|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 13, 2004 21:37:40 GMT -5
As I read the posts on this site, I've found a lot a vague generalities and very poor conceptions of what Christianity is. So to all the atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, or whoever else, I challenge all of you to actually read the Bible. Thats right, read the whole thing, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. It'll certainly be good summer reading  |
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on May 13, 2004 21:50:01 GMT -5
Areopagite, Have you read every single post on this site? I guarantee you there are some educated people on these forums, and so while there may be a lot of "vague generalities and very poor conceptions of what Christianity is", there are also some truthful insights to the religion. A further criticism I feel inclined to make is your use of the word "challenge." Many Christians I know who are speaking to either fellow Christians or non-believers use the word challenge. I've drawn my own conclusions as to why: the human heart has a great difficulty declining a "challenge," thus when one is issued it will usually respond. Seeing through this, it doesn't really work on me. Last but not least, you have made one large assumption about non-christians: that they have not read the bible. I am Agnostic at the moment, but I went to church for sixteen years (and occasionally I still do). At times where I was strongest in my "walk" I read the bible and took it to heart. Now, this may take a moment to register, but the bible is one of the reasons I first came to doubt Christianity. I don't meant to sound arrogant, I'm just giving you an honest fact. Of course this does not mean that your challenge is not a valid one -- and of course it's still open for others. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 13, 2004 21:58:24 GMT -5
H-Zence, I'm not sure what other word to use other than challenge, honestly. Reading the Bible is a challenge in of it itself I think. And you're right when you say that they're are some educated people in these forums. Therefore the challenge is so that people can be more educated about these topics. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 13, 2004 21:58:44 GMT -5
should i read it as i would a moral tale, or as a factual textbook? also, which version? besides the vast differences between the hundreds of available versions, there's also the question of apocrypha.
also, does the book of mormon count?
|
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 13, 2004 22:03:37 GMT -5
Oh i forgot to reply to the last part of your post H-Zence. I'm not saying that non-christians don't or have not read the Bible. But I would doubt that many people on this message board have read the whole thing. It's much easier to understand and grasp when its done that way, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 13, 2004 22:10:49 GMT -5
should i read it as i would a moral tale, or as a factual textbook? also, which version? besides the vast differences between the hundreds of available versions, there's also the question of apocrypha. also, does the book of mormon count? As far as what version, it doesn't really matter much. It's a personal preference. The versions just translate the sentence structure and some words differently, but it's really more to help the Bible's readability to different people. The message however, is still the same, regardless of whether or not its read in NIV, KJB, NKJB, NLT, NASB, or whatever other version. I personally do not think the apocrypha to be Biblical. However the books are still interesting to read, I'll grant that. The Book of Mormon does not count. And the book is easy to read as both a "factual textbook", as well as a "moral tale", I think. The Bible certainly deals with morality, but it also deals includes historicity such as the book of Kings and so forth. |
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on May 13, 2004 22:14:36 GMT -5
Oh, speaking of which versions to read and so forth, I've done a good bit of Bible quoting in several posts. To any who wonder what version I've used for the posts, I'm using the New American Standard Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Satori on May 14, 2004 7:20:23 GMT -5
I read the Bible about 20 years ago as it happens, and a jolly good read it was too.
The unfortunate thing about it is that - like a lot of old texts, particularly those written down - we can't be sure what's been lost in translation and interpretation.
In so far as the New Testament is concerned, I think it's important to read other texts from around the time of Christ to try and get a more complete picture about what went on. We always have to bear in mind that the Bible was originally angled very much towards a Roman audience and certain things will either have been emphasised or played down to try and appeal to them.
Additionally, there is much speculation that the Gospels were not particularly well thought of by the followers of James (Jesus' brother) as they felt they didn't accurately represent Christ's message.
Nevertheless, although I'm not a Christian (in the sense of believing the core principles of it: Son of God; Holy Trinity etc.), it has an encouraging message to pass on, albeit a message that was aimed at the people of an era long ago (and we must also bear that in mind when reading it).
Personally I prefer the Old Testament - I just think the stories are more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on May 14, 2004 14:49:37 GMT -5
then they found the dead sea scrolls which date back like 400 years before jesus which are like 99% accurate to todays version of the new testiment
|
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on May 14, 2004 14:51:37 GMT -5
i agree with you H-Zence, one thing i get tired of hearing is those words that are used over and over again about christianty. especially the references to war
|
|
|
|
Post by Satori on May 14, 2004 16:06:44 GMT -5
i agree with you H-Zence, one thing i get tired of hearing is those words that are used over and over again about christianty. especially the references to war Unfortunately religion's wars are historical facts that can't always be avoided when discussing the subject, although I don't believe that individuals today are accountable for their religion's past mistakes. If religion is to be judged, it should be judged on the way it works for someone on an individual level in the here and now. The past cannot be changed and, whilst we can learn a great deal from studying and discussing it, I don't think it's fair to attribute the 'baggage' of it to today's religious practitioners. |
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on May 18, 2004 20:29:40 GMT -5
I would mostly agree with that, especially the last part. But it does annoy me that so much of what is said about the "religious wars" is twisted and skewed to make the religious people, especially Christians, look bad, whether or not they really were.
Sure, the Crusades were a horrible action that should not have happened, and the "Christian" Crusaders did a whole lot of butchering and killing that is in direct contradiction to the standards they claimed to be upholding. But everyone, in their rush to condemn the Christians, forgets that the Muslims started the clash between Islam and Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on May 18, 2004 21:00:54 GMT -5
Oh? And how was this?
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on May 19, 2004 15:59:56 GMT -5
At the moment, I do not have the time to give my whole speech, as I have to go to church, but when I return I will satisfy your desires for material proof.
Believe me, the Muslims did start the fighting - and won most of it, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on May 19, 2004 20:46:36 GMT -5
As I read the posts on this site, I've found a lot a vague generalities and very poor conceptions of what Christianity is. So to all the atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, or whoever else, I challenge all of you to actually read the Bible. Thats right, read the whole thing, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. It'll certainly be good summer reading Interesting. You say you've heard a lot of vague generalities, and very poor conceptions of what christianity is on the boards? It wouldn't surprise me if I had written one, or more of the posts you speak about, and I don't claim them as a simpleton, or as someone who expresses these generalities as a result of a lack of knowledge or reason, but more so because I think you, the christian, have a very poor perception of what christianity really is. Before anyone freaks, I don't mean you personally, I don't know who you are, where your from, ect. What I'm getting at is I've thought a great deal about religion as a whole, christianity specifically more than others because of its immense acceptance and presence in our country. These Vague generalizations you hear some speak, or misconceptions you think I, or anyone else has could indeed be the product of not a lack of thought, but of an extended amount of it. Because to me, when religion is truly seen for what it is, it fits a lot of those generalization's you'll hear. To sum things up, I think the believer is the one who has poor conceptions of what religion is, their own particularly. The perception of a believer concerning their spiritual 'ultimate truth' is one of tunnel vision. |
|
