Why do people believe the bible?

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

I respect your right to hold this opinion, I just consider it much differently.  I think the notion of an infinite loving Creator God loving some people and hating others is just preposterous in the same way that thinking a true craftsman would despise his materials.  A master craftsman uses everything and wastes nothing.  To think that loving Infinite God would be so confused and clueless regarding outcomes that he'd need to kill everyone in a worldwide flood to me just seems like a silly notion to convince oneself to believe.  But I guess that's how these things go.  Everyone believes something different and that's just how it is.   

An all knowing all powerful entity is a physical impossibility yet  I have to deal with a wise and powerful god and so i shape my understanding of god around these realities.

So i dont believe in creation or the flood BUT the god i know acts from  love of all and in the best interest of the majority   This makes sense of a story like the flood where such a god cannot know the outcome  just as he could not know how adam and eve would choose   rather than kill ALL humanity despite their descent into sin, he gives humanity one more chance hoping that we might make good.    That is a story I can empathise with and a god construct  i can love  Like the god who is about to destroy a city of evil beings but says no, he will not do this if there are just  a dozen non evil beings in that city.   The whole thing is unrealistic and impossible  but the nature of the god  demonstrated in the story s one of love and mercy, who does NOT know if there are that many good people in the city until he sends his angels to find out. .

i work back the other way. To me the god constructs of early writers must make inherent sense  to those writers The y are not going to construct and worship a god who is evil or hates humanity,   but the y might construct one who is fallible and not all powerful  and so is limited in what he can do. Eg he cannot compel humans to be good or behave in a certain way. He can only respond to the decions and choices we make You've gone off the christian  god a bit  because you don't like the way you have  interpreted him  as being My advice would be to reinterpret him and remake him as more loving and lovable      

[XenoFish]

People often believe in a wide variety of things. When it comes to more 'spiritual' beliefs, it is often due to wanting a meaning in their lives. Believe the bible, torah, koran, etc. It is a ready made path to follow. Some pick and choose which beliefs work for them. Why do they believe? Well, I can not answer that authentically. Because I do not know the underlining motivations behind such belief. I can only suspect that it revolves around finding meaning.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  "God's" voice is not my own mind's voice. It has knowldge which my mind does not possess and has never learned.  It  can be mind to mind,and private but it can also be vocal and auditory, and thus heard by others . It is always positive, constructive, beneficial.  It teaches, mentors, and gives advice.  It helps you avoid dangers yet to come and those in the immediate future. it offers words of encouragement, often accompanied by the physical power of the spirit, which heals, eliminates pain, gives courage, strength  and endurance.   It tells you which route to take to avoid traffic jams and directs you to a parking spot.  If you are lost, it gives you directions to get home safely.  If you are in need it tells you where and how to get what you need 

THAT is the voice of "god"

....sounds more to me like....

The Voice of Google

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

2 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

This here. What LG said. I feel, this is not really you asking this of non-Christians, in my feeling, Hammie, but what LG said, ‘you really think that anyone can just will themselves to believe irrational things?’. I’m going to be a bit hesitant as labeling what others feel is true to their heart as irrational, but in my experience, I have often been made to feel, to believe in things, I would think as irrational. As I have always said, I do not feel you can push someone to believe in something, they  personally logically cannot see as being true. I think that screws up the person’s psyche. That is why, I often wonder if my own experience is seen as a threat. Growing up with no religious experience, trying to proselytize me, is a hard feat, because of so much told to me, doesn’t make logical sense. 

I have plenty of Christians, ( and a few of other beliefs, but not as much as Christians ) that really have been very judgmental to me. I made mention sometime ago, of a young family, who I waited on, where the husband and wife kept on insisting I answer them, when they kept asking me, “God is worth it, right?” And in the manner that seemed to judge my answer and almost like a warning that any other answer then yes, and with true feelings behind it, would get me yelled at by them. (It was not a comfortable experience) Makes me wonder what went through their  minds, in the constant process manner to get me to answer yes to them, when I handed them their merchandise and said to them in the final conclusion of the process, “I was raised secular, have a good night”. 

They just quickly shut up and left. I think I stunned them. The lady I waited on John in Jersey, was definitely being very judgmental when she reacted negatively to my telling her I grew up secular. I should have told her she was wrong, and asked her if she was judging my parent’s actions. I sometimes I feel, that is what some of them do. 

 

I stand by what I said;

I know, it's how you feel, and you should stand by what you said. I'm just pointing out my feelings from my experiences and point of view.  

Quote

the ball's entirely in your court. If you can't believe, then you exclude yourself by default;

This bit, I find if in the least, very interesting.  

This might sound like a huge responsibility on my part, but to me, it's plainly simple, and not looked upon as wrong really. The ball's in my court?  That's just it, growing up with no experience of religion, and not seeing it in the outlook of it being so important in the universal point of view, I don't see how it's even in the outlook of being important. I grew up, in the main quick outlook, of magic not being real, miracles really something that might be explained away as coincidence, and various things that is written in religious books, and tenets in religion, not making any sense in the day to day world. 

If I can't believe? ( Well, in Christianity. )  Of course, I can't believe. It's not something you can force upon yourself, ( well without psychological after effects, in my point of view. ) My growing up secular by default, has me understandingly 'can't believing. And then excluding myself by default? From Christianity? Well, that's just obvious, if that's what you mean. I'm not saying that's bad or good, it's just how it is, by the characteristics of the religion, and how without experience in it, doesn't seem to coincide in honestly believing it. 

Quote

Christianity isn't excluding you.

So, is a lot of other religions. In fact, my own religion doesn't exclude anyone else. It just has a different way of wanting to include you. 

Quote

It's much the same as if you can't pull for the local team because they're not your cup of tea and eschew going to the games, buying team merchandise, hanging out with other fans at tailgate parties; you have the same opportunity as anyone else to participate, but you just don't have any enthusiasm for that team. So, you exclude yourself from the festivities--no one is excluding you.

Weeeeeeell, I think there is a difference here. Well, to my experience. And yes, I'm not into sports, but sport's teammates and fans, don't make it a big deal to get me into them, or make me feel bad for myself and my none sports loving past for why I don't believe in sports. I haven't had any experiences with anything sports related like that at all, and there are sport's fans in my family. (And here's the thing, they didn't care. (( OK, there's was the Met's thing, that was exciting when they won in 1985??)) But, it wasn't something that was expecting me to continue.) 

So, in that respect to those proselytizing, it's not just being included, it's not wanting me to have the choice to exclude myself. It's almost like the invite was really put there, and that I better not have the audacity of turning them down. In fact, of course, it doesn't happen with all in each religion, and those who understand myself excluding myself, I am thankful. 

Quote

As for religion, how can you blame the other kids if you don't want to play make believe with them? It is sad if you feel lonely and left out--but it's not their fault.

 

I'm not sure, you can say this is entirely the situation of this. One, I'm not sure I can use your analogy here, because it is demeaning it with an example of immaturity in it. I'm sorry, if I'm putting it this way, but I do not view religion this way. I mean, hey I have my own belief, (despite growing up secular) in which I can see it as my own religion. And I do see each religion and belief, being practiced as respectable and maturely by adults. It's how some act in it, and maybe that's where you could use the examples of kids play acting, I don't know. 

But, I really do not get about saying if I feel lonely and left out. I'm not saying it's their fault. And I don't think you can use that everyone would feel left out either. Some people like being by themselves, and I feel that sometimes has a problem in their relative religions, which seems to me, ( I said to me ) to think everyone should be in one big busy family all of the time. ( please correct me, anyone )  

In fact, if I'm blaming 'them', it's because they think they know best for me, better then me, (and they get it wrong of course, and invasive too ) and up hurting, who is trying to escape too much attention that is uncomfortable for them. Again, it's not a one size fits all thing. 

What I'm saying in all, is that I can't see what others (not all) push, when I see past it due to not seeing it being truth growing up. And yeah, I have a belief, but despite yes, it can say you can do it, I don't push it. I feel my own belief does itself it's own thing, and I'm just live my life, using my belief for me, respecting others and their belief or lack of one, and I'm happy for them as I'm happy for me. 

I think this is important, those not within the circle of certain beliefs, are not always considering themselves lost or unsaved or lonely. There are those who feel complete, satisfied with how their lives have come without a certain religion (or within their own unique religion) and frankly they don't blame proselytizers for not excluding them, but blaming them for wanting them to exclude themselves from lives that they have only known and happy with. 

I understand Hammie, you don't want Christians stereotyped and blamed. I don't blame you. But, I feel, one should not stereotype and blame none Christians either. I think we both know, that there are different Christians, one's who should be blamed, and one's who shouldn't be. As well as considering that None Christians are not always wrong and looking to be redeemed as Christians and blaming them, but happy and content with themselves, just as saved, ( in a sense as they see it ) and not needing to be looked upon as lost. 

Let's hope this can be understood by the world, I hope so.  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

45 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

People often believe in a wide variety of things. When it comes to more 'spiritual' beliefs, it is often due to wanting a meaning in their lives. Believe the bible, torah, koran, etc. It is a ready made path to follow. Some pick and choose which beliefs work for them. Why do they believe? Well, I can not answer that authentically. Because I do not know the underlining motivations behind such belief. I can only suspect that it revolves around finding meaning.

I think this is true. I feel, well within my belief, it's having meaning, and yes feeling it gives something I need, and that it also gives me a more healthy ( and happy ) point of view of the world, where there would be a quick judgmental look, that I should not always automatically have.  

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

....sounds more to me like....

The Voice of Google

Mine are Siri and Alexa.       

Well, upfront anyways..................................    

[+Hammerclaw]

9 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I know, it's how you feel, and you should stand by what you said. I'm just pointing out my feelings from my experiences and point of view.  

This bit, I find if in the least, very interesting.  

This might sound like a huge responsibility on my part, but to me, it's plainly simple, and not looked upon as wrong really. The ball's in my court?  That's just it, growing up with no experience of religion, and not seeing it in the outlook of it being so important in the universal point of view, I don't see how it's even in the outlook of being important. I grew up, in the main quick outlook, of magic not being real, miracles really something that might be explained away as coincidence, and various things that is written in religious books, and tenets in religion, not making any sense in the day to day world. 

If I can't believe? ( Well, in Christianity. )  Of course, I can't believe. It's not something you can force upon yourself, ( well without psychological after effects, in my point of view. ) My growing up secular by default, has me understandingly 'can't believing. And then excluding myself by default? From Christianity? Well, that's just obvious, if that's what you mean. I'm not saying that's bad or good, it's just how it is, by the characteristics of the religion, and how without experience in it, doesn't seem to coincide in honestly believing it. 

So, is a lot of other religions. In fact, my own religion doesn't exclude anyone else. It just has a different way of wanting to include you. 

Weeeeeeell, I think there is a difference here. Well, to my experience. And yes, I'm not into sports, but sport's teammates and fans, don't make it a big deal to get me into them, or make me feel bad for myself and my none sports loving past for why I don't believe in sports. I haven't had any experiences with anything sports related like that at all, and there are sport's fans in my family. (And here's the thing, they didn't care. (( OK, there's was the Met's thing, that was exciting when they won in 1985??)) But, it wasn't something that was expecting me to continue.) 

So, in that respect to those proselytizing, it's not just being included, it's not wanting me to have the choice to exclude myself. It's almost like the invite was really put there, and that I better not have the audacity of turning them down. In fact, of course, it doesn't happen with all in each religion, and those who understand myself excluding myself, I am thankful. 

 

I'm not sure, you can say this is entirely the situation of this. One, I'm not sure I can use your analogy here, because it is demeaning it with an example of immaturity in it. I'm sorry, if I'm putting it this way, but I do not view religion this way. I mean, hey I have my own belief, (despite growing up secular) in which I can see it as my own religion. And I do see each religion and belief, being practiced as respectable and maturely by adults. It's how some act in it, and maybe that's where you could use the examples of kids play acting, I don't know. 

But, I really do not get about saying if I feel lonely and left out. I'm not saying it's their fault. And I don't think you can use that everyone would feel left out either. Some people like being by themselves, and I feel that sometimes has a problem in their relative religions, which seems to me, ( I said to me ) to think everyone should be in one big busy family all of the time. ( please correct me, anyone )  

In fact, if I'm blaming 'them', it's because they think they know best for me, better then me, (and they get it wrong of course, and invasive too ) and up hurting, who is trying to escape too much attention that is uncomfortable for them. Again, it's not a one size fits all thing. 

What I'm saying in all, is that I can't see what others (not all) push, when I see past it due to not seeing it being truth growing up. And yeah, I have a belief, but despite yes, it can say you can do it, I don't push it. I feel my own belief does itself it's own thing, and I'm just live my life, using my belief for me, respecting others and their belief or lack of one, and I'm happy for them as I'm happy for me. 

I think this is important, those not within the circle of certain beliefs, are not always considering themselves lost or unsaved or lonely. There are those who feel complete, satisfied with how their lives have come without a certain religion (or within their own unique religion) and frankly they don't blame proselytizers for not excluding them, but blaming them for wanting them to exclude themselves from lives that they have only known and happy with. 

I understand Hammie, you don't want Christians stereotyped and blamed. I don't blame you. But, I feel, one should not stereotype and blame none Christians either. I think we both know, that there are different Christians, one's who should be blamed, and one's who shouldn't be. As well as considering that None Christians are not always wrong and looking to be redeemed as Christians and blaming them, but happy and content with themselves, just as saved, ( in a sense as they see it ) and not needing to be looked upon as lost. 

Let's hope this can be understood by the world, I hope so.  

I'm not stereotyping anyone. The doors to our churches here are always open. Visitors are welcome, any Sunday--you don't even have to be a believer. It's your choice whether you ever walk through those doors. Just don't laugh while the other kid's play. That's considered bad manners.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'm not stereotyping anyone. The doors to our churches here are always open. Visitors are welcome, any Sunday--you don't even have to be a believer. It's your choice whether you ever walk through those doors. Just don't laugh while the other kid's play. That's considered bad manners.

Not trying to argue the point...just saying.  Many churches, not saying yours, but many, do indeed exclude people...mainstream churches....they ask you not to take communion if you don't 'believe'.  Exclusion!  I have been told by every Christian I know that I am not a Christian.  Funny, I always considered myself to be...because I follow the teachings of Jesus.  Nope, not good enough! They will not even allow you to 'call' yourself Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection.   Exclusion!

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, joc said:

Not trying to argue the point...just saying.  Many churches, not saying yours, but many, do indeed exclude people...mainstream churches....they ask you not to take communion if you don't 'believe'.  Exclusion!  I have been told by every Christian I know that I am not a Christian.  Funny, I always considered myself to be...because I follow the teachings of Jesus.  Nope, not good enough! They will not even allow you to 'call' yourself Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection.   Exclusion!

Revelation 3:20 ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

[+joc]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Revelation 3:20 ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Exactly!  The Dude Himself only excluded one group of people in his whole life and that was the money changers.

But I have found the Church of The Dude some what exclusionary.

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, joc said:

Exactly!  The Dude Himself only excluded one group of people in his whole life and that was the money changers.

But I have found the Church of The Dude some what exclusionary.

Not our churches and the Catholic church still consider even the excommunicated Christians but separated by their own choice from Communion and The Body of Christ. At some point one has to accept responsibility for one's own choices and not blame others because they make different choices.

[+joc]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not our churches and the Catholic church still consider even the excommunicated Christians but separated by their own choice from Communion and The Body of Christ. At some point one has to accept responsibility for one's own choices and not blame others because they make different choices.

Honestly, I don't care much about what the Churches, Catholics notwithstanding do or say.

Your good with verses...you can look it up if you want:  To all who ask, give. If someone asks you for your coat...offer your cloak as well.  

There seems to be a huge difference between what the Believers believe...and what Jesus actually taught.   The Church has an amazing gift in twisting scripture to satisfy their desires.

...and ....Whoever takes this ....i.e. communion...do it in remembrance of me....far different than ...do it only if you believe A, B, C.

Edited January 17, 2018 by joc

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, joc said:

Honestly, I don't care much about what the Churches, Catholics notwithstanding do or say.

Your good with verses...you can look it up if you want:  To all who ask, give. If someone asks you for your coat...offer your cloak as well.  

There seems to be a huge difference between what the Believers believe...and what Jesus actually taught.   The Church has an amazing gift in twisting scripture to satisfy their desires.

And so do unbelievers have an amazing skill at tailoring verses to back up their unbelief. Both sides conveniently ignore the one's that undermine their argument. Neither can choose for the other; one's choices are one's own. It's not anyone's fault that the other chooses differently. What I'm saying is our churches are always open to unbelievers in the hope that they may one day become believers. That's the goal of evangelical Christianity. Visit any time.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

24 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'm not stereotyping anyone. The doors to our churches here are always open. Visitors are welcome, any Sunday--you don't even have to be a believer. It's your choice whether you ever walk through those doors. Just don't laugh while the other kid's play. That's considered bad manners.

Ok, again, I don't get that last bit. Why would I laugh at kid's playing? If this is meant to be taken literally, than yes, confused. If this is a metaphor, well to what, and if it's the same meaning, to what I asked what you meant, than I touched upon that in my previous post to you. 

Just for the record, ( I guess ) I have always been aware of the invite. I have received quite of few invites, (and just invites, that's all) from respectable individuals. I never took it beyond that with that, with these individuals, ( I could tell by their manners ) But, I wish you realize, that there are some who don't invite, they insist and/or shame and ridicule you, when you turn down their invite. That does happen, I have experienced that. I see the invites as well, on church signs. I think that's nice. I even took a church sign invite, (at a in Mall church in Jersey and this was days after 9/11) and asked to just sit in there and meditate and other things, that would resemble religious praying, and those who worked in that church were very gracious, told me of course, and didn't pursue me for return invites or to join them. They left to my thing, were respectful of it, and when I left and thanked them, they were very warm and appreciative and thanked me back and just wished me well. 

Personally, I think this should be just understood to get new members, if they just left their signs, and their gracious behavior and left it at that. I think it's great!  But, in my experience and observation, there are those that make you feel excluded in life, when they can't win at brow beating you into church. To me, Hammie, there seems to be varying 'meanings' to 'invites' from varying religious individuals. 

Please realize, I know this, and then also see the difference in that and to being shamed, bullied, and marginalized, when I don't accept the invite. Plainly, some things go beyond that invite. 

And if I do see what you mean by the "kid's playing and don't make fun of them" if that is to mean about me stereotyping them, I don't and I hope you knew that of me. I respect others and their right to 'play' at their religions, as I to be respected to 'play' within mine, and the same thing with Atheist. I understand them. But, if I'm making fun or such to those who 'play', it's not that I seem them and watching them play, but them dragging me into their play and expect me to enjoy it, when I don't. 

In other words, I smile at the kids at play, but must defend myself, when it comes to the bullies. 

[+joc]

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

And so do unbelievers have an amazing skill at tailoring verses to back up their unbelief. Both sides conveniently ignore the one's that undermine their argument. Neither can choose for the other; one's choices are one's own. It's not anyone's fault that the other chooses differently. What I'm saying is our churches are always open to unbelievers in the hope that they may one day become believers. That's the goal of evangelical Christianity. Visit any time.

I totally understand that.  And that is part and parcel...the whole problem.  The Goal of Jesus was not to make anyone become a believer in him...it was too teach them how to live...hoping that they would listen and learn.  Not to indoctrinate them into any belief.  And he excluded no one.  I am not a novice to the workings of the church.  I'm a Master in understanding all things church.  Trust me.

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

I totally understand that.  And that is part and parcel...the whole problem.  The Goal of Jesus was not to make anyone become a believer in him...it was too teach them how to live...hoping that they would listen and learn.  Not to indoctrinate them into any belief.  And he excluded no one.  I am not a novice to the workings of the church.  I'm a Master in understanding all things church.  Trust me.

THE Unitarian Church would welcome you with open arms. Have a nice day.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

29 minutes ago, joc said:

Not trying to argue the point...just saying.  Many churches, not saying yours, but many, do indeed exclude people...mainstream churches....they ask you not to take communion if you don't 'believe'.  Exclusion!  I have been told by every Christian I know that I am not a Christian.  Funny, I always considered myself to be...because I follow the teachings of Jesus.  Nope, not good enough! They will not even allow you to 'call' yourself Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection.   Exclusion!

This reminds me of something being mailed to us, sometime back in Jersey. It was a letter from a southern state, (Have no recollection of who they are, or why they sent that to us) But, it was a religious congregation or group, that was lecturing against attending religious institutions and meetings. It was in the manner of down right angry lecturing against going to church. 

Well, that was that one time, and I don't know if it was those cookie cutter mailing that is trying to proselytize everyone. But, I find it interesting that there is a religion, that is against church and probably is telling people not to accept invites, and how uninviting them seem to me. 

31 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

33 minutes ago, joc said:

Not trying to argue the point...just saying.  Many churches, not saying yours, but many, do indeed exclude people...mainstream churches....they ask you not to take communion if you don't 'believe'.  Exclusion!  I have been told by every Christian I know that I am not a Christian.  Funny, I always considered myself to be...because I follow the teachings of Jesus.  Nope, not good enough! They will not even allow you to 'call' yourself Christian if you don't believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection.   Exclusion!

Revelation 3:20 ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This seems to me, that not all believe the bible, considering it seems to me, joc's experience is going against what the bible says. *shrugs* 

25 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not our churches and the Catholic church still consider even the excommunicated Christians but separated by their own choice from Communion and The Body of Christ. At some point one has to accept responsibility for one's own choices and not blame others because they make different choices.

What do you mean? I would think those who don't believe and attend services, are obviously accepting their choice. I think, it should be observed, that they see the reasoning of their choice as not a bad choice. The others are being blamed, for making those who make these choices, for condemning them for their choices. The choices that are made, doesn't mean, they're bad choices for not attending. In fact, and I see this in myself since I see forcing yourself to believe in something you don't honestly believe in, I feel it's a wise choice to not believe and attend services of something I don't believe in because, that would mean I'm not only lying to myself, but lying to them too. 

15 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

And so do unbelievers have an amazing skill at tailoring verses to back up their unbelief. Both sides conveniently ignore the one's that undermine their argument. Neither can choose for the other; one's choices are one's own. It's not anyone's fault that the other chooses differently. What I'm saying is our churches are always open to unbelievers in the hope that they may one day become believers. That's the goal of evangelical Christianity. Visit any time.

 And they also have a right and should be respected for not taking that invite. There is situations where, some get nasty for having their invite turned down. They do exist. 

Remember, I'm saying not all, but some do exist. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

THE Unitarian Church would welcome you with open arms. Have a nice day.

I think that's understood. I hope it's understood, those who turn down the invite and welcome, (without negative reasoning, just that they're fine without it) are just as good and warm people too. 

Looking at it this way, how are people looked upon, when they say thank you for the welcome and invite, but they're fine without it and move on? 

[Truthseeker007]

48 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Revelation 3:20 ²⁰Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Well that verse would be good evidence for Jesus being gay.

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Where ever you got it, since you say it isn't from Christians you know. Only you know what that source is. Since it is not something you've experienced, first hand, it is vicariously derived from some other source. 

To reiterate Sheri's sentiment, this is just some friendly verbal jousting, Hammer, no animosity involved and I don't think we're really disagreeing about much anyway.

I do know what vicarious means, but I'm unaware of my making any statement that relies on my personally being on the receiving end of Christian judgment so I don't know why it was brought up.  I've made no statements concerning how it feels to be on the receiving end of Christian judgment, which would maybe require more of a personal experience with it.

15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, there are Christians who believe the bible is "Gods Word" and infallible, never mind they are talking about a book with center columns of corrections. Most don't, since there are outrageous things in it no one in their right mind would ever do.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean to imply that I was referring to those who believe the literal bible is infallible.  I agree that the number of Christians that believe the Bible is in its entirety the Word of God is low, but I think that the number of Christians who believe that the Bible contains the Word of God in parts to be high.

15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Real Christians, like the ones I know,

All I gotta say on that is I have zero evidence that you personally know more 'Real Christians' than I do, fwiw.

To your ultimate point that I think I mostly agree with, I would at least argue that Christians are no more judgmental than anybody else, although they obviously may be more judgmental about certain things compared to non-Christians, and vice-versa.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Liquid Gardens

[+Liquid Gardens]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

Recall also that sola fide (salvation by faith alone) is a minority view among living Christians, a modern interpretation of Paul (most importantly), who was himself just one voice among many in the early church (something he complains about).

Sure, but doesn't that just make it worse and put non-Christians more in need of God hopefully just liking you?  It's not a minority view among Christians that faith is required for salvation, is it?  Even for those who don't think it alone is sufficient?

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Well that verse would be good evidence for Jesus being gay.

Jeez, dude. Do you have,anything else stupid and homophobic you'd like to add?

[Area201]

 

Quote

That's strange as it was most definitely taken as literal by the Catholic church and I believe still is. In fact I know it was right up until the 1990's when I was at Catholic School. It's still taken literally by all the creationists in America who want it taught as fact in schools and there's millions of them. It's still taught as fact by catholic missionaries (I know as I've met a few) and who know's how many people they have instructed that it's the truth? It's baffling and annoying that you think that just because it doesn't apply to you then it mustn't apply to the rest of the world! I suggest you do a bit of research before you get all snarky with an easily dismissed post like this, that way you would have facts to back up your argument and not just a misguided opinion piece. I suggest YOU look up the history of the catholic church, american creationists and just for fun Alice Cooper (he's a born again Christian who believes the bible to be literal, he's gone on record many times to discuss his faith). 

Let me backtrack to your original post, now that I'm reading it over I mistook your statement to imply ALL people who believe in the bible take ALL it's content literally. That would be baffling and annoying, for people like me and many I know who recognize the Bible as a compilation of many books with many hands involved, some of the parts of the Bible we do not take literally, but metaphors. allegories, and such, from Genesis to the parables of Jesus. So you are right SOME people do hold this belief in varying degrees and have for centuries. My reply was misguided and not reflective of your actual statements now that I'm reading it over.

Let me reply from scratch.

Quote

It's baffling and annoying, by all means have faith but do not believe the bible is anything other than bronze age fairy tales written by man. 

The Bible I think is comprised of parts that are to not be taken literally, and parts that are historical accounts and literally happened. Now which are which and how exactly we interpret the message is another question that has left us with a thousand and one various Christian sects and Bible influenced groups. Due to the many hands it's passed through, and various ulterior motives behind to alter or not include certain scriptures, and so on, it's commonly accepted as a work compromised or altered.

However, just because it's imperfect, this does not mean it's a work of fiction. The parts that may have deeper meanings and are to be teachings of things that transpire in the realm of consciousness/spirit, those we cannot verify here. These are matters of interpretation and spiritual understanding. (Actually we can verify those also, but for sake of argument lets just stick with the historical side.) YOU easily dismiss the bible with your own snarky comment that it's nothing but 'bronze age fairy tales written by man'. Here's a timeline of biblical accounts that indicate the people and places mentioned in the Bible can be found in historical writings other than the Bible. These are extensive and I'm not going to list all here, YOU should study this timeline to get an idea why SOME people may take SOME parts of the Bible literally. One example. 

Quote

"..until 1993 there was no proof of the existence of King David or even of Israel as a nation prior to Solomon. Then in 1993 archeologists found proof of King David's existence outside the Bible. At an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the north of Israel, words carved into a chunk of basalt were translated as "House of David" and "King of Israel". This proved that David was more than just a legend.

My short answer to your question why some people believe the bible is literal, and I can only defend some parts of the Bible, is because we have many supportive historical accounts of things mentioned in the Bible that allow us to take those parts "literally". When we get to things like Old Testaments' Genesis, New Testaments's parables of Jesus, and St. Paul's testimony of Christ, that's when it gets more of an "opinion piece".

I think your question, and my original misguided answer, shows how complicated the subject is given all the factors involved. 

If you asked "why do people believe in God" I would reply, for myself at least, due to personal experiences. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Area201

[eight bits]

LG

Quote

Sure, but doesn't that just make it worse and put non-Christians more in need of God hopefully just liking you?  It's not a minority view among Christians that faith is required for salvation, is it?  Even for those who don't think it alone is sufficient?

It's hard to say. The Catholics are, or nearly are, a majority of living Christians. While there is always some debatability about exactly how a Catholic thinks they might be saved, belief is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Protestants are more varied, and while some are very insistent that Christian faith is necessary for salvation, others aren't. There is also the question of when faith matters. Swedenborg taught that everybody gets a revelation when they die, and if they believe then (when they have sure knowledge of all relevant facts), they are saved. There aren't many Swedenborgians, but Swedenborg himself avoided conviction by a Lutheran heresy trial, so his idea can't be too far out of the mainstream Protestant perspective. The flip side is that there is "once saved, always saved," in which view, it isn't necessary to maintain faith to be saved, but only ever to have had it (although that may sometimes operate by giving you some deathbed reversion experience, so you've got your ticket when the conductor comes to punch it).

Christians also differ whether infants who die (who cannot possibly display "faith") are saved. I conjecture that yes and "maybe so" would command a majority in a show of hands, and if so, then "faith is not necessary to be saved" is a majority view.

Finally, it seems I post some version of this video a couple of times every year. Billy Graham and Robert Schuller discuss the question. It's very civilized, IMO.

 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

It's hard to say. The Catholics are, or nearly are, a majority of living Christians. While there is always some debatability about exactly how a Catholic thinks they might be saved, belief is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Leaving out special cases like infants (who yes cannot have faith but also cannot commit sins either), it's been my impression that the majority of Christians do think at the very least that almost everyone needs to have belief. There seems to be emphasis, at least by the Catholic church, on the fact that the first step in salvation is God's grace and some seem to believe that you can't believe in Jesus without that grace.  I guess I'm very skeptical that the majority of Christians don't believe in probably the most popular verse in the NT, John 3:16, and I think an informal poll would show that most Christians do not agree that 'it is not necessary to believe in Jesus to be saved'.

It's tough for me to discuss, I ran into the weeds some with Hammer trying to talk simultaneously about 'Christianity-the Christians' and 'Christianity- the doctrines', and especially with at least American Catholics, those can be quite different beasties.

20 minutes ago, eight bits said:

The flip side is that there is "once saved, always saved," in which view, it isn't necessary to maintain faith to be saved, but only ever to have had it (although that may sometimes operate by giving you some deathbed reversion experience, so you've got your ticket when the conductor comes to punch it).

I've heard something similar to this before but posed from the flip side of this flip side.  It was in a discussion with a Calvinist, whose beliefs are difficult enough for me to grok logically, but the point made sense:  it's 'once saved, always saved' because God doesn't make mistakes.  This point was usually brought up when it was noted that ex-Christians exist and that at the time those people did believe in Jesus and were saved.  My Calvinist acquaintance would argue that they only thought they were saved, I assume he thought that it isn't actually possible for someone to lose their salvation. That makes some sense to me also based on my own beliefs about how a being who created time would view our reality.