i can respect a christian who questions dogma and looks for answers based on reason: Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists John Shelby Spong.Retired American Bishop of the Episcopal Church The contrast between the way the Bible is understood in the academic world and the way it is viewed in our churches is striking. I know because in my life as a priest and a bishop I have both served typical congregations and been privileged to study and to teach in some of the best known Christian academic centers in the world. In academia I discovered that issues and insights, commonplace among the scholars, are viewed as highly controversial and even as "heresy" in the churches. snip In the world of Christian scholarship, for example, to read the Bible literally is regarded as absurd. To call the words of the Bible "the Word of God" is more than naïve. No modern person can still believe that a star can wander through the sky so slowly that wise men can keep up with it, that God actually dictated the Ten Commandments -- all three versions, no less -- or that a multitude can be fed with five loaves and two fish. No modern person understanding genetics and reproduction can believe that virgins conceive, nor can those who understand what death does to the human body in a matter of just minutes still view the resurrection as the resuscitation of a deceased body after three days. Biblical scholars know that the accounts of the crucifixion read in Christian churches on Good Friday are not eye witness reports, but developed interpretations of Jesus' death based on a series of Old Testament texts selected to convince fellow Jews that Jesus "fulfilled the scriptures" and thus really was the "messiah." These issues and many others are assumed in the world of biblical scholars, but are viewed by many church-goers, together with the vast majority of television evangelists and radio preachers, as attacks on divine revelation that must be resisted in order to save Christianity. They thus, knowingly or unknowingly, join in a conspiracy of silence, ignoring truth when they feel they can and viewing biblical scholars, strangely enough, as the church's ultimate enemy. At the same time secular critics attack what Christian scholars know is nonsensical about both the Bible and Christianity and act as if they have discovered something new. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shelby-spong/why-i-wrote-re-claiming-t_b_1007399.html
Stranded on a desert island with a deficiency of food, and compelled to share the island with one of two people (I choose), either a sincere Christian or a sincere atheist, I'd choose the former in an instant. I may have to suffer through grace when we sit to eat our meager supply, but at least I'd know I get a portion, and I could sleep with both eyes closed.
you think? i just watched a documentary on the donner family this weekend. they were very religious people. yet when the chips were down the turned to cannibalism.
Stranded on a desert island with a deficiency of food, and compelled to share the island with one of two people (I choose), either a sincere Christian or a sincere atheist scientist, would you chose the genuine christian who believed that prayer would save them or the arhiest scientist who knew that was no god who was going to help them and that you had better prepare for the worst? the bible is a huge book. it had restriction on wearing two kinds of cloth together and what kinds of food to eat and dozens of other silly warnings but still it wasnt smart enough to warn people to boil the water causing untold million to die of waterborn diseases.
You're unnecessarily complicating this with all kinds of imagery and metaphor that you don't (any longer) believe in or value. You know the odds are very good that a genuine Christian is going to share the food with you. With a genuine atheist, well, then you need to do all that calculation--what kind are they, predatory, humanistic? Etc.
really? what is a genuine christian? one who follows gods commands? Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death in any case we are getting off track. the purpose of the thread is to appreciate reason over dogma. do you? do you believe these things were literal happenings? No modern person can still believe that a star can wander through the sky so slowly that wise men can keep up with it, that God actually dictated the Ten Commandments -- all three versions, no less -- or that a multitude can be fed with five loaves and two fish. No modern person understanding genetics and reproduction can believe that virgins conceive, nor can those who understand what death does to the human body in a matter of just minutes still view the resurrection as the resuscitation of a deceased body after three days.
I think more along the lines of the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. But I'm no expert. At any rate, you're hung up on the Old Testament, for one thing, and you're desperately trying to replace one world view, now too shaky for your liking, with another which, as I've shown you (and stu) repeatedly, is also entirely arbitrary. The bottom line on that is, you're a true-believer either way.
one step at a time. we need to establish what you believe. do you believe: "that a star can wander through the sky so slowly that wise men can keep up with it, that God actually dictated the Ten Commandments -- all three versions, no less -- or that a multitude can be fed with five loaves and two fish. No modern person understanding genetics and reproduction can believe that virgins conceive, nor can those who understand what death does to the human body in a matter of just minutes still view the resurrection as the resuscitation of a deceased body after three days." can we agree these are primitive myths? once we can agree on that we can debate weather or not believing in these myths is good or bad as a means of population control