our questioning nature is one of our most valuable precepts of understanding. people questioning the bible have ben the cornerstone of my understanding of it. of course i believe evolution and the big bang are compatible with the bible and christianity. let there be light, and god creating life from the earth. it seems to be such a simple thing for me. it makes sense. i don't so much hold onto christianity so much as it holds onto me. i am who i am. and following the loving teachings of a brilliant and loving man make sense to me. i will, and always have, fully accepted that the bible has men's hands all over it. it MUST be questioned. my faith is not blind, it's forever seeking and questioning. but some things are just so SENSIBLE to me that no questions i ask of them matter in the entirety of the belief.
glynos seems to believe that only fundementalist are christians. He takes the bible literally and insist that all christians must. ----- as for agnostics, the postion that something is UNKNOWABLE and not merely unknown is a postion of faith and nothing else.
yeah, i kinda got that. nevermind the fact that some of us value the compilation of human understanding. i don't think for a minute that we're any smarter than neolithic man, we just have more info to work with.
Judge not, lest thee be judged thyself. Only kidding. Anyway, that's bullshit. I've not come here and said things like 'How can a man walk on water?' I also never insisted that every Christian must take the Bible literally, so why are you making that up? My original query was a fair one I feel, and it is still my main argument against Christianity. This is something that all Christians believe is it not? That God is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Also, the problem with not taking the Bible literally is that the assumption one makes when transfering from the literal to the metaphorical is a personal belief. Does that mean that when the Bible claims Jesus died on the cross, a Christian may look upon this as a metaphor for Jesus dying because the state of the way we'll vote in the future? That Jesus believes we shouldn't mark our boxes with a cross, but merely a line! So there's a problem that if all Christians have different opinions on what Chritianity stands for, and these opinions are contradictory, something has to give. That's pretty much my main qualm with not taking the Bible literally. Another qualm I have is that these new ideas are merely subject to today's culture. For example, go back a few hundred years and a Chritian would interpret the Bible as saying homosexuality was completely wrong. Nowadays, one may re-interpret the Bible and claim that it says that it's ok. When social attitudes change, so will the interpretation of the Bible. The importance of this is thus - The Bible is not giving you your views. Society is giving you certain views and you then manipulate your reading of the Bible into agreeing with you. Geckopelli seems to believe that only fundementalist are agnostics. He takes the main reference point literally and insist that all agnostics must. The reason I believe it is unknowable is because given the current knowledge I have, it is unknowable. With our only experiences coming from within the Universe, I don't believe we can ever know what is outside the Universe. Should I gain further knowledge to counter my stance, I will then re-consider my stance and make a further judgment. What happens to you if something comes along and challenges Christianity? The fundamentalists will denounce it immediately ( a la evolution) whilst the interpretors will go back to their Bibles and forge themselves a new belief, simply because they still want to believe.
hm. i disagree. learning and discovery are crucial to understanding. without learning and discovery and the inherent curiousity that god knows we have, there would be true faith, only blind faith. much of my faith evolves from a constant communication with my god. yes, he does speak back if you're listening. i come across a text, a scripture, and i question. then the answers come to me in the strangest of ways. sometimes in a dream, sometimes in a conversation, sometimes on tv. a rigid belief is unhealthy. yet you would prefer that i have such. i'm never so closed minded that i would not quesion my own beliefs. i've actually always thought that to be a good thing. yet here i'm being criticised by yourself for not being rigid, because it falls outside your own comfortable concept of what a christian is supposed to be? edit to add: a christian, in my understanding, is anyone who accepts the love, guidance and sacrifice of christ. as long as these are the center of their study, the infinite variety the arrives from this is lovely. god meets you where you are, discusses it with you as you will understand it. he has a different role for each of us.
There is no emoticon strong enough on this message board to convey the shock I'm feeling. I have not criticised you, nor anyone else here. The remarks I made about the difficulties of people having their own interpretation on the Bible / Christianity was merely an observation to illustrate a point. The point being that your belief could differ greatly from another Christian's, despite your source being the same. The problem doesn't make my case any weaker as a sceptic, however it does weaken your case as someone from a collective group of Christians if your beliefs are contradictory to others of the same group. Here in lieth the problem. That's your view of what a Christian is. I'm sure there are some orthodox Christians who would claim that a Christian is one who takes the Bible literally and follows its rules no matter what. You can't claim to be part of a group and then complain when someone questions some of the integral aspects of that group by writing it off as me being 'close minded' or saying that I shouldn't be taking the Bible literally. Do you believe God is non physical? Do you believe heaven is non physical? I'm just trying to understand what your beliefs are in order to not jump the gun in future posts.
did you see the rest of my responses to your statement within your quote? I forgot to tell you they were there. as for "what i am," i'm confused. are you implying i'm not a "who?"
