People all sorts of faiths die for what they believe.  Obviously some of them are wrong.  Sorry, but this is completely faulty logic.

no, not kidding. I understand what you are trying to say. It does mention Joseph in both genelogies. But look at Luke once again. It mentions only the male names all the way from Joseph to Adam. It does not mention the mother of any of them. All of them are sons of the father in that lineage.

But as we know, they all had mothers and they are still of the lineage. Women get much more respect in today's culture, which does mean that when women aren't afforded equal credit as they do today, we need to consider the context.

Which is exactly why drawing the lineage to Mary is doubly ridiculous.  In that time, Mary's value would have been considered much less.

Really, the genealogies are just propaganda, designed to show that Jesus had a lineage from David, allowing him to be a messiah.  That's the real reason why Mary wasn't included, she couldn't prove inheritance of royalty.

Actually if women have less value then men during that time frame and yet they write events where some take important roles, such as seeing Jesus first after his resurrection, that shows a greater reason that they wrote the events as they occurred.

If they wanted to make it more believable they could have done things like say men were the witnesses in that culture, since women taking on important roles such as being witnesses, they would have been discounted just by being women.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:03, Fri 17 Jan 2014.

GMC, I think you're off base. I mean, it seems reasonable that the lineage is propaganda added after the fact to justify the prophecy, but that assumes the Bible is specifically wrong. It's no more valid a view that TitL assuming the Bible is true. And since Joseph was one of the most common names of that period, we really can't use that as proof that the lineages are contradictory.




Absolutely. But nor is Luke likely written by the Apostle Luke, or Matthew by Matthew, etc.



Or was part of that early Church community. I'm a bit surprised you'll point out Matthew references parts of Luke, but that's gospel, however if Thomas references parts of Luke, clearly Thomas is wrong.

The Wikipedia article on this does have a nice overview of the historicity. There's quite the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

Most people seem to agree that parts of it are dated as early as 30-40 AD, with more bits getting added later, much like John.

Strobel seems to come up with a few arguments:
1) Thomas quotes other books in the Bible. He doesn't list what are quotes, but he implies they're one-line quotes (as opposed to Matthew, which lifts entire sections from Luke).

I don't see how this is damning. Just like Matthew and Luke got information from the same source, so is Thomas getting information from the same source. There is evidence that Thomas was added on to over time (again, like John), but there is plenty of evidence that the core gospel was written earlier. I'd be happy to go into this if you'd like, but the quickest way is to go back to the people smarter than both of us in that Wikipedia article.

2) Thomas seems to be more closely related to the Syrian translation than the Hebrew, and it reads better in Syrian because of memory catches.

I'm a little bothered you're tossing this as evidence. I have BOOKS of stuff showing how X, Y, and Z from the Bible is clearly very similar to, so copied from A, B, C earlier source. But I know if I put it down, you'd dismiss it as firstly, not being concrete, and secondly, being coincidental or part of God's plan, or whatnot (depending on the particular situation). It's a case of, if you already believe X, this supports you, and if you don't believe X, it's irrelevant.

So no, the fact that it looks a lot like another later translation? Turn that around and imagine if I said that about Exodus (because I can) and tell me that you would accept that as evidence. It's circumstantial at best.


Regardless, what I come back to is, experts, who are paid to figure this out, including ones who have nothing to gain by proving it one way or the other (note that if Strobel admitted Thomas was written 40 AD, that would be truly destructive for the Church, or at least his book sales. If Professor Smith of Northwest University admits it, it's no big deal) agree it's in that 40-140 range (I'm sorry, I can't accept Strobel's second claim any more than you could accept that on Exodus). That puts it right in line with the other Gospels.

As a note for future reference, if you want to post a convincing authority, please post ones who don't have obvious bias. I don't believe Philips-Morris doctors when they talk about the health benefits of smoking. I'm going to have a lot of trouble accepting a published, Christian author and pastor (not professor) facing limited or no peer-review on the authenticity of items in the bible.




It's perfectly reasonable. But it's not proven as concrete, and there are competing stories and theories. Hence, the historical view, for me, just isn't enough.



Like Duolos pointed out, a lot of people have died for their faith. Should I follow the faith with the most martyrs? I'm not convinced Christianity would win in that race.




That's interesting, because I would, if I thought it served a greater purpose.





This isn't a position I'd considered before. I'm not really convinced by it. Firstly, it assumes Matthew was written by Matthew, etc., which I don't believe to be true. Your specific example focuses on Acts, which isn't in dispute. And I'm pretty sure I can find known myths which go between real places and events, and feature weaknesses in the narrator. But that's all knee-jerk response. Like I said, I hadn't really looked for that before (especially the second and third point). As I study, I'll need to watch for that more carefully.




I'm going to avoid going into this, because it will absolutely dominate the thread. I believe we do have a thread about how factual the Bible is, which I followed, and I remain unconvinced. There are factual errors in the Bible, and there are books and books written about them all.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:05, Fri 17 Jan 2014.

This one is a quick response.

To be clear, we have evidence that the gospel of Thomas was not from Thomas, but you're just saying that Luke, Matthew or Mark may not be from the disciples.

That is not equal in validity. That suggests that the 4 gospels are still written closer to the time of Jesus' actual death than the gospel of Thomas, and therefore, that is a valid reason why they were included in the bible, while gospel of Thomas was not.

Not necessarily.  It could be an extended metaphor for Jesus's ties to royalty.  Nevertheless, the fact that the lineages are contradictory is proof that they're contradictory.  They completely diverge after David, IIRC.

It doesn't affect the metaphorical truths of Jesus's teaching, but it does kill any attempt at biblical literalness.  It's proof that the bible was selected for philosophical messages, and not historical accuracy.

I find this post humorous. Extremely so. If use of culture, and history is not a strong enough counterpoint to this discussion, that really only leaves it coming down to..

did not

did too

did not

did too

This is the equivalent of sticking fingers into your ears, and saying, 'I'm not listening!'

So my response is that is pretty humorous.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:02, Sun 19 Jan 2014.

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 149):

MODERATOR COMMENT:

Trust in the Lord, we require all users be respectful of other posters. Your comment (post #149) is disrespectful, and adds nothing to the conversation. If you disagree with another poster's reasoning, please post your reasoning explicitly.

Please change or remove the offending post.

Thank you.

Okay, that's very interesting to know.  It sort of sounds like you're more asking for "what benefit does this religion provide to my life" rather than "is it factually accurate."  (Note to TitL:  that seems to indicate that a change to approach might help your case here.  For you and I the big issue is whether it's true, but it sounds like for Katisara the big issue is whether it provides good moral guidance, and exploration of the human condition, etc.)
Out of curiosity, would you say you're more interested in guidance on what is and isn't good, or is it more that you're after advice on how to actually get yourself to do more of the stuff you view as good?


Cool, that's a good list of things to look for.  For the last of those, it seems like just "doing the Catholic thing" provides the social benefits you're after, even if you don't believe it, so you can just keep doing that.  But to get your other boxes ticked, it sounds like you'll need to look beyond that (and it sounds like you do so already).


Ah, yeah, I've always interpretted "suffering" in the broadest sense when Buddhism is talking about.  So anytime you're unhappy about something, you're "suffering."  Even if you know there's plenty of people who have much more to be unhappy about.  The key bit of insight for me wasn't about the magnitude of suffering, but rather the source.  So if you're unhappy because your cornflakes went all mushy in the milk, it's not the cornflakes that are actually making you unhappy, it's the fact that you want them to be not mushy.


Yeah, Francis seems to getting back to Jesus' fundamental messages, which is nice to see.

To a degree, it's sounding less like you're asking "why should I believe christianity" and more that you're asking "how can I get the charge out of it I think others get from it, and that others get from other religions?"  One thing I would ask on that, is to what degree you view these benefits as continual, or something you can sort of "use up"?  Do you expect to keep getting new mind-openning insights forever from a religion, or do you expect there to be some finite amount of mind-expanding one can offer, and that perhaps you get diminishing returns from it over time?  Put another way, you can learn more than the golden rule, but you can only really learn the golden rule once.  Would it perhaps be reasonable to expect that any given religion would offer occasional profound insights, rather than a guaranteed steady stream of them?  Is it possible that your frustrating comes from, in part, having got catholocism down to a large part, and you're not getting much new insight out of it, since you've heard the main points plenty of times by now?

Still have a head cold, but at least I'm starting to feel human again :)



I think everyone looks for a benefit from religion. No one says "if I believe this, I will be a terrible person, everyone will hate me, and I will suffer eternal torment. Sounds like a deal!"

I see religion as offering a few things;

- Spiritual or psychological truth. It has motifs and images that talk to us as humans, and tell us more about ourselves.

- Tools for better living. Buddhism's understanding of suffering, Jewish/Christian rules on good behavior, etc.

- Promise of rewards. Usually it's after you die, as heaven.

- Factual truth. This is a broad lump. How many days it took to make the earth. Whether Jesus was an actual person who did miracles. Etc.


Factual Truth
Factual truth is a pretty compelling argument for belief. If God really is there and that's testable, I think that would convince just about everyone. Some Abrahamic denominations, especially fundamental Christianity and Islam, have really hitched their carts to that. Talking with TitL, it seems pretty clear this is a major component in his faith.

My issue here is that if this is a fundamental cause of your belief, then your belief is only as secure as evidence for its factual truth. Unfortunately, most of the non-biased evidence for Christianity being based on factual truth is, at best, ambiguous, at worst, frequently proven wrong. So it doesn't do much to PROVE Christianity (if anything, the opposite). And since I don't go to religion for advice on scientific matters, offering answers to factual questions that haven't been proven to be in agreement doesn't help much.


Spiritual/Psychological Truth
I love learning things. I think most people here do. This is my major draw to learning about religions. I love hearing people talk about their beliefs, because there's almost always a gem there. I need to draw dybbuk into saying more because his one post here was fascinating.

So this is a major draw for researching religions, pulling them apart, understanding them. Many times these tools, when applied, teach you even more. So of course, still a huge draw.

For them to be effective, they still need to be truth. They just don't need to be factual. Those that have the most, will have the most draw for me.


Better Living

This is a big category, but 90% of this stuff does not require you be especially religious. I can follow the ten commandments without being Jewish, I can practice meditation without being Buddhist, etc.

I think having faith in something bigger than yourself does confer some benefits which I do need; a humility and a strength. They don't need to be religious, necessarily. People have died for freedom, for the well-being of others, etc., but high-level moral concepts like that are a bit harder to tie yourself to than a belief in God and an afterlife.

This also something for my kids. My kids don't have the mental tools for those high-level concepts. I need a way to still to help them develop those tools.



Promises of Rewards
Promising good is just a games theory question. A hundred religions promise good things to adherents. You can't follow them all. If the promises can't be shown to be true (i.e., it only happens when you're dead, or after the end of the world), it's more likely false than true. So I can't go picking based on that.




I don't think it's a question of what is and isn't good so much as the human condition. Absolutely, that has the most draw for me personally. I think I have a pretty strong moral compass, and I do volunteer a fair bit. It's the deeper gnosis I'm always short on.



It's true, although the two hours a week cost doesn't really justify the social rewards (if we're looking only at that metric).




I think that's true. The really inspired believers seem to have a certainty that I'd like to have.

Can they be used up? I have no idea. Every time I crack Jung, I remember something I've forgotten. But a weekly reading would probably eliminate that problem :P But ongoing (or at least frequent) insight would really be ideal.


In the case of Catholicism specifically (and most of Christianity, really), it has too many priests and not enough prophets. I'm a power-gamer and an analyst, I can appreciate having priests who codify the rules and practice them as written. But Catholic inspiration seems to be a very rare nugget.

There is one point that I don't think was made:

Religion involves an exchange of promises.  By joining a religion, you exchange promises to do (or not to do) certain things.  We call these "covenants."  In return, God makes promises to you.  Some of these promises are considered by the religion to be essential to salvation ("saving ordinances").

For example, in Christianity baptism is typically considered a "saving ordinance," meaning it is essential to receive the promises of salvation.  It is an exchange of promises by the baptized person to follow Christ for a promise from God to give you the benefit of Christ's atonement (forgiveness of sins).  Otherwise, the person, no matter how good on earth, will still be stuck in sins (since no one is perfect) and will be subject to the laws of justice, not the laws of mercy and grace provided by Christ.

Katisara, I was right with you for most of your post, thinking all of it seemed very reasonable.  I was about half way through, when I started wondering "okay, all this seems very sound, but what is it he feel's he's missing?  It sounds to me like he is working at the things he wants to work at, and has good ideas about what he cares about in a religion.  So what is it he feels he needs to change?"

Then I got to this bit:



And that sort of answered my question, but not in the best way (in my opinion).  We all want more certainty about things, but I think that desire for certainty is one of the things that leads us to make some of our biggest mistakes.  Doubt is uncomfortable, but like pain, it serves a crucial purpose.  We've all probably wished at one point or another that we could feel no pain.  But a few very unfortunate people have rare diseases that actually make them feel no pain, and their lives are really, really dangerous!  It's really hard for them to react appropriately to injuries, and even to avoid getting injured.  Doubt is sort of similar, I'd argue.  We need it to recover from our mistakes.  Without it, we can't correct ourselves when we've made the wrong call about something.  We get stuck with what we've decided, and nothing can convince us we were wrong, because we're "certain!"  Being certain doesn't mean you're more likely to be right; it just means you're less likely to change your views if you're wrong.

It might be the years I spent in science/academy in my previous career, but these days I tend to have a gut-level reaction to people who display "certainty," which is to instantly distrust them.  In my experience, people who have the deepest understanding of a subject tend to be the ones who are most willing to admit the limits of their knowledge, and are a lot more likely to say things like "as far as we can tell...," or "in other cases we've looked at we've seen...," or "We can say this with 95% confidence...," etc.  On the other hand, people with very shallow understanding usually talk about absolutes and certainties.  They tend to have "no doubt what-so-ever," and the like.

My personal view is that questioning ones beliefs is a crucial part of the human experience.  Realizing that we may be wrong is a big insight that our brains are sort of wired to avoid.  We all know that we have been wrong in the past, but we almost never think its possible that we're currently wrong right now.  All too often the fear of admitting that we're wrong is stronger than desire to correct our views to what is right.  And that's not a good thing!  We're not perfect.  Our views should evolve with time, because we learn more, we gather new evidence.  It's inevitable that we'll uncover things we've been wrong about.  As long as we can adjust and update our views with the new data, we're making progress, and we shouldn't feel bad about changing our minds.  Certainty makes that much more difficult, or even impossible.

So my view is that certainty isn't something to envy in others.  There are people of all religions who are absolutely certain their religion is right and everyone else is wrong.  But they can't all be right.  So quite a few people who feel so certain are actually wrong.  All their certainty actually buys them is that they're less likely to realize that they're wrong.  A bit of doubt isn't only reasonable in almost all cases, it's actually a good thing that lets us correct past mistakes.

Actually, that is not required for salvation according to the bible. Being baptized is an ordinance, as in if a Christian, you should be baptized, but it is not for your salvation.

Jesus dying on the cross is for your salvation.

Heath is right though. I wouldn't just say 'making promises', but make it broader; to it being a relationship.

I think there's a few points where I felt like I had a relationship with God, but on the average, not really, and lately not at all. Which is odd, because I feel more at peace with just about everything else. It's like I'm in sync with the Tao, but not with the God. And given previous behavior on God's part, I may be okay with that.

I think the vast majority of Christians (and certainly Catholics and Mormons) would not agree with you, given that Jesus said baptism was essential, which is why even he needed to be baptized by John the Baptist.  Granted, certain Protestant sects have broken off from that and made a new interpretation that baptism is not necessary, but that's irrelevant to my analogy.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, my statement of one of the reasons a religion might be necessary still stands.  For example, you might say that "faith in Jesus" results in the "exchange of promises," and my point still stands.

----
I don't want to get into a specific debate on this topic, but since you make a claim that baptism is not necessary for salvation according to the bible, here are scriptural references that state otherwise:

"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38)

The most straightforward is in John: John 3:5 records Jesus saying, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."


Acts 8:15-17:

[15] Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
[16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
[17] Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:6-9 indicates that the Holy Ghost is essential to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Hebrews 6:1-2:
[1] Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
[2] Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Mark 16:16 reads, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Acts 2:38 reads, "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Acts 22:16 reads, "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Galatians 3:27 reads, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

1 Peter 3:21 reads, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

I think this is fairly clear.  On the other hand, I'm not aware of a scripture that says clearly "baptism is not required; don't worry about it."
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:50, Fri 24 Jan 2014.

I agree that is also important, but I think that is a separate point.  My point is that there are actual requirements prescribed that must be followed to get the exchange of promises going.  Baptism is one.

The LDS beliefs are probably a little more clear cut on this point, in that there are certain promises for agreeing to enter into certain covenants.  For example, by covenanting to follow Christ and receiving baptism, you accept the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (for resurrection) and the atonement at Gethsemane (for forgiveness of sins).  By entering into an eternal marriage covenant, you receive promises to be able to live with your spouse for eternity, not just "for life."  There is another promise for tithing, another for following other commandments, etc.  The key in the LDS church is that the ordinances must be performed with one who carries the proper priesthood authority, which a person cannot bestow upon himself.  The authority binds the ordinance (covenant, exchange of promises) just as though God were standing there binding it.

Of course, if you break your promise, the deal is off unless you sincerely repent, but that's the basic gist of it.

Interesting that you would think that Heath, as pretty much all of evangelical Christianity would firmly disagree that baptism is essential for salvation.

Again, "Evangelical Christianity" is an offshoot of Protestant religions and is not the majority of Christians in the world.  If anything, that prize belongs to the Catholic Church, which does believe that baptism is an essential 'saving ordinance' and has the longest track record on earth of having that interpretation of the Bible.

The number of people who would associate themselves as evangelical is 250-400 million in the world depending on who you ask.

That's a lot of people that would completely agree with Trust In The Lord.

It's a rather large 'offshoot'.  That doesn't mean it's true or false (baptism needed for salvation) but that the belief (baptism is NOT needed for salvation) is far more than a fringe belief in Christianity - it's a core and central tenant for millions upon millions of followers within the faith.

Compare that with 1.2 BILLION Catholics currently, plus the billions in the past 2 millenia, and they far outnumber the CURRENT Evangelical numbers.  I was only pointing out a "majority," not stating an absolute rule, so our argument is pointless.

In fact, my original point still stands even with Evangelicals, so we are dithering about nothing.

(As an aside, as noted by Paul, the early Christian churches (as well as the LDS church currently) believe that baptism through proxy (baptism for the dead) is the way that all people, even those who have passed, can receive baptism, even if they could not receive it in this lifetime.  The Catholic belief in these issues became somewhat complicated, and orthodox Christianity traditionally believed in the necessity of baptism -- Lutherans, etc.--though some have changed their interpretations over time.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:53, Fri 24 Jan 2014.

I'm merely pointing out that hundreds of millions of Christians would say that you are completely wrong about your blanket statement, that's all.  I was prepared to let is slide, but Trust in the Lord brought it up as well.

Anyways, moving along ;)

Maybe so, but BILLIONS of Christians would agree with me, so my statement about the "majority" of Christians was accurate, I believe.

Interestingly enough vast numbers of those same Evangelicals would not consider the billions of Catholics to even be Christians.  Funny thing I guess ;)

I would see making promises as a means, not an ends. We don't go around collecting promises like pokemon cards, we make promises because it's part of something greater (a promise of a better reward, a requirement put on us by someone we have a relationship with, etc.)

My dad got me baptized because it initializes me into a relationship with God, and washes away original sin.