Christianity

[attofishpi]

There are parts believable and parts unbelievable in the Biblia Sacra and the "problem" is the former leads us to atheism while the latter is supposed to, inter alia, theism.

I think you got that the wrong way around.

- Neo

[Agent Smith]

There are parts believable and parts unbelievable in the Biblia Sacra and the "problem" is the former leads us to atheism while the latter is supposed to, inter alia, theism.

I think you got that the wrong way around.

- Neo

Explain ... please.

[attofishpi]

There are parts believable and parts unbelievable in the Biblia Sacra and the "problem" is the former leads us to atheism while the latter is supposed to, inter alia, theism.

I think you got that the wrong way around.

- Neo

Explain ... please.

Well the former = parts believable (which you are stating leads to atheism) and the latter = unbelievable (Biblia Sacra which as you allude leads to theism)

Surely something believable in the Bible would lead to theism and the unbelievable would lead to atheism?

..or is my brain farting at me?

[Agent Smith]

I think you got that the wrong way around.

- Neo

Explain ... please.

Well the former = parts believable (which you are stating leads to atheism) and the latter = unbelievable (Biblia Sacra which as you allude leads to theism)

Surely something believable in the Bible would lead to theism and the unbelievable would lead to atheism?

..or is my brain farting at me?

Interesting take you have there. So that Jesus had supporters & detractors (credible) implies that God exists? That he rose from the dead (incredible) means God is fiction?

Hmmmm. There's a lot of unpacking to do there, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

[attofishpi]

Explain ... please.

Well the former = parts believable (which you are stating leads to atheism) and the latter = unbelievable (Biblia Sacra which as you allude leads to theism)

Surely something believable in the Bible would lead to theism and the unbelievable would lead to atheism?

..or is my brain farting at me?

Interesting take you have there. So that Jesus had supporters & detractors (credible) implies that God exists? That he rose from the dead (incredible) means God is fiction?

Hmmmm. There's a lot of unpacking to do there, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

Hmmm..non sequitur right up there. I have no idea wot u r talking about.

[Agent Smith]

Where's the non sequitur?

[attofishpi]

Where's the non sequitur?

It does not follow from my statement how you could possibly infer the bollocks you replied with.

[Agent Smith]

I see. What follows then, from what you said?

[attofishpi]

Can somebody explain the rather simple point I was making to this virtual muppet.

Seriously cbf.

[Agent Smith]

I would prefer the explanation to come from you.

[attofishpi]

I would prefer the explanation to come from you.

I don't see how I can make it any more simple:

There are parts believable and parts unbelievable in the Biblia Sacra and the "problem" is the former leads us to atheism while the latter is supposed to, inter alia, theism.

You are stating that the believable parts of the bible leads to atheism and that the unbelievable parts lead to theism.
Surely the believable parts would lead people to BELIEVE - thus THEISM and the unbelievable parts would lead people to DOUBT - thus ATHEISM.

Here, I will write what surely you must have intended:-
There are parts believable and parts unbelievable in the Biblia Sacra and the "problem" is the former leads us to theism while the latter is supposed to, inter alia, atheism.

Comprehende?

[Agent Smith]

Excellent reasoning! Comprehende señor/señorita! Muchas gracias.

Just curious and if I may be so bold as to inquire, which parts of The Good Book do you find plausible and which parts are implausible to you?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can claims Jesus actually said

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6, emphasis mine)

I don't know The Bible very well. However I imagine the above may have been said by Jesus in a context that makes it a reasonable claim. For instance in Palestine at the time of Jesus the latter may have been pretty nearly the only credible representative of the Prophetic tradition. It seems the synagogue was in trouble from Jews who thought the way was via worldly power and keeping in with the Roman regime.

Really it takes a Biblical scholar and historian to estimate which of the sayings of Jesus actually were said by Jesus and were not later insertions.

The Johannine Gospel is (according to those who study it *critically*) the least likely to contain actual statements said by the figure Jesus. The Gospel of John is moreover an interpretive theological document in itself. They contend that the statements that the man Jesus likely did make were shorter, pithy statements, often with ironic twists, that would have been part of the sermons he gave. [An LA Times article].

An example of that ironic pithiness would be:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
[Matthew 10:16]

From the article:

Funk [Robert Funk, a New Testament scholar] contended that most mainline scholars would agree with the Jesus Seminar that in the parallel Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, plus the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, “Jesus speaks regularly in adages or aphorisms, or in parables, or in witticisms created as rebuff or retort in the context of dialogue or debate. It is clear he did not speak in long monologues of the type found in the Gospel of John.”

“Most scholars, if they had worked through the sayings as we had, would tend to agree there is virtually nothing in the fourth Gospel (John) that goes back to Jesus,” said Robert Fortna of Vassar College. Jesus says in John “I am the good shepherd ... I am the light of the world ... I am the bread of life,” but that “is mostly the work of the author,” Fortna said. Jesus rarely refers to himself in the other Gospels.

The Jesus Seminar, a six-year project based in Sonoma to assess the historical authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus, concluded that about half were words put into his mouth by Gospel authors and early believers in reflection of their own hopes and fears. Among the sayings rejected were the following:

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”

John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”

Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

Very good, Alexis Jacobi.I agree with all the above. Do you? Do you see that if you agree with all the above that you quoted you can have a faith that is reasonable and acceptable to post-Enlightenment people, including self-styled atheists?

[attofishpi]

Excellent reasoning! Comprehende señor/señorita! Muchas gracias.

Just curious and if I may be so bold as to inquire, which parts of The Good Book do you find plausible and which parts are implausible to you?

That's a HUGE question - the bible is rather large, and I haven't bothered reading it all...and I don't buy_bull - GOD clearly wants us intelligent minds to question the bible.

I consider myself a Christian Pantheist\Panentheist..and I have gnosis of God's existence.

As per:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

As I have recently stated in another thread, such things as the turning of water to wine classed as "miracle" I have witnessed far more than that since 1997...I simply consider whether the wine was a shiraz\cab sav\merlot..etc.. - no shadow of a doubt of the sub-atomic power this entity has over what we perceive as reality.

I don't believe nonsense such things as Genesis 3 - speaking with words to form light etc..indeed the cosmos - straight at the outset, God is insisting we QUEST_ION the entire book.
I believe God is a result of the universe rather than it's creation, but that it formed its intelligence from the chaos of the early universe and then formed a reality that we currently have where we can eat shit and breathe...and be conscious of the fact. Adam & Eve - is a metaphor and the Tree of Life\Know_Ledge are v important considerations when dealing with the Tests under the duress of the "wrath" of God.

I have no doubt that Christ did what he did, the reason...to insist on faith and respect where love is concerned.

God is NOT anti LGBT---> woteva as IT and a sage have made very clear to me.

Hope that answers your question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Very good, Alexis Jacobi.I agree with all the above. Do you? Do you see that if you agree with all the above that you quoted you can have a faith that is reasonable and acceptable to post-Enlightenment people, including self-styled atheists?

Of course I recognize that one can choose to align oneself with Christian ethical ideas and admonitions while being, perhaps, incapable or doubtful of all the wildest mystic and magic beliefs of traditional or historical Christian faith. The mystical and the magical drop away as unnecessary and then one is left in an immediate present having to make reasoned choices.