|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 19, 2019 16:28:07 GMT
Actually, I don't know what you mean by this. Consensus in the religious sense has to do with what the religion actually teaches, and for most Christians, they believe what they do based on faith. What does that have to do with communism? I didn't ask you about the talking snake! That's not even relevant to my question. You've been mentioning the talking snake in posts to others. Yes I have, because the Bible mentions it. But that still doesn’t address my actual question regarding the different Christian interpretations of the Bible, lack of cohesion, and biblical reliability. Communism and Christianity are both belief systems. One is political and one is religious. Why would lack of a consensus invalidate Christianity as a belief system? Communism is not a belief system. A belief system and a socioeconomic political system are two different things. It’d be like comparing “Capitalism” to “Islam”. They are two different unrelated concepts. Christianity is based on the bible, and the beliefs Christians espouse based on its teachings. It has supernatural presuppositions and is based on concepts that are neither testable nor falsifiable. So the comparison makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 19, 2019 16:30:52 GMT
You're comparing two unlike things (religion to political ideology). I have no preference for either and I don't see the relationship between one and the other. Here's the problem Erjen, I'm an atheist and therefore a neutral observer. Let's assume I don't know what to believe about Christians, Christianity, or the bible for a moment. Now this isn't an accurate analogy because I was a Christian for 30 years and I've read and studied the bible for most of that time. But let's just pretend I only just picked it up for the first time and just now reading Genesis. I have my grandmother (RIP) a very devout, Pentecostal Christian telling me that the creation story is REAL. It is 100% literal, and exactly what happened. I've got a co-worker (a Lutheran) who also believes in the literal account of creation (talking snakes, man created from dust, women created from ribs, etc), but doesn't believe that everything in the story literal. The "days" weren't actually 24 hour periods, but long periods of time, and the fruit wasn't actually "magical" but only symbolic of them disobeying God. Then I've got Heeeyyy saying that the entire story is just a "parable" (she mean's allegory), and that none of it is a literal event of anything that actually happened. And now you (who identifies as a Christian) are telling me that you're "not so sure". I've got four different Christians all telling me something completely different about this story in the bible. Do you not see the problem with this? If four different "Christians" can read a bible story that is fundamental to the belief system, and can come away with four different interpretations, then doesn't that mean that the story is a complete failure? Doesn't it plainly demonstrate the failure of this God utilizing this form of communication for relaying his message? If you are not sure how to interpret the story, then why should I take ANY of it seriously? What reason do any of us have for considering any of it reliable when the first, most basic, and most fundamental story in it cannot even be interpreted consistently between believers? I believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Moses parted the Red Sea, and that a snake talked to Eve. And obviously there's no way for me to prove what I believe is right. I just have to have faith in what I believe and what I've been taught. But your points got me thinking. Those stories, and the details, maybe they're just context. Maybe the details don't matter so much. Maybe it's ok if someone thinks Genesis is a parable. Maybe those details ARE up for interpretation. Maybe they're just to help us see the greater picture. Maybe we don't need to understand the whole picture, as long as we grasp the big picture. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here. What reason do you have to believe ANY of it when NONE of it can be demonstrated to be true, and MOST of it doesn’t even make any sense? Why is simply being raised to believe in something a good enough excuse for remaining gullible?
|
|