Here is a short summary of this problem...

HEY CARDW


SOME seem to be saying that they did cover up truth

but some seem to be giving us a warning about such
cover ups


dgrimm60

The Christian principle is not to lie.

But there are times to hold back the "truth".

They are not the same thing.

Mark

I think you need to correct that to one is giving us a warning. All the others are justifying it.

And you may note that the justification today is just as alive. Note the comment by Mark (Twilight)

I think you need to give an example.

Now the Church Fathers I am quoting are not only holding back the truth, they are either exaggerating it or telling lies outright. I can give you numerous examples of this.

I cannot comment on an individuals practice of lying until the evidence is presented.

But the principle is the key.

Example:

A young girl comes to you with a scarred face and asks you if you think she is pretty.

1. Yes you are pretty. (Lie).
2. Say nothing and talk about something else (Hold back the truth).


Holding back the truth is not lying, it is just not expressing the truth at that time because it would be inappropriate.

Mark :-)

Also take for instance Rahab, when asked about the 2 Israelite spies, said she had seen them but that they left and didn't know where they went. Not sure that's what you had in mind. But I don't believe that God wants us to lie for him.

pk

Well, I think the girl would have to be rather dull to not pick up the answer from that 2nd scenario. Personally I have found it much better to address those types of questions more authentically than that.

Plus, this is talking about something that is subjective. Supposedly when one talks about Christianity we are talking about the truth. An attitude, as expressed by some of the Church fathers, that keeps the masses in ignorance is not about love or truth, but control. I think that is still evident within modern Christianity as well.

I think you need to give an example of how the gospel needs to withhold the truth.

No, since that is about self preservation not the control of information about so called truth as given to the masses.

Gottcha cardw

pk

HEY ALL

LIES are made to control people or situations


dgrimm60

We do know that Jesus never lied to further his cause. He suffered the ultimate penilty for stating up for what he believed.

pk

If it is acceptable to use a lie to promote or defend truth in one case then is must be acceptable in all cases. By example Jesus Christ NEVER lied to either promote truth or for any self-preservation purpose; to promote truth by using a lie (as stated by Paul) defeats the purpose of truth - that is to testify to Jesus Christ; to promote self-preservation by a lie defeats the purpose of life - that is to glorify the God of truth.

Paul was the founder of Christianity not Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ did not come to found or promote a religion, He came to testify to the truth. Paul lied to promote Christianity (by his own words). Therefore, Christianity and it's proponents that follow Paul are promoting something that IS NOT of Jesus Christ because what they are promoting is based in and on lies.

That is why I call myself a Follower of Jesus Christ and not a Christian.

Jer 8:8
" How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie.

Zep 3:13
"The remnant of Israel will do no wrong And tell no lies, Nor will a deceitful tongue Be found in their mouths; For they will feed and lie down With no one to make them tremble."

1Jo 2:21
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

Re 14:5
And no lie was found in their mouth; they are blameless.

God makes it perfectly clear; no lie is justifiable no matter what the case may be. The religious leaders, at the time when the Son of God was on earth, were liars and this made them all the more determined to kill their Messiah. The religious leaders felt vindicated by their authority and determined to shut His mouth, because He was exposing their charade. The evidence would indicate that these leaders knew Jesus was the Son of God, they also knew that their power would be gone if they endorsed Him.

Joh 8:44
"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Joh 10:26,27
"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

Those who follow the Son of God recognize and accept the truth.

Religious leaders have lied from the very beginnings of religion, it is the evil ones way of camouflaging the truth. When people determine to discover the truth, they will find themselves all but alone, except for the company of the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of Truth will give to the dedicated seeker of truth the ability to recognize and understand the truth. We cannot just accept anyone’s word who claims to have the truth or special revelations from God, we must test everything against the words of God, not the words of those who masquerade as God's messengers.

Matthew 24:4,5 And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. "For many will come in My name, saying, `I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.

What I think is important to note is that these same liars were very influential in what eventually made up the Bible and how we interpret it. Particularly St. Jerome and St. Augustine. Both Jerome and Augustine were obsessed with sexual purity and Jerome ended his days living in a cave with a mother and daughter whom he would not allow to bathe or comb their hair after convincing the other daughter/sister to deny her physical self to the point where she starved to death.

Both openly admit that they excluded texts that did not meet what THEY believed to be standards of orthodoxy. There was no consideration of truthfulness in the way we determine what is true today. The standard of truth was not by observation and reason, but by the authority of men.

Amen! Of course I agree with you 100%, Wayfinder. The most difficult thing there is to do in the world is to not tell a lie when telling the truth will get you killed.

I am continually amazed at how many people who say they are Christian will take the expedient way to achieve their goals, even seemingly noble ones, rather than taking the way of truth and honor. The way of truth and honor requires a commitment to self honesty that not just 'will not be shaken' but 'cannot be shaken' by the temptation to manipulate what you believe to be true to achieve your personal goals.

Paul said he would become anything to anyone as long as they would come to the Lord. He said he would lie if by his lie others were 'saved'. Think about this for a minute; If you lie to someone to get them to make what you think is the correct decision for them are you not inhibiting them from making an informed decision on their own? If they have not made this decision with the correct and complete information because of your lie and they make the wrong one are you not then responsible for that incorrect decision?

What Paul has essentially said is that he doesn't trust you to make your own decisions so he will make them for you, and that if you are smart you will let him do this. Does this sound like someone that has your best interest at heart? Why would you trust someone as manipulative as this with your salvation?

cardw,

So did Rahab, the prostitute :). I don't think that God commends such acts, but He does work around these. To assume that Christian religious view about Christ is thus distorted would be a slippery slope assumption, don't you think?

I think it's safe to assume that your parents lied to you at some point of your development... does it automatically undercut your trust in their ability as parents? I doubt that. We find it natural to twist things our way, so I don't find it "shocking" that even apostles could lie about certain things... but my belief is (no matter how unsubstantiated you find it) that these things did not make it into the canon of 66. There were plenty of writings that were left out specifically for that reason.

First of all, don't do the selective editing :)

"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will there lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? that God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increase his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say -- as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim we say -- 'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." (Romans 3:1-8)


Do you see any thought promoting to "lie for the Lord"? The other verses that you are referring to (becoming anything for anyone) are communication related... and not about "pretense and manipulation". I am a native Russian speaker, and I'm becoming an English speaker so you can understand it. Does it make me a liar or manipulator ? :)

Its no longer a slippery slope. Its based in fact. We now have a much larger picture of the beliefs of the first century. Christianity did not emerge from a single source. What we have is the Roman and Greek philosophical story telling machine generating hundreds of different gospels. The ones that made it into the Bible are no more based on history than any others. We have simply been taught that they are.

These books are only there in the Bible because the one's who held the power determined the story. And it was the Roman/Pauline tradition that won the political war and the war of violence.

To dismiss the admission of using lies to spread the "gospel" is simply one more evidence of denial. We don't allow that in other pursuits of truth, but we make an exception when it comes to Christianity because we have pre determined that its "true."

Literal belief in Christianity can only be sustained by selective examination of evidence and the generous use of triumphalism. I understand why this happens and its generally not a conscious malicious intent, but it is dishonest just the same.



Jerome's influence can be seen in how the following statement of Jesus is interpreted.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL."

Now its a natural biological process for the male of every mammalian species to be attracted to females. It doesn't matter if its your wife or not. It happens period. Its the same process that happens when you are hungry. Your body lets you know. That's why that part of our neural system is called the feed and breed system.

Now if its a sin to have a biological reaction, then that would explain the neurosis that both Jerome and Augustine had around sexuality. That would explain why, today, often the most religious are the most sexually dysfunctional.

If you search the web you will find all kinds of sermons that take the first part of Jesus' statement literally, but you won't find too many advocating men to gouge their right eye out.

Now in the early Christian church self castration was performed based on the theology around this text. Its not too hard to see how that might be extracted from this text. The church father Origin was admired for his practice of this.

Now its possible that this passage was either translated to emphasize the evilness of sexuality or that it was added or its entirely possible that Jesus was exaggerating to make a point through humor.

He may have thought it was so outrageous that no one would possibly take this literally.

This idea is further promoted by Jesus in this passage from Matthew.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

In some circles girding your loins was interpreted as castration.

As you can see, there is no end to shame around sexuality. To me it is quite apparent that these were included because very influential theologians wanted to promote celibate priesthoods.

You can't separate these from the text of the Bible. What you are doing, like I mentioned before, is simply practicing triumphal announcement to avoid the facts.

Yet, you do exactly the same :). You pick the parts that you have problems with to invalidate the rest (at least in your mind).

You are taking writings of 2000 years ago and interpreting these as "barbaric"... specifically the strong poetic language and similes of these times.

Yes, the passage talks about castration. NO! The passage does not encourage castration. Neither the other passage encourage self-mutilation. When I say "Land me your ears"... I don't literally mean for you to cut these off and give these to me. There are specific idioms and strong language can be used to drive a point home.

In our culture, when people say "go f**k yourself", the expression serves as a strong language to get a strong point across that otherwise would not convey the same level of urgency and tension. I don't think that anyone expects you to go and perform the service of self gratification... They just want you to leave. Forgive me, but this is the simplest example I could find.

I do agree that sex is a taboo in Christian churches and is avoided by any means necessary. Yet, again, it does not mean that it was indented to be such. There are some Biblical writers who embraced sex (Song of songs), and there are some Biblical writers who lived a life of POST CONVERSION abnegation. Yet, even Paul encouraged marital sexual intercourse... and instructed it to NOT be a matter of prohibition.

As far as your position on "natural lust, or should I say libido?" and Biblical condemnation of it... I don't think that Bible condemns sexual attraction. I think that problem comes with you mistaking "lust" for "sexual attraction". It's one thing to find a woman sexually desirable and beautiful. It's another thing to lust.

The context is committing adultery in your mind... Would you find it an pealing thought about someone fantasizing having sex with your wife? What about your daughter or sister... not because they are interested in the person, but because they are interested in using them as a human gratification object.

That's the point of condemning lust. It's the ever reaching implications which are discouraged by most societies on Earth today. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the concept, although I would argue it to be historically God's universal programming... not something that we decided along the way as a human race (which I don't see how it can be possible to carry similar moral standings over large isolated geographic areas)

Here's a similar example for you...

34“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” -Luke 14:34-35


This is example of strong poetic language and similes that reflect reality, but don't occur in real life. Salt can't lose flavor. It can only lose flavor if it's not salt anymore. Would you blame Bible here for being scientifically incorrect?

Very good points fccool. I tend to agree with them. They make a lot of sense.

pk

No, the Church father Origin and others picked these. I didn't. I don't really care what the actual meaning is to make my point.

Plus if you are picking only parts and you are claiming to know the real meaning then you are practicing intellectual dishonesty.



If you noted, I allowed for this interpretation. My point was that Jerome, Origin, and others influenced how these passages were read by how they were translated. We also know that certain books were chosen to favor a particular view. The point is, ALL the books floating around in the 1st century were philosophical myths.

When you study the competing books and the extra Biblical history you clearly see an open revisionist culture at work by their own admission. They are not interested in historical accuracy, but in the promotion of what THEY believed to be true. If there wasn't a book to support the view they wanted, then one was written and given a prominent apostle as the author. The first scriptures were written by the gnostics. The only reason we have orthodox scriptures is because they were written as a reaction.



Again, I'm not making these interpretations. They are commonly held among Christian believers. Obviously they aren't the only ones, but prominent Church fathers interpreted these passages as I have outlined. That is my point.



Again, its not me who is confusing these, it is Christians. Witches were burned at the stake because the inquisitor began to be aroused during "questioning" and interpreted this as the witch casting a spell on him. This caused many beautiful women to be called witches.

This whole literal interpretational method is not a rational system, otherwise one could prove that a particular text meant such and such. You are taking texts and stories that have been rung through centuries of revision and re-interpretation and treating them as fact. This whole system produces madness. And there is plenty of evidence for religious madness.

A couple facts about epistemic knowledge.

1) You have to have absolute faith in veracity of your sources for you to come to this conclusion. Your assertions rests on faith in Authors which you read, be it Paul, or Richard Dawkins.

2) You use materials that support your view, and you conveniently ignore the ones that do not. To demonstrate that... I present you with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Beatty_Papyri

These Papyri are one of the earliest preserved manuscripts that we have today... some of which dated to 2nd century AD. What you are saying that Biblical texts of today were meddled with and re-written, but It's false :).

The earliest manuscripts are there to verify that what we have to day is almost word for word what people had in 2nd century. Yet you still insist on the idea that the texts has been re-written and meddled with. Why?

Well, I haven't quoted Richard Dawkins. And faith has nothing to do with most of my presentation. Reason and observation are the basis of my ideas. I have observed how myths present themselves and develop. I see the same types of things happening in the first century, many times by the Church father's own admission.

Here is a link to Eusebius the Historian's work on the early history of the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

When you read through this, it becomes quite obvious that they are making things up. Eusebius essentially admits that he does not include anything that would speak poorly of Christianity. He even quotes a forged passage from Josephus to try and prove that Jesus existed in history.

Christianity came out of Egypt. This is apparent from many sources. Mark, the earliest gospel came out of Egypt. Alexandria had a large contingent of Jewish/Egyptian belief systems expressed in the writings of Philo, who is cited as a source for Christian history and belief.



The second century is way too far away from any source story. The myths were already put together by then. This only supports that Christianity came out of Egypt. And if you read my blog book review at

http://whatisspiritual.blogspot.com/2009/05/horus-in-egypt-by-dm-murdock.html

you will see why. You might even take the time to read the book.

:). But you have to

1) Have absolute KNOWLEDGE that your sources are not faulty.
2) Rely on reasoning of the authors of the material and research that you did not come by firsthand.
3) Rely on your reasoning to be true :)

All of the above are in the realm of the "educated guess"... i.e. faith.

For example, you give the example of the Horus/Isis. It's a well known patter than existed way before Horus/Isis, and existed with Sumerians as Ishtar/Tamuk and etc.

But, you claim to be all "logical" and "reasonable" and yet you commit some of the basic fallacies of the logic and reason.

One of these... is false dilemma, or whatever name you want to call it, but you make it out to be such that:

Since A is observed in Egypt or Sumeria (which is earlier) >>>>> then it MUST BE the copy that we see in Judeo-Christian theology?

Could it be that Sumerians borrowed the concept through the earlier prophecies about Christ that were there much earlier to begin with? But of course, in your mind that's impossible.
So you have to go "with logic" and pick and choose the books that fit your worldview as a "support", which info in these books that come to the same conclusion and ignore the basic fallacies of logic that they are making...

And who has this? I'll save you some time by admitting that my sources are not free of fault. Nobody has this.



I have a lot of research that I have come by first hand. And the reasoning is my own. Sure I look at other author's reasoning, but I look to see if it works in many different contexts.



And you don't have this limitation? I'll save you some time here as well. My reasoning is not infallible. That is why I am agnostic. That means that I don't know.

By implication you seem to be saying that by default your position is true.

That can't be true if you are subject to the above same limitations.



You have a talent for stating the obvious. Of course its an educated guess. Another term for that is theory. Only Christianity doesn't deal in theories, it deals in what it calls certainty.

The decision point for me is looking at what is the most likely. I don't find it very likely, based on what I have read and what I observe today, that what the Bible records as true happened. There are thousands of mythical writings that claim all kinds of miracles that we don't believe to be true and yet we don't hold the Bible up to the same standard of skepticism.

When I read the history it becomes painfully obvious that these men are making this stuff up based on what they considered true within a primitive world view. Religion was the science of the ancient world.

Fortunately we have learned that many of those world views are not true. It doesn't tell us what is true, but it allows us to abandon clearly flawed views of the world.



No, if you read carefully it is a process of syncretic evolution. We see that happening today with over 40,000 different versions of Christianity. We can even see that happening within Adventism. If its true today, then it is very likely that it happened in the first century, only physical violence was a primary thought control method.

And yes it possible that Sumerians borrowed an earlier concept, but we don't have that evidence. I would guess that they probably borrowed something, since that is part of the evolution of religious belief.



Just because I don't write you a book, doesn't mean that my reading hasn't been thorough. You don't even read the counter views. I am very familiar with your arguments.

A couple things you are confused about...

1) I would not claim to know the existence of God, or veracity of the Bible with absolute scientific certainty. I can tell you that there are ALWAYS other possibilities, as have been proven many times before... even during progression of Christianity, and conception of Adventism.

But the point is that based on the contrary evidence I've seen, the claims that Horus' story parallel's Christ to the point described are bogus at best. But as Trent Reznor would sing, Ironically:

"So naive, I keep holding on to what I want to believe..."

I've heard the stuff you proposing before I was even a Christian... yet much of it is by people who want to sell books...

For example, there's a fellow named David Icke, he's a firm believer that Christianity is an agglomeration of stories from the past that is used for control. But then he also thinks that this world is run by shape shifting reptilians from other dimensions. I guess the pouring dirt on Christian history alone does not sell enough books :).

But, if you really take your time and do thorough research, and look at reputable resources, like Encyclopedias and etc... you wont find much evidence that "Zeitgeist" films are pushing. I too at one point found it the info fairly interesting, but if you dig and check the facts... THEY DON'T ADD UP!

For example:

Claims about Horus:














... And many more...

Can you find me any reputable source that would support these claims, because I sure can't?

The only even remote resemblance that I could find is the images of the Mother/Child, and the concept of deity called "Shed" and the concept of "Shed the Savior", yet he WAS NOT the official deity in Egypt. He was a god that would save them from illness or danger.

And the more I dug, the more I realized the these claims are made by seude-egyptologists that are looking to push fiction to "hold on to what they want to believe"... especially the claim that Horus had 12 disciples and died on the cross. Can you PLEASE find me some reputable source, from a reputable Egyptologist that can confirm these claims, because I sure can't, and I've been searching for a while.



Egytian "Anch" for you. While I agree that the similar cross has been used by the pagan religions for centuries, again... to support your view you dismiss the possibility that it was the pagans who used it based on prophesies about Christ. You say you are agnostic, yet you absolutely dismiss this possibility? Why? Should I sing the song again?

On top of everything, I don't necesserily believe that Jesus was "crusified". The word "stauros" that's translated as "cross" today, really means "Steak" or "Pole". And further writers refer to the object as "the tree". So, there's no absolute certainty that the object was indeed the cross... but my point is that the object really makes no difference or is essential to the Christian belief as it was made by pagan culture.

That's why I particularly don't like the images of the cross because they give a warped view of Christian belief and it all becomes about death and suffering, instead of joy and life.

Either way, I do respect your ideas, and I do understand where you are coming from. I don't know what's your story and experience is, but why are you "proving" things to people who you know that song was written about?

Here's a good study on the origin of the "Biblical cross". The "cross" in Sumerian and later Chaldean religions was denoting T-amuz... basically a deification of human phallus, just like many pagans religions of the past that eventually "interbred" with Christian thought and found its way on the altars of the churches today.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html

I am well aware of many of these things, but these don't invalidate the premise. You claim that the church historic documents were re-written over a couple of centuries, yet you would trust the interpretation of ancient cultures by bunch of people that already made up their mind about God? Can cut both ways :)

If you read D.M. Murdock's book on Horus she has over 600 references and she describes in detail the syncretic progression of belief. You aren't going to find a point by point parallel. It doesn't work that way. It is an evolution of belief.

I don't hold the pagan beliefs to be true, but they set a pattern by which religions are made. Christianity simply cannot claim that it is unique. It is the result of many cultural systems of belief. It is essentially an extension of pagan sun worship in its various forms blended with the messianic philosophy of the Jews. And I know much of this by the church father's own admissions.

My point is that I am reasonably sure that the Christian god does not exist, much like you would not believe in Zeus. If there is a spiritual connection to be had within the Christian myth, it comes from Jesus teachings on love and practical human interaction. And they stand on their own, without all the stories and so called miracles.

I think that you may be surprised to learn that I've actually read The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold... then by Acharya S. But what I find interesting about authors like her and David Icke, and Mike Davis, and Robert Price... whose books I've read and very familiar with... all of these authors had similar experience

1) They saw that religion causes pain
2) They saw that mythologies of the past are dismissed today
3) They took it upon themselves to alleviate the world of pain suffering by means of "dismantling" the "religious myths".

Which is what I think you take on as your goal in having conversations with Christian believers... and which, believe it or not, was my goal too at one point of time.

Yet in my experience I did come across much of the evidence that we don't have Christianity today in it's pure form... in essence being INDIVIDUALS that come together to discuss what they've learned and experienced and support each other in their quest for truth.

What we have today is groupthink mentality that discourages any kind of underlying discussion that would potentially undermine the TRADITION (yes, I know that most of us would claim that we take that tradition directly from the Bible, but it's nowhere to be found there), religious HIERARCHY, or ESTABLISHED DOGMA... especially the one that has nothing to do with Christ's teachings and is extrapolated from a couple of passages that are not specifically related to the subject.

Yet, when you take and understand Christianity in its proper context, of being a belief system of INDIVIDUAL on a way to discover the CREATOR... I think it would be easier to form your own view that is independent of the negative aspects inflicted by the group think of the past.

For example. Some of the very simple fallacies that I observe in modern Churches today.

... like taking the concepts that were given to a specific group of people for a specific time frame and for a specific reason, and applying these universally as THE RULES to live by. Now, I'm not talking about 10 commandments per se, but about little things here and there that make their way into our lives as some "greater spiritual truths".

Then we begin to read too much into certain things that were not written to be such. David picked up 5 stones, because that's how many he happened to pick up. Yet, I've heard preachers that would give names to these stones... I.E.

The stone of trust
The stone of righteousness
The stone of Word of God

And, for any reasonable person this is insane, yet we let the insane people lead us many times, because the "ultra-fanaticism" many times is interpreted as a form of "spirituality".

Another common theme that I find when reading the above described people, is that they are quickly to dismiss the "Religious myths", yet they are as quick to adopt the "New Age" like perceptions that have very little underlying support for these. And they derive the ideas from shamanism and experiences that are much more far fetched than Christian thought IMO.

So, while I do understand your reasons for believing what you do. I grew up as ultra-Atheist who would go to Churches and Sunday school discussions to prove people wrong about Christianity and God. Yet, I've learned that early on that everyone believes for different reasons... and that for some, reason is not of utmost importance like it was for me.

There are plenty of things that reason can't penetrate. You can't know the origins in epistemological sense of knowledge. Likewise, you can't know the past in epistemological sense of knowledge. All of these rest in the realm of faith, whether you like the idea or not. You have to trust that the author's sources are correct, and that sources of the sources are correct, and the sources of the sources of the sources are correct.

Yet, for some odd reason you accept these with absolute certainty and you criticize the absolute certainty of Christian reasoning. Don't you see a certain duplicity in it all? Wouldn't you agree that our worldview would attract certain thing that we want to believe in? That's why I can't say for certain that what I know is true. But I can say for certain that these are the things that I ACCEPT AS TRUTH, based on my existent knowledge.

So, please satisfy my curiosity and tell me what exactly is it you are planning to accomplish here?

You should check out this book

Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire

http://savingparadise.net/

Because reason cannot penetrate everything, I think it is more honest to say that we don't know and to be suspicious of fantastical claims. Since I have never observed the types of things described in the early church and since I see people today make up fantastical stories that aren't true about religious figures, but a lot of people believe, it seems more likely that they were made up in the early church as well. There is enough evidence present to doubt the claims of authorship and the claims of miraculous events.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



I don't accept anything with absolute certainty. Like I said, there is enough evidence there to seriously doubt the accuracy of early Christian claims. It has nothing to do with what I want to believe. You can tell me that the sky is really green, but no matter how hard I try, even if I wanted to, I would not believe the sky to be green.

I don't believe the claims of the Bible because they are no longer believable to me. And there has been no Christian apologetic that honestly addresses most of the serious problems with these claims.

Christianity must rely on fear for most of its persuasion. There is a lot of Pascal's wager type of thing. What if it was true? To me, that's the greatest source of doubt for me. It's hypocritical to say its based on love, when its very reason for existing is the fear of punishment for not being a Christian.



Well, I see no difference other than a lot of "New Age" stuff tends to lay off the hell and brimstone. And maybe that's why its so attractive. Personally, I think its because people haven't learned how to live with mystery.

I have to admit that the inner journey is an interesting one, but I think its a mistake to start a new religion just because I might have a transformative inner journey. I think these experiences happen all the time, in spite of religion.



If I was to state my core goal, it would be to reduce suffering. I believe that fear based belief systems are immature at best, and have the potential to create great harm if left unchallenged. I think history attests to this over and over, particularly among those belief systems that claim certainty.

When these belief systems come to power, no reason and many times, no force, can change their harmful influences. At least a tyrant will respond to threats of force. Belief marches on even unto death.

While I appreciate the sentiment of this talk by Laurence Vance, he certainly is not a church father, nor does he really give a Biblical basis for Christians being anti-state violence. If one ignores portions of the bible a case can certainly be made from individual texts for Christian non violence.

We don't have to look too far to find apologetics for war by church fathers. Augustine, the premier church father paved the way for religious violence through his work on a just war. He has plenty of Biblical support for the use of violence since this was the most often used method of the Jewish god in the OT. And of particular note is his definition of justified.

I am glad that there are thinking Christians promoting more rational approaches. My point is that while they claim they are coming from a biblical basis, I recognize reason as the primary source of their positions.

Ok, you know what this does, it puts some things into question, pertaining to scripture, I think you need to give us some examples, best would be to have the truth and the the lie so that we can analyze it!

How about it?

Have you read the whole thread? I give numerous examples and links.