[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[Blues Guitarist]

I'm not actually saying you have. I'm just saying that if you disagree with those things, then you are disagreeing with the mainstream. You may not disagree with it, and by the sounds of it if you are aware of Bart Ehrman you don't, but there are quite a few people on here who seem to.

Why did you say what you said? If I did disagree - prove it. If I didn’t, what are you wittering on about?
You accused me of being “off kilter”.

I await your apology.

 

[kuzushi]

Your only evidence for that, is that it is written in the Bible, which to me is an unreliable source, particularly on the finer detail.

There's also the fact Communion is present in all the main branches of Christianity: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopian Orthodox.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It would be interesting to know what the practice was with the St Thomas Christians of Kerala in the South of India:
According to tradition, Thomas the Apostle came to Muziris on the Kerala coast in AD 52 which is in present-day Pattanam, Kerala.
The Cochin Jews are known to have existed in Kerala in the 1st century AD, and it was possible for an Aramaic-speaking Jew, such as St. Thomas from Galilee, to make a trip to Kerala then.

Saint Thomas Christians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I know that many religious based organisations do good work, but that doesn’t mean that what they believe is true. I’m involved in two organisations delivering humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Neither has a religious base.

On the other hand, if churches sold their fancy buildings, treasures and art they could make a bigger contribution to helping those in need.

I am not saying that, just because Churches and religious based organisations do good work, it means that what they believe is true.
I worked for the Churches for 30 years for an organisation which was (and still is) about Social Justice, encouraging and supporting Churches and people to do what is right, valuing every person whoever they are and whatever they believe.
Incidentally, the Trade Union Movement and through that the Labour Party arguably have their roots in the Methodist Church. I have twice heard Tony Benn say as much from the stage at the Tolpuddle Festival, as five of the six Tolpuddle Martyrs were Methodists, three of them Local Preachers, and they would not have been able to read and writhe had it not been for the Methodist Church.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Fiction embellished by folklore
Very telling that no one thought to write at the time of an unknown number of wise men turning up at this incredibly important birth or leave archaeological evidence or contemporary writings of the Massacre of the Innocents

The wise men came from the east. They followed a rising star. Stars rise in the east. Put these together, and the wise men should go farther east. So the story that they travelled west to Bethlehem is fiction.

The massacre of the innocents (and the visit of Jesus’s family to Egypt) is further fiction, based around the idea of positioning Jesus as the new Moses. If you consider the two nativity stories side by side they makes no sense, either Matthew is wrong, or Luke us wrong or they are both wrong.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

There's also the fact Communion is present in all the main branches of Christianity:

That’s not a fact. Present what you believe, that’s fine, but don’t overplay your hand.

 

[chickens]

the Christian Churches that I am part of and the vast majority of Christians I know are very much about taking an active interest in improving the World we’re currently in. Have you heard of Christian Aid? CAFOD? Who are the first bodies to respond to major disasters worldwide? Many of them are Christian based…. Or their equivalents in other faiths. Who do you think, many years ago, founded the idea of food-banks in this country, and similar things like Basics Banks to answer other needs.

And I’m glad they do so, but the religion is an unnecessary accessory to good works, it is the community outreach that is required.

I have nothing but respect for anyone providing outreach in any form, but I’m afraid that far too many churches have sheltered and been complicit in abhorrent abuse, and their closed, opaque and insular power structures invite a certain type of person into them, where they often seem to remain for decades at a time.

Not to mention the branches of the church (more in the US than the U.K.) which are openly just tax avoiding grifts.

I applaud anyone of any (or no) religion that works to make lives better, but it’s their actions, not their religion, that makes them worthy of respect.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

What do you make of the arguments put forward by a prolific poster on this thread? I’ve got a lot of respect for how you’ve expressed your faith on threads like these over the years. Just interest how such an intransigent unerring factual approach to faith strikes you? (completely understand not wanting to get drawn into it)

Inspired by your question, I thought I’d better look through the thread a bit more thoroughly. I wish I hadn’t!
I think you probably know the answer, though, from your own post - intransigent, unerring, factual……..
I am well aware of the concept that for every instance something is stated firmly in the Bible, you will find something somewhere else which will contradict it - that’s a gross over-simplification. I’m all for lively debate, but not of the type which goes on in a thread like this. It is the intransigence and the certainty which gets me, whether it’s from nit-picking stuff about biblical stories (did the shepherds ever meet the angels…. Or whatever - does it matter?) or whether it’s from the “it’s all fairy stories” brigade. I prefer “live and let live”.
And I also have a genuine belief that the vast majority of people are decent, whatever they believe.

 

[kuzushi]

Why did you say what you said? If I did disagree - prove it. If I didn’t, what are you wittering on about?
You accused me of being “off kilter”.

I await your apology.

I didn't say that you did.
I meant if you or anyone does, then they are off kilter.
So I don't think I need to apologize for that.

OK, I see.
I've just looked back at what was posted.
You said this:

You keep talking about stuff that you believe as if it’s true. You have faith, but you don’t have evidence - or if you do, you have not presented it here.

I took that to mean that you disagreed with what I was saying, which is totally mainstream stuff that is generally accepted by most scholars, so I replied:

I have the same evidence as the majority of scholars who in the main concur with me on nearly all the points I'm presenting here: Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified, and had disciples who sincerely believe that he rose from the dead. You're the one who is off-kilter with the mainstream academic view of these things if you disagree with this.

Here's what I said: "You're the one who is off-kilter with the mainstream academic view of these things if you disagree with this."
I didn't accuse you of it, because I wasn't sure, but I said that IF you disagree then you are off-kilter.
Now that you are telling me that you agree with the points I was making, namely that Jesus existed, had disciples and was crucified, and his disciples then shortly afterwards began to proclaim his resurrection, I can see that you are not off-kilter.

 

[kuzushi]

Inspired by your question, I thought I’d better look through the thread a bit more thoroughly. I wish I hadn’t!
I think you probably know the answer, though, from your own post - intransigent, unerring, factual……..
I am well aware of the concept that for every instance something is stated firmly in the Bible, you will find something somewhere else which will contradict it - that’s a gross over-simplification. I’m all for lively debate, but not of the type which goes on in a thread like this. It is the intransigence and the certainty which gets me, whether it’s from nit-picking stuff about biblical stories (did the shepherds ever meet the angels…. Or whatever - does it matter?) or whether it’s from the “it’s all fairy stories” brigade. I prefer “live and let live”.
And I also have a genuine belief that the vast majority of people are decent, whatever they believe.

Hello there.
Regarding what you say here, I'd like to say that the only things I have been intransigent about are that Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified, and whose disciples proclaimed him to have risen from the dead. For some reason this has been met with all sorts of opposition. Can I assume that you agree with those points?
Other than that, the only other intransigent position I hold is that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Let me think, anything else? That salvation is through repentance and faith in the resurrection. I think that's it, unless I've missed something.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Oops, nothing to do with David, don’t know how to remove this quote :-(

I meant if you or anyone does, then they are off kilter.
So I don't think I need to apologize for that.

OK, I see.
I've just looked back at what was posted.
You said this:

I took that to mean that you disagreed with what I was saying, which is totally mainstream stuff that is generally accepted by most scholars, so I replied:

Here's what I said: "You're the one who is off-kilter with the mainstream academic view of these things if you disagree with this."
I didn't accuse you of it, because I wasn't sure, but I said that IF you disagree then you are off-kilter.
Now that you are telling me that you agree with the points I was making, namely that Jesus existed, had disciples and was crucified, and his disciples then shortly afterwards began to proclaim his resurrection, I can see that you are not off-kilter.

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your blanket claims. Your aggressive attitude is very un-Christian.
I have challenged you a few times on biblical stuff e.g. difference between gospels. You have never responded meaningfully.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Hello there.
Regarding what you say here, I'd like to say that the only things I have been intransigent about are that Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified, and whose disciples proclaimed him to have risen from the dead. For some reason this has been met with all sorts of opposition. Can I assume that you agree with those points?
Other than that, the only other intransigent position I hold is that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Let me think, anything else? That salvation is through repentance and faith in the resurrection. I think that's it, unless I've missed something.

Except that your view on salvation disagrees with both John the Baptist and Jesus.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Just out of interest in the formal training as a Local Preacher in the Methodist Church that I underwent over 25 years ago it was made very clear in at least two places that the “God made the world in 7 days ( or rather 6 days and had a rest on the 7th“) is clearly a story and not meant to be taken seriously.
there are clearly people - fundamentalists - who would believe the creation story, and fair enough. I and millions of others don’t. Darwin was right.
You would also find that there are plenty of differing opinions about many of the more contentious things in the Bible - Old and New Testament - including about the facts of the Resurrection and many other things.

Who decides what is supposed to be taken seriously?

 

[kuzushi]

Fiction embellished by folklore
Very telling that no one thought to write at the time of an unknown number of wise men turning up at this incredibly important birth or leave archaeological evidence or contemporary writings of the Massacre of the Innocents

My question was: Is it fiction that Jesus lived, had disciples, preached about the kingdom of God, predicted his own death by crucifixion, was crucified, and that his disciples then went out proclaiming that he had risen from the dead. Is all that accepted or rejected by the majority of scholars?

If you had said it is fact embellished by folklore, I'd be more inclined to think that you might have a point, but by saying you think it is fiction embellished by folklore, this pits you against nearly all the mainstream scholarship, as I understand @Blues Guitarist would agree.

 

[kuzushi]

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with your blanket claims. Your aggressive attitude is very un-Christian.
I have challenged you a few times on biblical stuff e.g. difference between gospels. You have never responded meaningfully.

I'm sorry if you find my attitude aggressive.
I didn't think I was being aggressive, but if that is how I've come across, I'm sorry.

 

[dangull]

I admire your belief systems and defending yourself against a non religous football forum
However, your views of dismissing the other religous faiths today is a bit arrogant in my view.
They may have believed their scriptures the same well as you.
You would have thought a god would have realised this as well, and not condemn them from maybe born somewhere else on this planet.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Inspired by your question, I thought I’d better look through the thread a bit more thoroughly. I wish I hadn’t!
I think you probably know the answer, though, from your own post - intransigent, unerring, factual……..
I am well aware of the concept that for every instance something is stated firmly in the Bible, you will find something somewhere else which will contradict it - that’s a gross over-simplification. I’m all for lively debate, but not of the type which goes on in a thread like this. It is the intransigence and the certainty which gets me, whether it’s from nit-picking stuff about biblical stories (did the shepherds ever meet the angels…. Or whatever - does it matter?) or whether it’s from the “it’s all fairy stories” brigade. I prefer “live and let live”.
And I also have a genuine belief that the vast majority of people are decent, whatever they believe.

I’ll address this as I have been nit-picking stuff about bible stories. The question I think you were referring to was actually whether the wise men had met the shepherds, not the angels. (Matthew vs Luke). They didn’t, but everyone thinks that they did.

You say ”does it matter?” Billions of people profess to living their lives the way they do because of what they believe the bible says. My point was, some of what some people believe has no foundation in the bible. Which I find to be a bit scary.

There are many other ways one can question the validity of religious belief, but in this thread I have tried hard to limit the evidence that I refer to as being from the bible.

 

[Baldseagull]

Hello there.
Regarding what you say here, I'd like to say that the only things I have been intransigent about are that Jesus was a real person who lived and was crucified, and whose disciples proclaimed him to have risen from the dead. For some reason this has been met with all sorts of opposition. Can I assume that you agree with those points?
Other than that, the only other intransigent position I hold is that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Let me think, anything else? That salvation is through repentance and faith in the resurrection. I think that's it, unless I've missed something.

There have been a few other things, but mostly it has been claiming that because it says so in the Bible, and people with a faith similar to yours have had similar dreams, you have good evidence for your beliefs. And Statements like "most people agree that Jesus is the way" or something similar, are just patently untrue.
It is not your beliefs that bother me, it is your attempts to make them logical and reasonable that I find a little offensive to logic and reason.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

My question was: Is it fiction that Jesus lived, had disciples, preached about the kingdom of God, predicted his own death by crucifixion, was crucified, and that his disciples then went out proclaiming that he had risen from the dead. Is all that accepted or rejected by the majority of scholars?

If you had said it is fact embellished by folklore, I'd be more inclined to think that you might have a point, but by saying you think it is fiction embellished by folklore, this pits you against nearly all the mainstream scholarship, as I understand @Blues Guitarist would agree.

Don’t tell me what I agree with. That is a tactic you use often, saying that mainstream scholars or Bart Ehrman or Blues Guitarist agrees with you. Present your own evidence and let people decide. Don’t hide behind other people.

Here’s a fact for you: The majority of scholars agree that Christianity is false.

 

[kuzushi]

I admire your belief systems and defending yourself against a non religous football forum

Thank you

However, your views of dismissing the other religous faiths today is a bit arrogant in my view.
They may have believed their scriptures the same well as you.
You would have thought a god would have realised this as well, and not condemn them from maybe born somewhere else on this planet.

It's just that this is how I see Christianity.
There are all these people trying to dismiss it, so I seek to establish what is true, and they keep saying "it's all fiction," but it simply isn't all fiction. Jesus lived, he was crucified, and his disciples believed that they saw him alive again after the crucifixion and went out to proclaim the resurrection. These are facts agreed even by atheists such as Bart Ehrman, who is a New Testament expert. I don't mind if people reject Jesus, but I wish they'd do it honestly, and do so knowing the facts I've just stated here. If they disagree with these facts, that's OK too, as long as they are honest and admit that they are going against the mainstream of scholarship on this matter.

 

[pastafarian]

My question was: Is it fiction that Jesus lived, had disciples, preached about the kingdom of God, predicted his own death by crucifixion, was crucified, and that his disciples then went out proclaiming that he had risen from the dead. Is all that accepted or rejected by the majority of scholars?

If you had said it is fact embellished by folklore, I'd be more inclined to think that you might have a point, but by saying you think it is fiction embellished by folklore, this pits you against nearly all the mainstream scholarship, as I understand @Blues Guitarist would agree.

Im hardly likely to say Jesus, the son of your God is a fact when your God was invented by man and doesnt exist.