The Bible: Fact or Fiction?

[Blazin Bones]

This caught my attention.

The answer cannot be from the Bible for the Bible is not proven word of God with all the mistakes and contradictions...so where are you going to get your proof from?

So what then is the Bible? Great stories? An elaborate plot to deceive unsuspecting readers? The Inspired word of God?

Two ground rules for this discussion.
1. We are on a Christian Forum, therefore the Bible is "Innocent until proven guilty" or it's message flawed.

2. The Majority of us are Adults. In this thread, you will discuss with reason and respect, not fifth grade emotion. Remember that the truth can hurt.

 

[peace4all]

Personally, THis is what i believe.

I think that long long ago, some ppl told stories, liek all cultures told. Stories passed on from generation to generation, about things that may be, or may have been true. Well after being told 100 times or so, and changed and twisted quite a lot, It was written down. ANd as the people that had these stories travleeld, split, grew ect, some stories changed, and some new ones were added (hence the reason there are 2 creation stories.)

well when the world began to get closer, and people actually began distinguishing themselves as one whole groupo under the same religion, They all had to make sure they all had this smae book. Now of course, if u took a handwriteen bible from france (in french) one from greece (in greek) and one from germany (in germanic) they would have the same gist, but still be diffrent (especially after 50 translations and retelligns ect) so, they compiled all of them into one, and sorta, started over again.

dont think that is tooo far fetched.

1631~ bibles printed left the word "not" out in a crucial passage, that totally reversed the teaching against homosexuality (i believe) so just think fo all of the other spots that this may have happened.





ALso note, that many religions have a few of the same stories, or very similar stories. WHy? when nomadic ppl moved their versions of the bible around, they got changed and fixed ect..



Anywho another sort of theory of mine.

When a little kid asks a question, and you cant explain it, you make up a storie that explains it right?
well, To ppl that are uneducated in the least, it would be pretty easy to convince them of almost anything.

How did we get here? "a magic man made us all" "what about the wind?" "that is his breath" "what about the sunlight?" "that is his campfire" ect ect ect.


ALso *this is the one good thign i see from christianity*

some guy along the way probably said "hey man, there are alj these gullible ppl that are killing eachother. this is bad cuz they might kill me, AHHA brilliant! i will make up a story that will threaten them with death, from a superpower, and will tell them that they wil be struck by lightning if they murder/steal/lie ect. THey dotn know where lightning comes from, so i mean, lets use it to my advantage eh?"

 

[Drew]

I see the Bible as a set of books that are remarkably coherent and unified in respect to presenting the story of man's falling away from God and God's long work of ultimately restoring the broken relationship through Jesus's sacrificial work on the cross.

I think it is most helpful to view the Bible at the "overarching theme" level rather than at what I will call the "verse" level. For all its controversy and imperfection (I do not believe in inerrancy- at least as I understand this term), the Bible does tell a grand story that resonates deeply with the human condition - I think even the harshest of critics would grant this.

Such elements as the fall of Adam and Eve, the wanderings of the tribes of Israel, God's deliverance of Israel when all seemed lost, reaching the promised land, and the unmerited grace of the Cross all map to the content of each of our own personal journeys through life.

All this underscores the importance of seeing the Bible at the "high level", the more abstract level where one can discern things like the long yearnings of God to restore what was lost in Eden and the incomprehensibly selfless act of Jesus' going to the cross for that very purpose.

Being the intellectually lazy people we are, we can tend towards using the Bible as a kind of "manual" to look for "rules" to govern our lives. I worry that we lose the connected unity of the overall story, embodying themes such as loss and restoration which are woven throughout the narrative.

As I have alluded to, I think the Bible contains errors. For example, I cannot reconcile documented statements about God ordering the killing of children with my conception of a loving God. So I think such accounts are fabrications (and Gary, if you're reading this, I have read some of your material dealing with this difficult issue - I appreciate and respect where you are coming from but as of today, I remain skeptical). Is abandoning inerrancy the end of the world? Of course not. Life is filled with ambiguity and imperfection.

I think we actually do harm to the Great Commission by insisting on literalism / inerrancy. It is simply to much to expect that thinking good-hearted people will believe in a 10,000 year old earth or that putting a child to the sword can be the will of God (it is not so much the issue of a young life cut short, as it is the use of human beings as the violent instrumentality).

Besides, there is no need to adopt such an extreme position anyway. God is real, Jesus is real, the Bible is inspired (albeit with some errors) and while it contains information about God, it should not be viewed as embodying the totality of who God is. Why would we expect our transcendent God to be fully and exhaustively described in a series of books?

 

[Quath]

Why would we expect our transcendent God to be fully and exhaustively described in a series of books?

So how do you get your description of God without knowing what parts of the Bible are in error? In a sense it frees you to see God in many ways that could be quite blasphemous.

For example, maybe the Gnostic Christians got it right and God is evil. However, God's creator is not and Jesus was trying to lead us to that one, not God (Yaweh).

Or maybe God is not a Trinity but a Quartet with Satan being the 4th member. (God and Satan both inspire David to count his men.) So God could have a mean streak or having Satan as part of Him could explain how we have Evil.

Or maybe the Greeks or Norse captured the stories of God/Zeus/Odin better than the Hebrews did. Maybe there were other gods and the Hebrews just called them "angels."

So I guess with a holy book with some errors, how do you know if there is a hell or if Jesus is the only way to salvation?

I agree with you that it is hard to accept the literal Bible at face value. Maybe I am playing Christian advocate here to see how you decide how much of the Bible to trust?

Quath

 

[Gary]

(and Gary, if you're reading this, I have read some of your material dealing with this difficult issue - I appreciate and respect where you are coming from but as of today, I remain skeptical)

You have chosen a very slippery slope. Been there, done that! Either the Biblical writers were inspired or they were not. I trust God and Jesus.... who also trusted the Scriptures!

 

[Drew]

Hello Quath:

Quite simply, I believe those parts of the Bible that "resonate" favourably with my internal sense of what is right and what is wrong (in the moral dimension) and what is true and what is false (in the "what is factual" dimension, if you will). Of course, I give heavy weight to empirical evidence as I suspect you know. There is, admittedly, a certain degree of "extrapolation" going on as well. For example, since I have come to believe in the general credibility of Jesus based on the degree to which some of his teaching "strikes a chord", I am very much inclined to accept other things he says that might not necessarily resonate with me. Of course, if Jesus were to have been recorded as saying something really dreadful (e.g. kill the infidels), I would not follow such a teaching.

I should also say that while I am fierce defender of the scientific method and that empirical knowledge is probably the surest form of knowledge, I also believe that there really is "more" to reality than a conventional "materialistic / physicalist" picture would dictate. In order to avoid expatiating at length, I will simply say for the present that fundamentally our World is profoundly mysterious and not just in a "we don't know everything yet" sense. I know that we have peripherally addressed the topic of intuition before (you're somewhat skeptical of intuition, if I recall). I will say that I "trust" my intuition about what to believe about God, Jesus, and the Bible. And even though I have more or less rejected the fundamentalist stripe of Christianity, my inner sense of the reality and presence of God has not waned.

Are you quite sure that your hinted at (if not downright stated) departure from Christian faith was not really a repudiation of the fundamentalistic Christian culture and not so much a coming to believe in the absence of a God or that Jesus serves as mediator between man and God? You do realize that fundamentalism is not the only game in town, don't you?

 

[Quath]

So when you say it resonates, do you think it is resonates within you or from the Holy Ghost? In other words, do you think you have to accept the Holy Ghost to be able to understand what parts of the Bible work or is it innate in all people?

When I gave up on belief in God, it was more from being skeptical of a generic god than it was anything about the Christian faith. Basically, i saw that I had made a mistake in my belief in Santa Claus and I did not want to repeat it. (I decided that I never wanted to lie to myself, no matter whatthe cost.) So I could not make myself pass on the question on if God exists because that would feel like lieing to myself.

Quath

 

[Drew]

You have chosen a very slippery slope. Been there, done that! Either the Biblical writers were inspired or they were not. I trust God and Jesus.... who also trusted the Scriptures!

I guess that I will just have to take my chances on not sliding down that slope. But make no mistake, movement away from ambiguity towards the certainty that goes along with the inerrancy position is only the right choice if the scriptures truly are, indeed, inerrant. I have read a lot of your posts and doubt very much that you (as a demonstrably reasonable person) would use the "you have to accept all of it or none of it" argument that is so obviously dubious. I know of no scripture where Jesus makes anything close to a claim that the complete content of the 66 books is without error.

Now to get myself into some real trouble: My experience in life in general (and on these boards as well) is that there is a definite correlation between a highly fundamentalistic Biblically literalistic type of position and a failure to "see the world the way it really is". Look at what's going on in the Creation/Evolution section right now. In their fervour to promote a 10,000 year old earth, some Christians will stop at nothing (not at misrepresentation, not at name-calling, etc.) to preserve their worldview - if one more person claims that "those atheist evolutionists expect us to believe that an ape gave birth to a human", I shall surely go crazy.

Or remember our thread about giving to the poor. While you and I seem to agree on this matter, it seems that we stand in decided opposition to the majority, many of whom are quick to leaf through the Bible to find some verse about how God blesses us with prosperity. And such verses are indeed there! Yet you and I both know that God will not be impressed with such arguments when we are asked to account for a life of luxury while others starved and suffered. And why do we know this? I claim that it is because we can properly discount those prosperity verses in light of the teachings of Jesus as well as the prodding of our consciences by the Holy Spirit.

In a way, I would really like to join the inerrancy camp. But, my heart (and mind) tell me very clearly that God would never ask anyone to take a sword and slice into the body of a child cowering in a corner in order exact justice on the Amorites. To paraphrase from some American dude, "Some truths I hold to be self-evident" and the moral outrage of killing children is on the list. I think I can live with the ambiguity that goes along with abandoning an inerrancy position, and yet remain true to the cause of the Kingdom.

 

[hopefearmercy]

Hello again,

I have read the Bible thoroughly and I must admit that there are plenty of mistakes and contradictions therein.

examples....like in John 5:37...you have neither heard God's voice or seen his shape and then in John 14:9...if you have seen me you have seen the father.

or John 5:31...If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true and in John 8:14...Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.

You will find many like these contradictions in the Bible...there are plenty of mistakes with huge amounts of numbers in the old testament and many horrible sayings they told about the Prophets of God.

Why and HOW can anyone take this as the word of God when Jesus is confused even in the Bible?

hopefearmercy

 

[hopefearmercy]

where is the proof they were inspired?



Hello again,

ok this was posted by Gary I believe but correct me if I am wrong.


"You have chosen a very slippery slope. Been there, done that! Either the Biblical writers were inspired or they were not. I trust God and Jesus.... who also trusted the Scriptures!"

How can you call such filth in the old testament words from God? If they were inspired that would make them messengers from God, for only they brought books from God and half the authors are unknown so how do you know they are or were inspired. In the book of Luke 1 , 2& 3...Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.(If Luke said about himself was not an eyewitness and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses and not as words inspired by God, do you still believe the Bible is God’s word?


In the old testament you find horrible ordeals that are related to prophets of God....example...2 Samuel 19:23..David DANCES NAKED before the people and before the Lord

Genesis 19:30..Lot went up out of Zo'ar and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters. And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come to us after the manner of all the earth. COME LET US MAKE OUR FATHER DRINK WINE AND WE WILL LIE WITH HIM, that we may preserve offspring through our father. So they made their father drink wine that night; AND THE FIRST BORN WENT IN AND LAY WITH HER FATHER; HE DID NOT KNOW WHEN SHE LAY DOWN OR WHEN SHE AROSE.
And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger "Behold, I lay last night with my father, let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him that we may preserve offspring through our father.
So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose, and LAY WITH HIM; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. THUS BOTH THE DAUGHTERS OF LOT WERE WITH CHILD BY THEIR FATHER

2 Samuel 11:1 and 2 Samuel 12:10....David with his neighbor's wife and then God punishes Him by what??...The Lord said to David, "Because you despised me, and have taken the wife of Uri'ah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus say the Lord, "Behold, I will take your wives (He punished David through his daughter and son not his wife as you will see) before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.

1st Kings 11:3..Solomon had seven hundred wives princesses and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned his heart after other Gods.... the Goddess of the Sido'nians.

and one "sex letter" in the bible!!!!!....Proverbs 7:7....I have seen among the simple, I have perceived among the youth, a young man without sense, passing along the street near her corner taking the road to her house in the twilight, in the evening at the time of the night and darkness.
And lo, a woman meets him, dressed as a harlot, wily of heart. She is loud and wayward. Now in the street, now in the market, and at every corner she lies in wait. SHE SEIZES HIM AND KISSES HIM, and with impudent face she says to him: I have come to meet you, to seek you eagerly, and I have found you.
I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. COME, LET US TAKE OUR FILL OF LOVE TILL THE MORNING, LET US DELIGHT OURSELVES WITH LOVE. FOR MY HUSBAND IS NOT AT HOME, HE HAS GONE ON A LONG JOURNEY.
With much seductive speech she persuades him, with her smooth talk she compels him. All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter.


I could go on and say more and post more horrible sayings from the Bible...KING JAMES VERSION .

My question is....How can you claim that God writes and inspires men to write things like this???????? This is humiliating God and Christians at the same time. Are you not ashamed? Would you read this to your mother? I wouldn't!

hope you see my point.

hopefearmercy.





You have chosen a very slippery slope. Been there, done that! Either the Biblical writers were inspired or they were not. I trust God and Jesus.... who also trusted the Scriptures!

 

[Gary]

I have read the Bible thoroughly and I must admit that there are plenty of mistakes and contradictions therein.

examples....like in John 5:37...you have neither heard God's voice or seen his shape and then in John 14:9...if you have seen me you have seen the father.

or John 5:31...If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true and in John 8:14...Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.

I doubt you have honestly read and studied the Bible. You copy these from a site.

However, if you had HONESTLY read and studied the Bible (or even asked your pastor) you would have found the following:

Was Jesus' witness of Himself true or not?
John 8:14 and John 5:31

• (John 5:31) - "If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true."
  
  (John 8:14) - "Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true; for I know where I came from, and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from, or where I am going."

In John 5:31, the context is Jesus speaking about how He depends upon the Father and how He is seeking the will of the Father. John 5:30-32 says, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 31"If I alone bear witness of Myself, My testimony is not true. 32"There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the testimony which He bears of Me is true." The word "alone" is not in the Greek but is included in the NASB translation, though not the NIV, the KJV. Contextually, Jesus is not speaking as one alone, but as one dependent on the Father and that His judgments are true because He does the will of the Father. Jesus is reflecting on the Old Testament law that didn't allow the testimony of one person to condemn another to death. Two witnesses were needed to establish the fact:

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established," (Deuteronomy 19:15). and Matthew 8:16 says, ". . . in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." See also 2 Corinthians 13:1; Hebrews 10:28.

In John 8:14, Jesus says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true. But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself. Jesus was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true.

Source: http://www.carm.org/diff/John8_14.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more here: http://www.carm.org/diff/Exod6_3.htm



P.S. Why are there so many contradictions and mistakes in the Quran?

:-?

 

[hopefearmercy]

i can think by myself thank you



hmmm so you think i cut and paste? lol ok....to each his own...but I can decifer from page one if a day is created before the sun or not....or the many mistakes that are attributed to God at the hands of men.

You are explaining translations from translations and from translations...not one bible is the same....the "earlier" manuscripts were found after Jesus' assention....nothing was written during the time of Jesus when he was alive and he never ordered anyone to do just that....hearsay and you cannot deny it...I remember i believe someone wrote in and said that it wasn't his duty to...hhmmm how can that not be...you would think that God would come to lead the world and not to confuse it with translations that are attributed to God and in them mistakes and contradictions.

Find me one mistake in the Quran eh?...meeza waitin

hopefearmercy

 

[Gary]

....confuse it with translations that are attributed to God

Wow! Is THAT what your pastor taught you? Since when have Christians "attributed a translation to God"? Which denomination did you say your were from?

:o :o

 

[Gary]

Re: You fail to think for yourself.... ONE MISTAKE

....Find me one mistake in the Quran eh?...meeza waitin

First Mistake in the Quran

What will be the food for the people in Hell?

The Qur'an makes the following statements regarding the food that unbelievers will have in hell:

• No food will there be for them but a bitter Dhari S. 88:6 Y. Ali
  
  Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds, S. 69:36 Y. Ali

In a footnote, Yusuf Ali gives the following explanation for Dhari:

It is a plant, bitter and thorny, loathsome in smell and appearance, which will neither give fattening nourishment to the body nor in any way satisfy the burning pangs of hunger. ...

Other translators render the term as "bitter thorn-fruit" (Pickthall) "dry, bitter and thorny herbage" (Sher Ali), "cactus thorn" (Arberry), "the foul thorn" (Palmer).

Obviously, both kinds of ‘food’ are chosen to evoke a feeling of horror when thinking about Hell. However, the contradiction is in the double claim that this or that will be the only food, i.e.

• No food except Dhari (88:6).
  No food except foul pus (69:36).

There is yet another passage that is relevant to this discussion:

Is that the better entertainment or the Tree of Zaqqum?
For We have truly made it (as) a trial for the wrong-doers.
For it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hell-Fire:
The shoots of its fruit-stalks are like the heads of devils:
Truly they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith.
Then on top of that they will be given a mixture made of boiling water.
Then shall their return be to the (Blazing) Fire. S. 37:62-68 Y. Ali; cf. 56:52

Thus, regarding this one topic alone, the Qur'an contains three contradictions:

• (1) "Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only Dhari" (88:6).
  (2) "Eating of the tree of Zaqqum" (37:66) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).
  (3) "Eating only Dhari" (88:6) contradicts "eating only foul pus" (69:36).

:o :o :o

Source

 

[hopefearmercy]

no contradiction...do you know arabi?


you words gary:

"Wow! Is THAT what your pastor taught you? Since when have Christians "attributed a translation to God"? Which denomination did you say your were from? "
what are the bibles.....translations from what??????? God??????? lol...I suggest you look further into the foundation of the scriptures and where they originated from and how they came into being.

I was from the First Baptist Church....and yes.......KING JAMES TRANSLATION LOL...and don't forget the council of nicea in 325 AD....where they took a vote to see whether Jesus was God or not.


ok as far as the tree...I really think you need to learn ARABIC...for you are describing something and attributing your own opinions into the matter...if you know arabs they have different names of plants and trees during different seasons and named differently durin the seasons....the pus is already from the poisons from the bitter tree...this is their nourishment but will not be given to them since it is from themselves and their wounds gushing forth...to be eating the tree is the thorny most loathesome tree so bitter you would gag but you would be so hungry you have no choice and you eat of it...then be so thirsty from it you will be given boilin water etc....

this is not a contradiction.

It only takes common sense and knowledge to overcome ignorance.

hopefearmercy

 

[Gary]

Many more contradictions to come

ok as far as the tree...I really think you need to learn ARABIC...for you are describing something and attributing your own opinions into the matter...if you know arabs they have different names of plants and trees during different seasons and named differently durin the seasons....the pus is already from the poisons from the bitter tree...this is their nourishment but will not be given to them since it is from themselves and their wounds gushing forth...to be eating the tree is the thorny most loathesome tree so bitter you would gag but you would be so hungry you have no choice and you eat of it...then be so thirsty from it you will be given boilin water etc....

this is not a contradiction.

You have not solved the contradictions. "Nor hath he any food except the foul pus from the washing of wounds."

Read that? It does not describe a tree!!!

Besides, you have failed to prove that the tree of Zaqqum is the same as the Dhari.

:-?

 

[hopefearmercy]

I did answer your question

It is the same tree.....do you know arabic?????????????????


the pus is not given to them....it only sustains them....so therefore not a contradiction...you will find in the Quran many names for the same thing...such as wrongdoers, disbelievers, misguided people...etc....does not prove contradictory.
( a poisoness plant and the name of a plant can mean the same thing....hellooooooooooooooo)..again you must learn a lil arabi

ok....next question.

hopefearmercy

 

[Quath]

In John 8:14, Jesus says, "IF" (kan, in the Greek) I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true. But He was speaking of being the light of the word, v. 12, and the Pharisees accused Him of bearing witness of Himself. Jesus was simply telling the truth that if He did, it would be true.

This still does not make sense in reconciling this. Jesus is bearing witness of himself in chapter 8. Is that witness true or not? It seems you are just saying that He can bear witness and it be true. However, if that is the case, it makes Chapter 5 false.

Find me one mistake in the Quran eh?...meeza waitin

There are plenty. Check out Ebon Musings for a good list of them.

Here are a couple:

Could Allah have a son?
Yes: Sura 39:4
"If Allah had willed to choose a son, He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created."
No: Sura 6:101
"The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is aware of all things?"
Commentary: Verse 39:4 states that Allah could have chosen a son from among any of the beings he created, had he so desired. But verse 6:101 rejects this idea as logically impossible - verse 6:100 says that some "impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him", while the following verse then explains why such a thing could not be.

Is lying ever acceptable?
Lying forbidden: Sura 2:42
"Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth."
Lying condoned: Sura 66:1-2
"O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your protector, and He is full of knowledge and wisdom."
Commentary: In 2:42 Muslims are instructed not to lie, generally a wise precept. But sura 66 tells a different story, one that sheds a great deal of light on the self-serving nature of some of Muhammad's "revelations".
Muhammad had several wives, among them Hafsah and Ayshah. In the interests of fairness (fairness!!) a revolving schedule was established wherein his wives would take turns to be with him - each woman would get one day at a time. But one day Muhammad decided to violate this schedule; he slept with one of his wives, Mary, on a day that was supposed to be another woman's turn. Hafsah found out about this and threatened to tell Muhammad's apparent favorite, Ayshah. To prevent her from doing this, Muhammad promised he would not touch Mary again, but Hafsah told the other women anyway. According to tradition, the Prophet reacted by becoming angry and secluding himself, ignoring all his consorts except Mary for several weeks.
Fortunately, it was at this point that Allah, the infinite, all-powerful creator of the universe, decided to step in and resolve this domestic dispute. If the text is to be believed, he explicitly gave Muhammad permission to break his promise not to touch Mary (to lie, in other words), then threatened the prophet's other wives with hellfire and eternal torture if they did not repent and obey their husband.

Quath

 

[Drew]

So when you say it resonates, do you think it is resonates within you or from the Holy Ghost? In other words, do you think you have to accept the Holy Ghost to be able to understand what parts of the Bible work or is it innate in all people?

When I gave up on belief in God, it was more from being skeptical of a generic god than it was anything about the Christian faith. Basically, i saw that I had made a mistake in my belief in Santa Claus and I did not want to repeat it. (I decided that I never wanted to lie to myself, no matter whatthe cost.) So I could not make myself pass on the question on if God exists because that would feel like lieing to myself.

Quath

Hello Quath:

With respect to the "Holy Spirit vs me" question, I would say that it is the Holy Spirit that effectively "opens our eyes" to the reality of God. I am not sure that this helps in coming to an understanding as to why one of us has given up on belief and the other has not. I suspect that we both have suffered some of the same "disillusionments" at least in respect to Christianity as culturally expressed in North America.

I can live with the idea that God's factual reality is not compromised by a belief that there are "errors" in the Biblical texts. I can live with ambiguity, I can live with seeing "through the glass darkly".

I suspect that the real issue is this: You feel that that you have no subjective or objective reasons to believe in the existence of "even a generic god". I feel that the balance of consideration tilts the other way - admitting that my subjective experience of God can be somewhat murky and my "objective" case for God is not a slam dunk.

I still worry that many fall away in response to disillusionment with the Christian culture with all its problems, not necessarily because they have searched their hearts and concluded there is no God.

However, in order to accord you the respect that I would like to receive myself, I have to assume that you mean what you say about doubting God's existence and that we both come to the truth in the fulness of time.

 

[Quath]

I suspect that the real issue is this: You feel that that you have no subjective or objective reasons to believe in the existence of "even a generic god". I feel that the balance of consideration tilts the other way - admitting that my subjective experience of God can be somewhat murky and my "objective" case for God is not a slam dunk.

Yeah, it came down to my needing some objective evidence because I learned my subjective evidence led me to an incorrect belief in the existance of Santa Claus.

I still worry that many fall away in response to disillusionment with the Christian culture with all its problems, not necessarily because they have searched their hearts and concluded there is no God.

I know several Christians like you. (Probably because the more conservative type would not want to hand around me.) They seems to see Christianity as something that should be about the principles of peace, love, helping others and forgiveness. They do not have much dogma any typically dislike what conservative/fundamental Christians do to the Christian name. (I am sure the conservative/fundamental Christians say the same thing about them as well.)

I see a lot of people being Salad Bar "Christians" as well. They like some of the ideas of Christianity, but the combine it with their beliefs like crystals, Feng Shui, reincarnation, therapist God/Jesus, guided karma and wishes (through prayer). My wife and I call them "Airy-fairy spiritualists." I think if Christianity did not have such a negative image to them (Catholic molestations, Christian support of slavery, Christian intolerance, etc) that they would probably be full time Christians.

However, in order to accord you the respect that I would like to receive myself, I have to assume that you mean what you say about doubting God's existence and that we both come to the truth in the fulness of time.

You come across as someone that has thought about your position and feelings on these issues. I think the main difference in us is our methods to go about finding the truth. Neither is guaranteed to give the right answer, so on some level it is subjective on which one to use.

Quath