of the internetz' thing, please!??

Fannymcslap

Denerick wrote: »

Please lads, this thread was exciting before somebody decided to initiate a polemics war. Don't let rip with the 'Atheist V Christian war of the internetz' thing, please!??

I'm honestly just curious as to what specific evidence the 2nd poster referred to, I'm not arguing one way or the other, it's curiosity.

hinault

Faith is subjective to the extent that people believe in God/Jesus for different reasons and because of differing viewpoints.

When non believers ask for "evidence", their question cannot actually be answered because the evidence which may persuade me to believe, may not persuade someone else to believe.

And that is the dilemma here.

antiskeptic

Denerick wrote: »

There's a whole lot of talk about God 'being there', or that its impossible to reason his existance - how then, can you believe? The argument can be flipped around so easily to say that you believe that an elephant with nine noses commands the fate of the cosmos... I really don't understand how anyone can believe on these grounds alone. I'm sorry, as much respect as I have for the more thoughtful brands of Christianity (Rowan Williams might make me an anglican yet!) I find it rather difficult to stomach the dogmatic variation.

I take it you'd have no problem with the notion of God existing in a fashion that is not detectable by us by classical empirical means (via the 5 senses). I take it too that you'd have no problem with the notion of God being able to render himself known to man by:

a) installing in man another sense - one able to detect that which the 5 senses cannot

b) God placing himself in the 'field of vision' of said sense.

In this case the man knows God exists. But he hasn't arrived there by reasoning it out. Instead, God just becomes part of the rest of reality which man hasn't reasoned out. It's important to note that there is no reliance on man for his knowledge of God. God does all the work.

Anton.Mamyko

Denerick wrote: »

Please lads, this thread was exciting before somebody decided to initiate a polemics war. Don't let rip with the 'Atheist V Christian war of the internetz' thing, please!??

Sounds liek you and I are in the same positions. I am leaning towards the conclusion that if there is something out there that controls all it is a dimension of science that is not known (or wont be known). I feel like I would have to step over myself if I was to say that I believed in any of the religions of the world. Even though the religious people I have met seem to be descent enough I cannot shake the thought at the back of my mind that all religions work on manufacturing consent and systems of control over people (or should I say sheeple?) which through out history resulted in wars wars wars wars......control..

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Even though the religious people I have met seem to be descent enough I cannot shake the thought at the back of my mind that all religions work on manufacturing consent and systems of control over people (or should I say sheeple?) which through out history resulted in wars wars wars wars......control..

I can't help but sympathise with your post to a degree. You're right, religion, or rather it's corruption in this decade alone has brought about pain for thousands of people if not millions of people. War and religion seem to have had a close relationship.

However, when we look to the words of Jesus we see a way of life that is clearly distinct from what we see from religion often.

If I may ask you a question:
Is it us that have got it wrong, or is it the core message of Christianity?

I believe it is the former, but I think we can do better and that is why I don't give up on the church.

The quote that wolfsbane provided with Paul speaking in Athens in the book of Acts, provides agnostics in particular with a strong question:
Is it really true that we cannot know about God, or is that just more comfortable for us?

In my personal capacity I found it to be the latter.

Anton.Mamyko

Can I ask the Christians participating in this thread a question that makes me most cautious towards religions..?

After you have found God, how do you view people of other beliefs and atheists?
Are they doomed and it is only up to the (self) righteous to "save" them?


Simple question-straight answer please.

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

After you have found God, how do you view people of other beliefs and atheists?

I believe that they are mistaken, and that they are in need of salvation.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Are they doomed and it is only up to the (self) righteous to "save" them?

It's not about being righteous. None of us are righteous by ourselves. It is only through God that people are saved. Nobody saves anyone else, rather people sow seeds that God will use if people are willing to find Him.

antiskeptic

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Sounds liek you and I are in the same positions. I am leaning towards the conclusion that if there is something out there that controls all it is a dimension of science that is not known (or wont be known). I feel like I would have to step over myself if I was to say that I believed in any of the religions of the world. Even though the religious people I have met seem to be descent enough I cannot shake the thought at the back of my mind that all religions work on manufacturing consent and systems of control over people (or should I say sheeple?) which through out history resulted in wars wars wars wars......control..

As a Christian I'd largely agree.

The worlds Religions (including many of Christian denomination) would have Jesus turning in his grave (were it that he occupied one). Christianity says to expect that Religions would be so: they are afterall merely fronts for the activity of Satan

Anton.Mamyko

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't help but sympathise with your post to a degree. You're right, religion, or rather it's corruption in this decade alone has brought about pain for thousands of people if not millions of people. War and religion seem to have had a close relationship.

However, when we look to the words of Jesus we see a way of life that is clearly distinct from what we see from religion often.

If I may ask you a question:
Is it us that have got it wrong, or is it the core message of Christianity?

I believe it is the former, but I think we can do better and that is why I don't give up on the church.

The quote that wolfsbane provided with Paul speaking in Athens in the book of Acts, provides agnostics in particular with a strong question:
Is it really true that we cannot know about God, or is that just more comfortable for us?

In my personal capacity I found it to be the latter.

I respect that and I hope religions will change to just fulfilling the need of people for spirituality, while allowing questioning and dissent against systems of control.
However, I cannot join any system of belief that exists today. Two reasons being that I have a scientific mindset (comes with engineering) which does not allow for discrepancies and the other being the evidence of history. After all, we are supposed to study history to avoid repeating the same mistakes

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

However, I cannot join any system of belief that exists today. Two reasons being that I have a scientific mindset (comes with engineering) which does not allow for discrepancies and the other being the evidence of history. After all, we are supposed to study history to avoid repeating the same mistakes

A scientific mindset for me isn't a reason. A lot of Christians I know are involved in science. Many Christians are also scientists. There is no reason why one cannot believe that God exists from a scientific mindset.

As for evidence of history. The New Testament accounts are more authentic than any other ancient document. We have 40,000 manuscripts in Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and Latin. This comes in comparison to 600 for Homer's Odyssey, it also surpasses anything that we have on Aristotle or Plato. Yet people still trust the authenticity of Aristotle's philosophy.

The historical case for the accuracy of the Bible is one of the strongest.

Anton.Mamyko

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that they are mistaken, and that they are in need of salvation.

See, I cannot help but being scared of hearing the same response from all believers that I have asked (I only had the chance to ask Christians but I am certain that Islam says the same)
so for the 6bn of us in this world believing the same system (but a different king) we will always fight......

antiskeptic

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Can I ask the Christians participating in this thread a question that makes me most cautious towards religions..?

After you have found God, how do you view people of other beliefs and atheists?
Are they doomed and it is only up to the (self) righteous to "save" them?


Simple question-straight answer please.

That's a question I always used to ask those who knocked on my door (JW's and Mormons I later found out). Hopefully this Christians answer will satisfy you better than their answer satisfied me.

My belief is that people of all kinds of backgrounds will enter the kingdom of God. Some will be card carrying Christians. Others will be card-carrying atheists/Buddhists/Muslims who have been saved by God because they satisfied the same criterion for salvation that those who become card-carrying Christians did.

That criterion, I believe, is believing God in the manner required by God. Not believing in God primarily. Thus is is possible that a sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet can be saved - without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ. Or ever having heard of the God of the Bible.

What believing God entails is a different matter - but suffice to say, the possibility of doing so or not is/was open to every person, everywhere, in every era.

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

See, I cannot help but being scared of hearing the same response from all believers that I have asked (I only had the chance to ask Christians but I am certain that Islam says the same)
so for the 6bn of us in this world believing the same system (but a different king) we will always fight......

Feel free to pop over to the Islam forum and ask. I won't be answering for them.

The idea that all beliefs are true is a nice one. Logically, this cannot be the case.

As for always fighting, I don't see why this belief means we have to fight at all. Evangelising can be done through peaceful missionary effort, indeed it does happen all over the world peacefully.

Anton.Mamyko

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a question I always used to ask those who knocked on my door (JW's and Mormons I later found out). Hopefully this Christians answer will satisfy you better than their answer satisfied me.

My belief is that people of all kinds of backgrounds will enter the kingdom of God. Some will be card carrying Christians. Others will be card-carrying atheists/Buddhists/Muslims who have been saved by God because they satisfied the same criterion for salvation that those who become card-carrying Christians did.

That criterion, I believe, is believing God in the manner required by God. Not believing in God primarily. Thus is is possible that a sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet can be saved - without ever hearing the name Jesus Christ. Or ever having heard of the God of the Bible.

What believing God entails is a different matter - but suffice to say, the possibility of doing so or not is/was open to every person, everywhere, in every era.

You are one of the first Christians that I still want to discuss this further after posing my earlier question, I wish there were more like you.
You have a less insane view that the billions of non-Christians are(in short) equal to you....that's the impression I got from you anyway, pardon me if I'm wrong.
So, now I ask you, why did you pick Christianity as you from of belief? I mean from an outsider's point of view it is one of many other self righteous systems that want to "save" the rest of the world. From history alone one can see how religions started wars, and (I'm sorry) sometimes it makes me sick that people can still follow religious orders after all the horrible things that they led to

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

As for evidence of history. The New Testament accounts are more authentic than any other ancient document. We have 40,000 manuscripts in Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and Latin. This comes in comparison to 600 for Homer's Odyssey, it also surpasses anything that we have on Aristotle or Plato. Yet people still trust the authenticity of Aristotle's philosophy.

That's quite the analogy.You don't seriously believe Homer's tales as factual accounts? Aristotle is believed to be nothing more than a ordinary human and some of his principles still work today, others that have been found incorrect have been chucked in the bin but kept on historical record. Christ on the other hand, is no ordinary individual,He is believed to be a conqueror of death.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

That's quite the analogy.You don't seriously believe Homer's tales as factual accounts? Aristotle is believed to be nothing more than a ordinary human and some of his principles still work today, others that have been found incorrect have been chucked in the bin but kept on historical record. Christ on the other hand, is no ordinary individual,He is believed to be a conqueror of death.

Indeed. We can show that the New Testament accounts were not likely to have been corrupted through these 40,000 documents. The reason so many exist is probably because it was such an extraordinary claim.

Biblical archaeology has been bringing more and more to the debate also. After claims that Nazareth didn't even exist during Jesus' time, amongst others evidence has come to the contrary. I expect that other such finds will also shed light on the historicity of the Bible, including the Exodus from Egypt.

Anton.Mamyko

Jakkass wrote: »

Feel free to pop over to the Islam forum and ask. I won't be answering for them.

The idea that all beliefs are true is a nice one. Logically, this cannot be the case.

As for always fighting, I don't see why this belief means we have to fight at all. Evangelising can be done through peaceful missionary effort, indeed it does happen all over the world peacefully.

As I said earlier the Christians that tried to convert me seemed to be decent individuals. It's the mass consent and lack of questioning of systems (established by man not God) that scares the hell out of me. I believe a congregation of such people led by a charismatic leader and you have another world conflict, another genocide.....leaving us saying "oops we did it again"

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

As I said earlier the Christians that tried to convert me seemed to be decent individuals. It's the mass consent and lack of questioning of systems (established by man not God) that scares the hell out of me.

I agree, this is where the problems seep in. If people are Biblically literate and able to question their minister calmly when they disagree, that is one thing. When people are Biblically illiterate, many external agendas can enter in. This is the problem.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

I believe a congregation of such people led by a charismatic leader and you have another world conflict, another genocide.....leaving us saying "oops we did it again"

Do you think that religion is the only reason why people have carried out genocides? Haven't leaders who did not have a religion carry out genocide?

antiskeptic

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

You are one of the first Christians that I still want to discuss this further after posing my earlier question, I wish there were more like you.
You have a less insane view that the billions of non-Christians are(in short) equal to you....that's the impression I got from you anyway, pardon me if I'm wrong.

All men are born sinners. All men are born in need of salvation. All men are born equally lost before God. God loves all men and God would want all saved (until such time as God deems a man lost for good). Not all men will be saved: whether calling themselves Christian or sheep headers up the side of a mountain in Tibet.

The person who is a Christian (or an In Christ) isn't one who carries a man-made label. He's one carrying a God-made label. Whether he knows he carries that label or not is irrelevant. I happen to know I do - many, I'm sure, do not.

-

So, now I ask you, why did you pick Christianity as you from of belief? I mean from an outsider's point of view it is one of many other self righteous systems that want to "save" the rest of the world.

I didn't pick Christianity. I was saved by God's grace and found out subsequently that God happens to have provided for his communicating with man via something called the Bible. From the insiders point of view, Christianity is the only non-self-righteous faith system in the world. In every other faith system (including ones carrying Christian labels: Roman Catholicism, Jehovahs Witness, Mormonism etc) a mans position before a holy God is established by what man does. Man makes himself righteous by living according to Gods laws - in other words. In Christianity however, a man is made righteous before a holy God not by what the man does, but by what God has done for the man. Such a man need do nothing at all in order to be considered righteous by God.

That's why it's called the gospel of (God's) grace. Some Christian-labelled Religions attempt to circumvent this by supposing salvation to occur by mans work + Gods grace, but when examined they really only come down to the same thing: self-righteous religions where a man makes himself right with God by following God's laws to this degree or that.

-

From history alone one can see how religions started wars, and (I'm sorry) sometimes it makes me sick that people can still follow religious orders after all the horrible things that they led to

You don't need Religion to start war. You only need man. Man is selfish by nature and as a result, war is sure to follow. That he finds his excuse and self-justification in Religion is neither here nor there - if it wasn't Religion, it's be something else. Neither of the world wars of the last century were Religiously motivated yet the slaughter knew no bounds.

I'd add that a grace-saved Christian is still a sinner - so it's not as if being saved is certain to ensure war won't occur.

Anton.Mamyko

If religious orders that systematically control people did not exist genocides would not have been possible on such scales......but maybe as a species we simple require hierarchy to function...i don;t know.


But the more I think about the clearer the difference between myself and believers is.I have not studied the bible, so this will sound arrogant but;

Strip EVERYTHING and i mean EVERYTHING down from a religion that was not said by Jesus Christ. And what you have left simply is : Be a decent human being!!!!!!!
Eh? I know that anyway.....why do I have to join a system of worship do realize that?

So what is the remaining difference? _ I (hope) don't think that who ever does not think the way I do is doomed and unless go over there and "save" him he is a lost soul.....

That's as simply as I can put it

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

If religious orders that systematically control people did not exist genocides would not have been possible on such scales......but maybe as a species we simple require hierarchy to function...i don;t know.

Have you never heard about Communism? Over 100 million people died through genocide as a result of it.

Don't be naiive. Religion doesn't cause war, it is the corruption of religion that causes wars. This is something we have to be careful of.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

But the more I think about the clearer the difference between myself and believers is.I have not studied the bible, so this will sound arrogant but;

You should really read it.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Strip EVERYTHING and i mean EVERYTHING down from a religion that was not said by Jesus Christ. And what you have left simply is : Be a decent human being!!!!!!!

How do you choose what to strip down, and what not to strip down. Jesus Christ said far more than just be a decent human being. He called people to believe in God, in fact this was higher than to love ones neighbour. It is only through believing in God that everything comes into perspective. I'd advise you to read the Gospels.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Eh? I know that anyway.....why do I have to join a system of worship do realize that?

It is my view that nobody is good without God. Not one.

Why? We've all done wrong. It is through belief in Jesus' crucifixion that we receive forgiveness and are able to live good lives in God's presence. This is my view anyway. Perhaps some of the other Christians will correct me.

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

So what is the remaining difference? _ I (hope) don't think that who ever does not think the way I do is doomed and unless go over there and "save" him he is a lost soul.....

This isn't what I think. I think that:
1) We have all sinned.
2) Jesus Christ is blameless.
3) Jesus Christ offered Himself as atonement for the sins of the world.
4) Therefore we have been forgiven, if we are willing to believe in Him.

The question isn't whether or not you believe what I do. The question is do you want to accept His forgiveness or do you want to live without it?

Anton.Mamyko

antiskeptic wrote: »

All men are born sinners. All men are born in need of salvation. All men are born equally lost before God. God loves all men and God would want all saved (until such time as God deems a man lost for good). Not all men will be saved: whether calling themselves Christian or sheep headers up the side of a mountain in Tibet.

The person who is a Christian (or an In Christ) isn't one who carries a man-made label. He's one carrying a God-made label. Whether he knows he carries that label or not is irrelevant. I happen to know I do - many, I'm sure, do not.

-



I didn't pick Christianity. I was saved by God's grace and found out subsequently that God happens to have provided for his communicating with man via something called the Bible. From the insiders point of view, Christianity is the only non-self-righteous faith system in the world. In every other faith system (including ones carrying Christian labels: Roman Catholicism, Jehovahs Witness, Mormonism etc) a mans position before a holy God is established by what man does. Man makes himself righteous by living according to Gods laws - in other words. In Christianity however, a man is made righteous before a holy God not by what the man does, but by what God has done for the man. Such a man need do nothing at all in order to be considered righteous by God.

That's why it's called the gospel of (God's) grace. Some Christian-labelled Religions attempt to circumvent this by supposing salvation to occur by mans work + Gods grace, but when examined they really only come down to the same thing: self-righteous religions where a man makes himself right with God by following God's laws to this degree or that.

-



You don't need Religion to start war. You only need man. Man is selfish by nature and as a result, war is sure to follow. That he finds his excuse and self-justification in Religion is neither here nor there - if it wasn't Religion, it's be something else. Neither of the world wars of the last century were Religiously motivated yet the slaughter knew no bounds.

I'd add that a grace-saved Christian is still a sinner - so it's not as if being saved is certain to ensure war won't occur.

I find your stance interesting.
Question: The members of those religious orders that you have listed as being self righteous, are they then as lost as in the eyes of God as much as I would be, if not more so?
I suppose at this stage it comes down to faith, which I don't have, for now. And if God does find me (or I find him) I'm sure it will not be a labeled belief.
Heh, in a way I do hope I am wrong and that there is something else other than nothing after this life...... (thoughts of a dying Athiest...)

philologos

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

I suppose at this stage it comes down to faith, which I don't have, for now. And if God does find me (or I find him) I'm sure it will not be a labeled belief.
Heh, in a way I do hope I am wrong and that there is something else other than nothing after this life...... (thoughts of a dying Athiest...)

If one hasn't ever given Christianity a real shot, how can one expect to have faith in it?

The real question is this:
Are you willing to accept there is a real possibility that God is there and we can know about Him?

If not, it isn't that you just don't have it, it's that you aren't open to the possibility of it.

antiskeptic

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Strip EVERYTHING and i mean EVERYTHING down from a religion that was not said by Jesus Christ. And what you have left simply is : Be a decent human being!!!!!!!

Nearly.. but not quite. You need to add two more words to the conclusion arrived at above in order to accurately reflect Jesus message. Those words are 'or' and 'else'.

The next thing to do is to evaluate whether or not you live as a decent human being. Not some of the time (because Jesus didn't say or imply some of the time). It's all of the time. Or else.

Perhaps now you can begin to see the need for a gospel of grace (were it that you were to conclude yourself not such a decent human being after all)?

Denerick

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed. We can show that the New Testament accounts were not likely to have been corrupted through these 40,000 documents. The reason so many exist is probably because it was such an extraordinary claim.

Biblical archaeology has been bringing more and more to the debate also. After claims that Nazareth didn't even exist during Jesus' time, amongst others evidence has come to the contrary. I expect that other such finds will also shed light on the historicity of the Bible, including the Exodus from Egypt.

Hello there Jakkass. You seem a decent, kind hearted sort and are not exactly the kind of figure who would bring Christianity into disrepute through excessive zeal and savagery. Just thought I should point that out

With regards to the quoted statement above, I don't think there is that much debate about how authentic the bible manuscripts are - the editing which has taken place has been relatively minimal, considering we have a lot of originals to compare with. Most of the problems really lie in translation, and in those who take the words of the Bible literally. And there is also the historical problem associated with which gospels were accepted when the Church organised itself properly for the first time, and the reasons for why they were excluded. In my opinion this takes much of the halo away from the four gospels, since they were written by fallible men, chosen by fallible men for mainly political reasons, and are alike to the other gospels written but discarded, and forgotten by only the most archaic of scholars. The four gospels in this sense, are far from satisfactory.

A literal reading of the Bible scares the hell out of me to be honest, and its perhaps the one criteria in my mind which distinguishes a fundamentalist from a thoughtful Christian. The problem with the Gospels is not that they were 'invented' but that they were exaggerated; I think there is little doubt that the words of the Bible as written by their respective authors are genuine - the problem is that the people who wrote them are mere mortals, and hence fallible. Which is why when I read the bible (And I have read it numerous times, as well as having read the Koran) I read it as a philosophical tract, not an historical work, or even a literal religious narrative. The gospels are a hagiography, no more, no less, written by mortal men for other mortal men, which are abused, misquoted and misunderstood to the extent that only mortal men are guilty of.

P.S- I also have always found it curious when the religious quote other parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as a substitute for the Gospels of Jesus Christ - why is that important exactly? Why does a Christian not simply concentrate all his energies on the actual gospels that deals with his life and times? I don't really see how a Christian can consider St. Paul as relevant in any way other than the fact that he was supposedly 'consumed' by God. Christ, as the son of God, should be the forefront and sole arbiter of the Christian faith - why do the prophets of the Old Testament and St. Paul regularly get rolled out in discussions like these?

P.P.S- I am aware that Jesus said something along the lines of 'not forgetting those who came before me', but still.

Anton.Mamyko

I was born in Vorkuta in Northern Russia, where my grand parents were sent by Stalin's system. So yes, I have heard of communism. It is just that I see few differences between it and all the other systems of control and oppression.
I respect you faith but I ask you question systems setup by man...MAN. You can still do so and hold on to your faith.... if anything that will please God more imo.



This debate has come to its natural deadlock between people with and without faith. I am young and still have a lot to learn, so faith might still find me, but i repeat: I will not put myself into a religion that is soaked to the core with blood.

Good luck!

antiskeptic

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

I find your stance interesting.

It's not mine, I'd argue. It's His.

Question: The members of those religious orders that you have listed as being self righteous, are they then as lost as in the eyes of God as much as I would be, if not more so?

As pointed out to you earlier, the man-attached label isn't the salient issue, it's the God-attached label that matters. And so, I'd warrant there will be folk in all those orders who have the God-attached label dangling from them, even as they work (uselessly) to make themselves righteous before God. Salvation doesn't necessarily bring that kind of clarity to a man

But if they are truly lost - as in not-(yet perhaps)-found then they are as lost as the secular irreligionist. They, and you (assuming you are lost) are precisely as you were the day you were born - lost. Whether a man engages in the "worship" of a religious false idol or a secular one doesn't alter anything in any material sense. There are only two states of being: lost and found. And one route across the divide: through Christ.

All the rest is window dressing.

]I suppose at this stage it comes down to faith, which I don't have, for now. And if God does find me (or I find him) I'm sure it will not be a labeled belief.
Heh, in a way I do hope I am wrong and that there is something else other than nothing after this life...... (thoughts of a dying Athiest...)

I wouldn't worry about finding yourself with a labelled belief hanging from you if found - I know folk who attended the stuffiest of Churches on being saved - simply gagging for next Sundays service so they could hear more of Gods word (which is anything but stuffy).

But you're right. If you've no faith you've no reason to believe. Whereas Dawkins and the like are wont to consider faith as something blind (a kind of shot in the dark belief) the Bible has quite a different definition of the word. The King James version puts it like this at Hebrew 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

When you have biblical faith it is the same as saying you have evidence. And when you have evidence from something (anything) you believe. Indeed, it's the only reason why one should believe anything. On the basis of evidence.

That that evidence (the utterly compelling evidence I mean) is spiritual in nature (as opposed to empirical, 5 sense stuff) need not put you off. If you are given faith by God it will be because you have already been saved. And you need not worry about the arguments anymore. You believe.

Denerick

This debate has come to its natural deadlock between people with and without faith. I am young and still have a lot to learn, so faith might still find me, but i repeat: I will not put myself into a religion that is soaked to the core with blood.

I'm not a fan of organised religion, but I do think its important to remember that the abstract concept of religion is very different to the practise of mortal men who are prone to earthly corruption. Just because a preacher wants to preach hatred, he is not reflecting what Christianity is. Unfortunately, religion can be used to justified both the righeous and the tyrannical, but often both sides make their fundamental mistake when they claim God is on their side. You'd do well to cast that mindset from your head, when considering Christianity to be honest. Abstract ideas may inspire violence, but the problem lies with the people who commit the deeds, not the abstract idea.

antiskeptic

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

..but i repeat: I will not put myself into a religion that is soaked to the core with blood.

It's Christs blood spilt which makes possible the cleansing of the soul of man (the nature of forgiveness being that the offended party (God) must pay the full price for the offence himself - which God (Christ) did.

I wouldn't let the blood spilt by sinners who weren't God-labelled Christians, or the blood spilt by sinners who were God-labelled Christians deflect you from that central issue.

The only Christianity that matters is blood-soaked. It cannot be helped - otherwise forgiveness cannot be administered by God to man.

philologos

Denerick wrote: »

Hello there Jakkass. You seem a decent, kind hearted sort and are not exactly the kind of figure who would bring Christianity into disrepute through excessive zeal and savagery. Just thought I should point that out

I try. It's up for other people to assess what kind of figure I am.

Denerick wrote: »

And there is also the historical problem associated with which gospels were accepted when the Church organised itself properly for the first time, and the reasons for why they were excluded. In my opinion this takes much of the halo away from the four gospels, since they were written by fallible men, chosen by fallible men for mainly political reasons, and are alike to the other gospels written but discarded, and forgotten by only the most archaic of scholars. The four gospels in this sense, are far from satisfactory.

Alas, this is a favourable interpretation. However, the reality is that they chose the Gospels which were most reliable by dating and origin. The only books accepted in the New Testament were those written before 100AD.

How are the four Gospels "far from satisfactory"?

Denerick wrote: »

A literal reading of the Bible scares the hell out of me to be honest, and its perhaps the one criteria in my mind which distinguishes a fundamentalist from a thoughtful Christian.

The Bible is a book of numerous literary genres. Certain parts are indeed to be interpreted literally, others allegorically. For example I don't interpret the parables of Jesus literally because they are intended to be allegorical. Likewise, I don't interpret Jesus' moral commandments in the Sermon of the Mount allegorically because they are intended to be followed.

Common sense. I don't personally regard myself as a fundamentalist, others are welcome to their views however

Denerick wrote: »

The problem with the Gospels is not that they were 'invented' but that they were exaggerated; I think there is little doubt that the words of the Bible as written by their respective authors are genuine - the problem is that the people who wrote them are mere mortals, and hence fallible.

This is the issue. What reasoning do you have for this? This is mere assumption and nothing more.

Denerick wrote: »

Which is why when I read the bible (And I have read it numerous times, as well as having read the Koran) I read it as a philosophical tract, not an historical work, or even a literal religious narrative. The gospels are a hagiography, no more, no less, written by mortal men for other mortal men, which are abused, misquoted and misunderstood to the extent that only mortal men are guilty of.

It appears more that you do not want to believe as you think it insults your intelligence.

Denerick wrote: »

P.S- I also have always found it curious when the religious quote other parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as a substitute for the Gospels of Jesus Christ - why is that important exactly?

Jesus says this concerning the Old Testament:

John 5:46-47 wrote:

For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

The Bible is a full revelation. Other parts of the Old Testament refer to morality, and even prophesy about Jesus Himself. Jesus quotes the Old Testament prophets extensively, as such there is no reason to believe that these writings aren't legitimate. As for the New Testament Apostles, Jesus said the following:

John 16:12-14 wrote:

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus said that He would tell His Apostles more when they were ready through the Holy Spirit. This is the reason why we regard the Apostles so highly.

Denerick wrote: »

Why does a Christian not simply concentrate all his energies on the actual gospels that deals with his life and times?

Precisely because God revealed more to us, and all of it is one revelation.

Denerick wrote: »

I don't really see how a Christian can consider St. Paul as relevant in any way other than the fact that he was supposedly 'consumed' by God. Christ, as the son of God, should be the forefront and sole arbiter of the Christian faith - why do the prophets of the Old Testament and St. Paul regularly get rolled out in discussions like these?

See above.

Denerick

Jakkass wrote: »

Alas, this is a favourable interpretation. However, the reality is that they chose the Gospels which were most reliable by dating and origin. The only books accepted in the New Testament were those written before 100AD.

How are the four Gospels "far from satisfactory"?

They are far from satisfactory because they are not the direct words of Christ. They are a flawed chronicle, and we have no evidence to suggest otherwise. At least Muslims (Rather scarily) believe that the Koran is the direct word of God spoken from heaven. At least they have that level of self assurance, Christianity cannot claim the same.

This is the issue. What reasoning do you have for this? This is mere assumption and nothing more.

How is it an assumption? Do you deny that the Gospels were written by mere mortals and hence open to the flaws that the rest of mankind are guilty of? Nobody takes even the classics of antiquity literally, not when it comes to numbers or speechs at any rate. Why should the Gospels be considered any different? 'Journalism' as a concept simply didn't exist at this time. I'm hardly alone in thinking this.

It appears more that you do not want to believe as you think it insults your intelligence.

?

And here I thought we were having a pleasant conversation. Oh well.