I have decided to go back to church. For the past few years the only time I have stepped a foot inside a church is for the occasional wedding or for Mother's Day. I have rejected the belief I was rasied to believe and am currently working through my atheistic/agnostic beliefs. I no longer except the divinity of christ, or the bible. I still agree that there are eternal truths within the writings of the bible, but I do not agree with the concept that it is 'god's holy word'.
So anyway, I've decided to go back to church not in my ever-going search for TRUTH but more to sharpen my thoughts on what it is about this from of christianity that is repulsive to me. Growing up in north Florida, I have never been too far from the buckle of the bible belt, so the christianity I am familiar with might have slight nuances that differ from christianity in other regions of the country much less the world. But despite all of this there are still basic creeds and beliefs that are universal within the christian sphere.
Anyway, I will post more tomorrow...........
Jalaibee (2015)
8 years ago
Question for you, and please don't take it as an attack, because its not (full disclosure: i'm a faithful practicing christian and i believe everything that being a christian entails believing). I'm just interested in why people who disagree with me have come to the conclusions that they have: who do you believe Jesus was?
ReplyDeleteI don't take it as an attack at all. I appreciate the feedback and look forward to the conversation to follow. I too am always intrested in the other side of the argument. To be completely honest I am no longer sure who I believe Jesus was. I have read a good amount of the Gnostic gospels, books written in the first century A.D. that were considered heresy and blasphemy by the early unified church. Why were they heresy? I asked. Alot of them never mention a resurection or a crucifiction. I discovered that the divintiy of Christ was not a customary part of every story of the man and was actually put to a vote by the first few 'generations' of bishops around 150-160 A.D. If the man was the divine son of God why did it take so long to approve this version of the story? Some scholars believe that Jesus was a name put to the face of the spiritual movement/awakening that was strong in that time. Some scholars believe that the whole Jesus story is just another version of older stories of divine beings birthed by a virgin, killed and is resurrected. I tend to believe he was a real man. Someone with a significant bloodline, being of the preisthood and the royal line of David, both of which were extremely important to Roman occupied Judea. I believe he was being groomed for the messianic position to lead the uprising and restore the kingdom, & maybe his upbringing as a nazarine might of made him more spiritual & in being so he might have shrugged off the military approach for a spiritual one. His teachings were profound for that time period. Like I said, I'm not sure what I beleive about Jesus other than I don't beleive he was divine. History is written by the victor and such is the case with the church. I would rather profess sincere ignorance than feigned belief.
ReplyDeleteto me this is the fundamental question of the faith: who was jesus? did he exist? if so, did he say the things he is in the bible saying? if so, that presents a huge intellectual problem for those who don't want to believe in him. if he didn't, christianity is the biggest scam in the history of humankind. without jesus all christians are wasting their time, and i have no intrest in wasting my time. i would encourage you to firm up your thoughts on jesus. everything else will fall into place after that.
ReplyDeleteYou see that is just it. I DO believe christianity is the biggest scam of all time. I don't believe the literal interpretation of the bible. I believe the bible is a collection of books that were god inspired yet written by man. Jesus could definitely be real without being the divine son of god. If anything I believe he was saying we are all sons of god and that whole mindset just blew all of the religious groups of the time - pharisees and saducees - away. I believe over time the legend of jesus has been clouded with myth and the story has grown out of porportion. I'm not sure if you've heard of the book of Q or not but if not check it out if you haven't...it's subject content is the teachings of jesus, as if someone had memorized them and wrote them down. There is nothing about his divintiy, or death & resurrection...just his teachings. This is what scholars believe was the source that all of the writers of the new testament gospels supposedly used. I see first & second century man using this new idea of the unified church as yet another avenue for power & wealth. And let me ask you...also not an attack...just provoking the conversation to hear more of your side of faith)...What if they found undeniable evidence of the body of jesus? How would that affect your faith?
ReplyDeletei agree, it is possible for jesus to be a real person and not the son of god. however him saying "i am the way, truth amd the life. no one comes to the father except through me" presents a problem. either he didn't say that, or he did and he was crazy, or lying. or he was exactly who he said he was. thats why its important to determine if you believe those words came out of his mouth....in terms of finding his body. if it was indisputable, then its indisputable. but i have a hard time imagining a scenerio in which that could be the case. but if it were indeed true, it would be the end of the faith, of course.
ReplyDeleteThat scripture...the famous John 3:16 is often quoted when trying to prove the absolute truth of christianity but what if it is misinterreptted from its original meaning? What if jesus was saying not that he was the only way but rather whatever way you came to know the heavenly father, the creator, allah, whatever you call 'god'.... whatever way you became aware of this higher power...that way is jesus?
ReplyDeletethere are a lot more scriptures than just that one "i am the bread of life", "i am the vine, you are the branches", etc...i suppose its possible for those who heard him to have misunderstood, but these are really brazen statements. and given the frequency that he's quoted saying such things, i think it is more likely that he did say them (or something very close). so the questions becomes: was he a nut-job? because only a crazy man could continue to spout such looney things. unless...
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily....Jesus wasn't a christian, he was a Jew. And a devout Jew at that. Maybe he was a charismatic person, someone who was respected and well liked due to his life attitude.....Is it not possible he was trying to teach/show a better way than the tradional religious norms of the time? Those statements could easily be interpretted as "follow my lead on these matters, I am the bread of this new spiriual awakening, this movement, it as all so clear to me trust in my teachings, I am the vine of this new movement, you who get what I say and live accoringly are the branches." And maybe it wasn't those who heard who misunderstood, rather what if the original meaning of what was said was lost in translation from the language of aramaic to that of king james english?
ReplyDeletei think you're now seeing my point: if he didn't mean to say what we think he meant to say, then your point is well taken. but if he did say that, then we have to decide what we want to do with that information...
ReplyDeleteInteresting thread here. Jack, you seem compelled to decide "what we want to do" with the fact of Jesus and his teachings. Might I suggest that we simply recognize that he was an enlightened man who (like many great thinkers before and after him) lauded the virtue of living a morally upstanding life. To go beyond that makes as much sense as building an alter to worship Peter Singer.
ReplyDeleteIt disturbs me to see people wasting their time (after all, time is our most precious resource) on myths. If you take solace from the fact that much of the Bible is (loosely I would say) based on historical fact, that is fine. However, Christianity is based on so many irrational precepts it is hard to know where to begin. Have you worked your way through the 50 proofs at www.godisimaginary.com? Have you read The God Delusion and The End of Faith? If you intend on devoting any more of your precious time to any religious belief system, please consider the other side of the coin.
I will end this post with a simple admission: I freely admit that my atheistic beliefs could be wrong and look forward to any facts supporting the existence of God (whatever you believe he or she or it might be).
Mr. Missionary, I would suggest to you that Jesus doesn't leave you the option of considering him an enlightened man or a great thinker. You seem to have done a considerable amount of reading, so I assume you're familiar with his words and teachings. The things he claimed to be and the things he claimed to be able to do remove that as an option, in my opinion. We have to choose another label.
ReplyDeleteBut couldn't the things he claimed to be and the things he claimed to be able to do just be spiritual analagies to get his greater point across or even misinterpreted?. The man taught in parables so that the masses would understand. Couldn't embelishments have been added with every telling of his words or deeds? Couldn't elements of myth & legend have been added to the core story over the years?
ReplyDeleteI guess thats what we have to figure out...
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI think Jesus may have been a real person because of history classes I have taken that acknowledged his existence. I also believe he was real if only because he inspired a religion; usually a religious thought or idea comes from one person and catches on to the masses. As for his divinity, you are accepting as fact the gospel accounts of his life, and what he said in those gospels.
It is possible for Jesus to have lived on the earth and taught others to live a morally upstanding life without claiming to be God. If he really did make those claims then I contend he was either a crazy person, or he was indeed God. But as you said, we have no way of knowing if he really did say those things.
So the only way to make an educated guess is to discuss the validity of the Bible and whether or not it tells the truth. I don't think I have to tell you that much of what is written in the Bible is absolute nonsense. Since a majority of the crap in the Bible is, well, crap, I would have to say that the Biblical account of Jesus' life is also crap. That does not mean that he wasn't a real person who taught others to live honorably. It just means that the authors of the Bible, who twisted and distorted the truth for their own purposes, were simply at it again.
J. Burns,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you wholeheartedly and am impressed with the amount of research you put into this!
Eren,
ReplyDeleteYou say much of the Bible is "absolute nonsense" and "crap". On what are you basing those claims?
Hi Jack,
ReplyDeleteSorry to have offended. I say it is absolute nonsense and crap because it offers a supernatural explanation for how things came to be, not unlike Greek mythology. The Bible's story of creation defies all scientific evidence, and I am inclined to agree with science. The only assertion of the Bible's validity (that it is the true word of God) is the Bible itself.
no offense taken, friend. just curious as to why you felt that way. i don't agree with your conclusions, obviously. if you're speaking of the 7 day creation period, for example, i don't believe that is a literal description, but a description that the person reading it could understand. (much like the term 'sunrise' is not intended to be literal). i believe the bible is an amazing book that works in concert with scinece, not in opposition to it. there are a lot of things in it that are hard to explain without devine providence (speaking about crucifixion before it was invented, for example) if you care to find them. it'll be my prayer that you do. thanks for the back and forth. i enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI have actually written quite a bit on my own blog about Biblical truth. I have also met some other Christians who, like you, do not take every word literally, but still believe the Bible to have been inspired by God. However, I still contend that the Bible is no more believable, God-inspired or historically accurate than mythology, and that the basic precepts of Christianity are not based on facts. If you would like to read more, please visit my blog. Your reading my blog would actually save me the trouble of having to repeat myself here ;)
I always enjoy a good back and forth. Looking forward to more.