PaulS

Welcome Joseph, I hope you enjoy participating here and that the forum is a useful tool for you on your journey. Cheers Paul

Thormas, I slowly found out as an adult that there were people who called themselves Christians that didn't take the bible as literally as the denomination that I grew up in - I was gobsmacked that they existed! They certainly weren't in the saved category and "they will find out one day" my Mother would say! I think Christianity may well have been a blessing if I had experienced a different version of it and certainly there is a 'softening' going on, however I do still think it is probably more the norm than not for Christians to believe in a judging God prepared to sentence some of his flock to eternal damnation. I understand how somebody from your background could be a little ruffled by that comment in light of such teaching not being your common experience - I am sorry if I offended. To be fair, I have been away from any proper christian scene for a good 25-30 years, so I hope your experience is becoming the norm. We do know a lot more about the bible today, however much biblical scholarship was known hundreds of years ago, yet not well known or made public. Certainly governments and churches have done their bit to keep the people in ignorance to a large degree, perhaps thinking that it was in the people's 'simple' best interests. However they don't call our time the 'Information Age' for nothing and our moden communications and access to the internet is seeing the lid blown off a lot of traditionally held understandings. Concerning your 'weighting' for considering Jesus' existence, I think the historical evidence is slim at best. Sure, one can form an opinion that they think Jesus' existed, but just as easily the opposite view can be held because there simply isn't sufficient evidence to refute that latter view. But I think this argument could go on, and on, and on.... Not that it's very important, but I don't agree with you that historians can't regard a man who died and came alive again, as a historical event. If such an event did occur then people of that time and location would have been a part of that man's life, or second life if that's what it is. If there was hard evidence that this had occurred then they could very easily make a judgement on it. They could very easily judge that on Friday this man Paul died, but on Monday he was back at his job and having a drink after work with his friends. He later went on to buy a house, marry, have children, and his grandson now lives just there and can tell you what he was like. That would absolutely be a historical event. But I agree with you that it is also historical that people reacted and reported such an event - we just can't prove it historically occurred, today. Obviously neither of us need to lose too much sleep on this point though. In essence, what I was trying to say at the beginning of my posts is that we really don't know the Jesus of the NT. We can make assumptions and be convinced of what 'evidence' is available, but none of us can really know the man or what he was about. Of course that doesn't stop anyone from believing what they say they do about him and being as certain as the next person with a different opinion. That's why I remarked on Joseph's take on it - enjoy it for what it is and don't take it to heart if others don't agree. After all you may be wrong.

Thormas, I am pleased eternal damnation is 'old time religion' for you and I agree that for many, Christianity is much more nuanced. But obviously I think those people are a minority within Christianity. Perhaps I am wrong. But with recent Gallup polling indicating that about 30% of the American population take the bible as the 'literal word of God', I am not encouraged by your opinion of it being a dated view for most. Further, whilst I am not sure about Vat II in the 60's, the current Pope was recorded in an interview in 2014 saying that hell for the unsaved meant obliteration of the soul and not eternal damnation. This seemed to send shockwaves through the Catholic community, so I suspect that this has not been the official position before. Perhaps a lesser evil than eternal damnation and suffering, but still the threat that if you're not with the program, you won't be living in eternity with your loved ones. Catholicism is by far the largest denomination within Christianity (~1.2 billion - roughly half of Christianity, and about 3/4 of US Christians). I don't mind that you don't agree, but I don't really have time to chase up statistics to prove my point to you. If I am wrong and it is not strictly a majority, then I will accept that it is a very high percentage and it certainly has been the position for the majority up until recent developments in maybe the last 50 or so years. Some ancient church fathers may have promoted universalism, but I think by and large the main message from Christianity for the past 1500 or so years has been turn or burn. I think there has been a 'softening' of that stance in recent decades because as a society we have developed and realised the lack of compassion that would have to exist for such an abomination to be part of the plan from an all-loving God. Where I stand on the historical Jesus (I have also read Bart's book) - I think that he most likely existed as a real person in some way, shape or form, but I don't think we can rely on the bible or any other so called 'evidence' to prove this beyond all reasonable doubt. At best I would say that on the balance of probabilities a person named Jesus, who stirred some passion amongst people 2000 years ago in rural Palestine, is likely. Would I bet my life on it - no. Personally, I don't think there is enough to support the Jesus-myth point of view either. Concerning Jesus teachings, I think that some of what is in the NT may have some substance from Jesus' original teachings/point of view, but again I wouldn't stake anything serious on it and I wouldn't be certain in any way exactly what Jesus was trying to say. But like Joseph wrote above, if the message speaks to somebody personally and offers them comfort/support/encouragement in life - all power to them. I'm not sure what you mean by disregarding the resurrection of Jesus as not a historical event as many Christians do believe that there was a physical resurrection of Jesus which put him back into the world as a walking, talking person. Thus I think many would regard it as historical. Again, not everybody does, but many do. I know I'm not going to burn - I don't share my family's religous beliefs. But there was harm done to me and many others when indoctrinating young children with this message and I hate that such continues on in the world today. Even if such people are well intended promoting their misguided beliefs, the harm is being done. I've unraveled that mess for me as an adult, but I know many haven't and a cursory search will show us how many people commit suicide because of this teaching. That's why I wish Christianity by and large was taken much more lightly. I think the world would be a better place. Cheers Paul

Without a shred of doubt, the strongest line of thought in Christianity is that if one does not believe Jesus was THE Son of God who came to earth to die for our sins, then that person deserves to be separated from God for all of eternity, which usually entails pain and suffering, weeping and gnashing of teeth, for ever, and ever, and ever. I see this as probably one of the most harmful lines of thought to ever enter our human consciousness. One other major religion shares a similar thought - unsurprisingly I guess, a religion sprouted from a similar time and culture and which shares the same God. Unfortunately it is a line of thought not only reserved for wingnuts, but by and large the bulk of the population of Christianity. It is a line of thought which I hope is wiped from humanity sooner rather than later for all the harm that it causes people. Thormas, as you rightly point out there is not enough time or space to review the question of Jesus existence, so I'll let that be other than to note that we don't agree. I certainly agree that Christianity is not the faith of a historical Jesus, although perhaps there are parts of it that do link to Jesus himself. Who really knows? Are people going to burn for eternity for not believing so - of course not, but don't ask my family that! For me what it boils down to is that people can practice/believe whatever gets them through life and I'm good with that, but I don't like to see others hurt as a result.

Too true Joseph. There is minuscule/no evidence to prove Jesus' existence or even if he did exist, who he really was or what he did/said. I am sure so much has been lost, changed, mistranslated, interfered with and discarded since any actual life. However, if what it purported as his teachings work for you/us/others personally, well if they cause no harm to another, then I reckon it' all good. As we know, it so often becomes about people telling others what they have to do, have to believe, where they will go if they don't follow suit, etc. That's the harm that comes from Christianity in my opinion. I wish all Christians approached Christianity like you do, for the sake of our species.

Let's just hope people are still smiling then in 4 years time, for everybody's sake.

And like all myths, the reality is often far from the truth I would suggest. Samson for instance is a glorified view - a heroic story to inspire. The reality is that people are usually a lot less than the myth portrays. As for 'destroying' the political establishment, time will tell but I wouldn't be expecting much different in the long term.

What do you make of the apparent conflicting texts such as 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. Some say Paul was the author and other scholars would say not. If not Paul, what do you think about the contradictions in the NT concerning whether women should be leaders or not?

Job does both - i.e. Job questions knowing God and also who we may be to question God, but that's mainly phrased around who are we to question God because we cannot know him. But of course the author is entitled to their opinion, and they obviously seem to provide one. I tend to agree with you concerning Job's 'morality tale' and the author's views concerning God in that I am not crazy for it either. At best, to me, the story tells us that bad stuff happens but that that's just the way it is. It happens to the good, the bad, and maybe even the ugly. To think that somehow God is pulling the strings, but to back that up by only saying we can't ever understand why God does these things, doesn't offer me very much at all. Of course the other side of Job seems to be suggesting that one would be rewarded by having faith in God, so there does seem to be a bit of a bias there rather than a completely open and questioning view.

That is roughly what I am trying to say Tariki - the author/s of Job try to say "we can't know God" but then proceed to give a picture of God's qualities and behaviors as though they do know. If one can't know, one can't know, however I suspect that from an apologetics point of view some may say we 'can know' some things about God and so they may accept what they want out of Job as true of God. I am sure that it is more than coincidental too that the Job story finishes with Job being rewarded over and over for having faith in God, whereas his mates Eliphaz & Temanite have the 'wrath of God' kindled against them for not speaking what is right of God!

I have no issue with the primary take away from Job that bad s#%t happens to good people, but I do not agree with connecting it to some sort of God who is present and taking some sort of notice. I consider myself a reasonable person but am not convinced that a 'God' plays any part in our lives. Indeed, a minority of the earth's population have been persuaded by Job, but times are changing. I don't find 'fault' in Job but regard it as somebody's view of God that I don't agree with.

I have read Job. What I am saying is that the story of Job is somebody's opinion and thoughts. I understand that it is fiction but I don't at all agree that it is also true. But whatever the case, what I meant by the comment is that if the Book of Job makes it clear that we will never think of God correctly, then what confidence from the Book of Job can we have that the author of Job was thinking of God correctly.

Welcome Vicar1#. Thanks for the intro. There are a wide variety of Christians, seekers, atheists, agnostics and humanists here, so it may feel a little like your Sunday morning meeting! I hope you enjoy the forum and participating here. Cheers Paul

Perhaps Job wasn't thinking correctly either when he wrote that! My point being, if we are always going to be wrong about how we think of God, then so were the authors of the various books of the bible. Men writing opinion pieces (even if with the best of intentions) which today are revered by many as the 'correct' word of God, not to be challenged, questioned, or of course disregarded.

So it would seem that apart from Joshua taking Jericho, all of the other wars the Israelites of the day initiated, supposedly as instructed by God, were not Holy Wars, but God did approve of them taking sex slaves, booty and committing mass atrocities and genocide. Actually, the whole trip down the road about Holy War seems a bit of a furphy then really if it only pertains to one particular battle of the many referred to in the bible. So we are still left with mass atrocities and violence, supposedly ordered by and/or approved by God, where taking booty was approved. That I can understand from an ancient Israelite's point of view and culture, but I cannot possibly fathom how modern minds would even consider these actions fair and reasonable. Theirs was a primitive, war-mongering mindset which thankfully began to alleviate when Rome dominated (but naturally there were negatives associated with that too).

I found the first few responses most interesting. The article itself certainly has a bias and an apologetics tone, which the comments are quick to identify and address more accurately, in my opinion.

Welcome to the forum guys. I hope you enjoy participating here.

I must be missing something. You reference Numbers 21 concerning holy war but in that chapter when they defeat the Amorites, the Israelites then occupied their cities and took their daughters as captives. Is that not taking spoils? That seems to contradict what you were saying about holy wars not taking spoils? I am confused.

Lovely, Tariki.

Happy to research Burl, I guess I was just hoping for a quick answer to your assertion that when the Israelites took spoils, then it wasn't a holy war. I have looked and I simply don't see where that is supported biblically. I just thought you might be able to explain where your support came from for determining that if booty is allowed, it is not Holy War in the biblical sense. It's the biblical sense bit that I don't see.

Presently lacking any understanding of how biblical scholarship has determined the difference between holy wars and non-holy wars (when both are attributed in the bible as instruction from God), it seems to me that the Israelites, like most other peoples in that region in those days, were just as much into their warfare and raping and pillaging as anybody else. In the Israelites case they attributed their conquests and defeats to their relationship with their God, as I imagine the other tribes of people did as well tot heir respective God/s. It seems it took the heathen Romans to initiate peace on earth. I am sure the Israelites were convinced they had good reason to destroy other peoples and perhaps regarded all of their wars as holy. After all, God was telling them to commit genocide, infanticide, and implement a scorched earth policy.

I understand that it is jargon, but I was curious about the scholarship that determined the difference between when a war was a holy war and when it was not, as described in the bible. You said that If booty is allowed, it is not Holy War in the biblical sense. So I was asking what scholarship that assumption came from because the bible seems to offer very little by way of explanation about the differences in war and they seemed to quite often seize booty (both of the material and of the feminine kind) when it suited them but wrote that such was God's instruction. So I am interested in the scholarship that explains how the bible differentiates between holy war and non-holy war (as carried out by the Israelites). Whilst the statement was made that taking booty meant it was not a holy war, I don't understand what supports that assumption.

That does sound like a bit of a stretch on the behalf of the biblical scholars. Can you make some reference Burl - I haven't heard that thought process before (other than apologetics). I'd be interested in the scholarship.

It may have been considered necessary in it's day, but much of it has no relevance whatsoever today (unless perhaps you think children who tease should be torn alive by bears as that would be God's will?). 2 Kings 2:23-25 23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

The truth is certainly that there are a lot of violent and unjust behaviours attributed to God in the bible and the OT in particular. Whether these things actually occurred is open for debate but irrespective, the writings do demonstrate that the writer thought of many of these behaviours as acceptable of their God. I think the violent stories are representative of what some people back then thought was an okay thing for a God to do. And the unjust stuff - well some people then thought it was just from their point of view. I don't think for a minute that any God did those things, but that these writings are different men's interpretations of events or stories and they wrote with their own biases.