Angela Harlem said:
Sorry. Really. I was very hot and tired and annoyed and had the remains of a huge headache when I wrote that. I shouldn't have sounded as I did. I dont think it really bothered me as much as it sounded, and you certainly didn't cause it.I dont mean to criticise you at all, but something about that is irking me, and only slightly, so the response you quoted, of me, was out of line and I do apologise.
Hi Angela. Thanks heaps for your post! Apology accepted, and I know exactly what you mean about when it gets late- I should really be in bed now
But...I am one of those who believe in *a* god, and I guess I am struggling to understand how it can be viewed as only making half the journey. I know this might not be what you are implying, but from your post above and the one wher you addressed the other person (I cant recall who it was now) it seemed as though you are wanting to know how it works as it seems to you to lack meaning?
I am never going to be willing to believe the words of a book so old and so frequently interpreted that there are bound to be errors, and build up a faith on such a thing. The stories of Jesus and all those people is such folklore, even my mother and grandmother can tell me the same story about something from 30 years ago and both will have it slightly differently. 2000 years is a long time for changes. And it still remains just a book.
I really get where you're coming from I think. I used to think the Bible was probably mainly a collection of fairy tales or full of inconsistancies or errors. That is until I actually researched it for myself. In case you didn't see my post from before where I tried to explain this in a logical fashion here it is:
We'll the whole of Christian spirituality stands or falls on one particular historical event. Or more specifically on one particular person - Jesus. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that our evidence for Jesus is contained for the most part within the bible. Although not just within the bible, there are many extra-biblical accounts of the life, teaching and actions of this remarkable man. But there are a number of objections people tend to make about the bible, many of them before even having read it, let alone studied it's reliability.
Firstly people assume the message has been lost in the translation. The fact is that most bibles available today are taken directly from the original languages- Hebrew, Aramaic and Ancient Greek. Our knowledge of these languages is getting more and more precise which means that translations are actually getting more acurate.
The next objection some people raise is that it's been changed. In this arguement people claim that the scribes who copied and passed on the ancient bible documents decided to change the stories to suit themselves. But again this is just hopelessly ignorant. We have in our possesion hundreds of ancient copies of the gospel of mark (for example) found in many different places all over the ancient world. If it had been deliberately embelished there would be an abundance of ways to demonstrate this- I mean it's not like the Athenian scribe could fax his chnages through to his mates in Jerusalem, Rome and Corinth and get them to make the changes too. Of course there is also the issue of motive- scribes believed they were dealing with God's word- something sacred.
Others argue it contains accidental mistakes. The fact is mistakes were made, here's an example:
"They (Jesus and his disciples) went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes." (Mark 5:1) So what? The problem is, the various ancient copies (remember we've found heaps) differ on the spelling of this region. Some have it "Gardarenes" others "Gergesenes". Obviously some scribe somewhere stuffed up. As a result scholars now have to sift through the many ancient copies and work out which is the most likely spelling. Of course this is not the only 'mistake' in the ancient copies of the Bible but the others are only about as life-changing as this one.
I'm sorry if I am going over stuff you are already aware of but the reason for this brief biblical examination is so we can get to the crux of the issue. Sure you may say, the bible is a reliable account, but it's an account of some religious wackos who were trying to pass off a bunch of crap about a guy they decided to make a messiah. Maybe the bible is just a well preserved lie.
The first thing to remember is that the gospels are based on eye-witness accounts, two of them were written by men who personally knew or interviewed eye witnesses, the other two were men who travelled and worked with Jesus for over 3 years. The second thing to remember is many of the eye witnesses were either imprisoned or executed for proclaiming what they'd seen.
What caused these people to really believe they'd seen Jesus teach, heal, die and then rise again? There were hundreds who saw Jesus after the resurrection, many had been with him for over three years. Could it have been that they were all just seeing a very extended optical illusion? If they had simply made the whole thing up, why did they bother dying for a lie? It certainly wasn't for power, prestige or wealth- they were often despised and destitute. Even those who wern't killed for their claims, still had to endure family ridicule, loss of jobs and much persecution.
The authorities had every reason to want to discredit this zealous jewish sect (as they would have viewed it)- it posed a threat to their authority because Jesus had made claims about his deity and authority and this movement of early christians was making it's presence felt. Jesus' resurrection was falsifiable in that all the critics had to do was produce the body, but they did not.
The bible is the most remarkable book in history. It has no real comparison. We have more fragments and whole ancient copies (and older copies) than any other historical document. And when I say more- let me give you a comparison. For the New Testament, there are over 24,000 handwritten copies or portions thereof from antiquity now in existance. This is far more than other ancient books. For example, the second most available ancient manuscripts are from Homer's Iliad, for which there are 643 manuscript copies, while most ancient documents have fewer than 25 existing copies.
The time interval between the actual events , the date of writing, and the earliest known manuscript copy is also important. For the Bible, manuscript copies or portions exist that were written within 35 to 160 years after the originals. Recent dating of one manuscript of a portion of the Gospel of Matthew (the so-called Magdalen text) suggests that it was written in about A.D. 50-a mere 17 years after the crucifixion of Christ.
The interval between the historical events and the written evidence is far better for the New Testament than any other ancient manuscript. For example, the first account of Buddha's life was written 700 years after his death. The earliest copy of Caesar's works is 950 years after being written, and the earliest available copy of Plato's works is dated 1250 years after the original. Yet we do not question the authority of these other works!
Even more impressive is the degree of textual variance in existing copies. Considering the enormous number of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there are only nominal differences in the various copies. The data for the New Testament is impressive. Only 40 lines, or one fifth of one per cent are in question. This compares to large textual variances in other ancient writings. For example, the New Testament is 25 times more accurately copied than the Iliad, which was also "sacred" and is considered one of the best copied works of antiquity.
Hope I'm not boring you, but I'm just trying to back up my claims with substance not just feelings. And you've mentioned your concept of the bible is one of your reasons for not accepting christian belief.
Add onto that the numerous issues I have with the larger organised religions with hypocrisy, lack of love and compassion, cruelty, judgement, condemnation, lack of respect, hardarse blindedness and ignorance...No thanks. Over my godless little dead body if need be. I dont want a bar of it.
I'm with you on much of this. I reckon there's way too much of all this crap and more going on in churches. Problem is churches are filled with guess who- people like you and me. And unfortunately we're all capable of this kinda stuff. That's really one of the things the christian message addresses- what we can do about it all. It certainly doesn't mean christians have all these things conquered. Not that this excuses these behaviours. Fortunately I have found some real gems of christians too- people who really have demonstrated that God has made a difference in their lives.
I'd encourage you not to reject the message becuase the messengers mess up? Check it out on your own terms, then if you do decide to reject it, at least it is not some poor misrepresntation.
So as much as I can not join it, can I deny it either? Not really. I see something very phenomenal in this life, in everything around me. It is totally beyond mine or anyone's understanding that all this life can exist without some far more greater force having had it all happen. It might look like not completing the journey, but honestly, where would I go to find answers?
That's what I see when I look at the world too. I hope pointed toward some way you can look for answers. I believe people have found answers to these questions, I know I have.
The god I believe in might be the same god you do. Who knows. Certainly neither of us. But I cant forgo what bothers me, in the name of religion, for something which I dont feel is entirely necessary to do the *right* thing. Why must there be an already established religion to accompany my views? Can't I just cut out the middle man whom I've lost any chance of ever respecting? If the church changed so much that it became exactly what it boasts it is, then we can talk. I'll sign up, definitely. Well maybe. I dont know if I can believe that far, but this is moot as it probably wont happen.
I don't believe you need organised religion to examine these things. But there is enough evidence around to seek out the truth about the Bible/Jesus. Jesus never sought to start an organised religion, only the church. His intention for the church was to be a family/support. There are positive expressions of the church out there. It doesn't have to look a certain way or do things a certain way, or meet in a funny looking building- church for some is just a group of friends who share their faith. In fact I think this is also U2's idea of church. So maybe there is hope for you yet!
i hate editing so i wont. you all just have to work it out lol
all_i_want, have you even read my previous posts? I think the one above goes into great detail about why I believe the bible to be accurate, authoritive and worth exploring. Not sure what you mean by 3 books?!?!? I assume what you have said about the bible being decided by election between cardinals is a reference to how the church resolved what was to be included in the 'canon' of the bible. This was not just a simple vote for what certain people liked, as the church grew it became necessary to delininate between what was believed to be scripture and what wasn't. Christian belief was under attack from many erroneous teachings that had sprung up and people needed to know what was in fact the truth about these things. It was a gruelling task and took many years, because for a long time the church oprerated out of homes with the scripture being passed on as letters being shared etc. Please check out the evidence I have already posted on why the bible can be trusted.
