You're right, we go keep coming back to the same points and topics, but I keep bringing up new questions and insights and counter arguments. I'm fairly sure that's how discussions happen. I truly would appreciate it if you would answer the questions from my previous post. If anything, this little discussion has strengthened my own beliefs, and for that, I thank you. As for the condescension, consider it a defense mechanism to your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth. It's something I've never taken kindly to.
that may be true for a number of reasons. i know i reference fundamentalist interpretations of religion because it is usually the most clear cut, logical example of how 'feelings' or circular logic can betray an otherwise perfectly normal human being. (the 9/11 hijackers were convinced they were on god's errand, the crusades are another example) when discussing religion or god, many religious people want to rely solely upon these types of arguments. and those can be difficult for some of us to understand. it's also worth noting that the fundamental interpretations of god/religion still exist in the mainstream in varying degrees. example: just because mainstream mormonism no longer publicly advocates polygamy, it is common knowledge among mainstream LDS faithful that polygamy will be practiced in heaven. in this example, polygamy is viewed as a 'fundamental' belief/practice, yet still exists in the mainstream. there are many people today have been impacted/effected by fundamentalist beliefs - even if the 'fundamentalist' perspective isn't always the most prevalent/accepted/practiced.
absolutely. as much as they're downplayed on this board, i deal with fundamentalists wayyy more than i do "normal" christians. so i do apologize if i ever come across as hostile toward religion, it's probably because i just sat through a sermon about how human beings without god are pieces of trash and if you don't live every second of your life in accordance with this doctrine you will soon be "lost in satan's grip." oh but jesus loves you sooo much (gag me...)
Without a doubt fundamentalism still exists to varying degrees in the mainstream. When I hear fundamentalists talking about religion, I have a hard time believing that we have read the same bible and are talking about the same Jesus. I'm not a fan of circular reasoning either nor the abandonment and even scorn of logic, reason, science or history that some religious people seem to believe is their duty. I largely stay out of the arguments because I feel as if neither side is talking about anything that I can relate to. I guess everyone deals either positively or negatively with what their understanding of religion is. It's just that my understanding is so different it's hard for me to feel like I have a horse in the race.
Believe the story of the Passion or not, but as written by John,,,the Roman's wanted to release Jesus. Pilate told the Jewish priest he found no guilt, and suggested he release Jesus. Why is everyone saying the Romans killed Jesus? The Jews killed Jesus (who was a Jew) for breaking their laws, but by law were not allowed to crucify anyone...only the Romans could. So they begged Pilate to do it. That's one of the reasons why the Jews are persecuted so much. btw: I love the Jewish religion, not judging. And I agree, I don't see how anyone can question his existence. There are so many documents from separate sources mentioning him.
the real question is this: does the story these documents tell us about a jesus character truly prove his existence? ...i think its still very debatable. (the documentation i believe you are referring to is limited and doesn't provide the substantial evidence that many believers assume is there) as someone said earlier in the thread, the question almost becomes - can we really believe anything that was written about him?
I know that...so? My in-laws attended a church that I would routinely excuse myself from attending. On the rare occasion when I would acquiesce to attend, I would politely excuse myself when the preacher would stray off into religious hysteria. My m-in-law would just laugh; she knew why, and was probably glad I didn't snatch the man's bible and hit him over the head with it. Whether she accepted it or not was not an issue. I am an adult.
On the History Channel today they had a special about the early days of Christianity and how the Bible we know now became canon. They covered some of the subject matter we are have been talking about but as someone who hasn't studied much about early Christianity it was an interesting overview regarding the ferment and conflict around early Christianity and the various theological doctrines and texts. One part that I found very interesting was about the story of St. Thecla and the cult that sprung subsequently sprung up around her. Here is the wikipedia page about her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thecla What I found very interesting was the idea of an early feminist figure that came to be regarded on par with the Apostles by many early Christians but isn't widely known of now. According to the History Channel show its likely that the document recounting Thecla's life "The Acts of Paul and Thecla" were left out of NT was a political decision as it undermined the predominant male role of both the church and the Roman world. Also the description of Paul in the Thecla stories wasn't very flattering to Paul since he wouldn't baptize her or act to save her when her life was threatened. Related to the Thecla discussion they brought up how the issue of celibacy / asceticism was an issue that greatly divided the early church and that what has made it into the NT has largely played down the acetic views of some of the Apostles and even in account of why Peter was crucified. Things like this show that there is good reason to be skeptical about the NT as being definitive as historical documents. To again state I am not questioning the faith issues but just how much stock can be placed on using the NT in regard to what might have actually happened historically. I understand History Channel shows tend to be over dramatized and fairly shallow overviews of topics but am just curious what people here think of these issues raised.
Thanks fb! I've enjoyed the discussion quite a bit, really. It's always been something that fascinated me.
