That's really a separate discussion and I don't want to derail this thread. Please know that it is fine with me for you or anyone to believe what they want to believe in this area or any other, so long as it leads to a loving and kind faith.If you read the gospels separately and carefully, you find that the only one that talks about a physical resurrection is John and it primarily through a recrimination of Thomas (i.e., what we know as doubting Thomas) wherein there is a pretty graphic description of Thomas touching the resurrected Jesus' wounds. For a literalist, this provides evidence of a physical resurrection. For one that is willing to consider the historical context and non-canonical contemporary texts and the style of writing prevalent at the time of authorship, this is a clear allegorical refutation of the Gnostic followers of Jesus and in particular what was later deemed to be heretical teachings in the Gospel of Thomas. I covered a rather lot of ground in that last sentence. Fundamentally, it is likely that we will disagree on several points. The gospels included in the Bible were not written as eye-witness accounts by the disciples to whom they are attributed. "The Gospel according to X" does not mean a literal account, but rather, as was common practice in literary writing of the day means "in the tradition of" and was intended a spiritual lesson or exegesis of other texts or teachings. The "discrepancies" in the gospels, and I assume that we actually agree that these exist without having to go through them, are not mistakes or matters of differing perspective by eye-witnesses but rather deliberate, allegorical clarifications of specific spiritual disputes which would have been understood by the intended audience with the guidance of spiritual leaders. The people who wrote the gospels were not intending to write the Bible and have it taken as a literal account 2000 years later. How do I have the cajones to make such statements? Part of it because my godfather is a former Catholic priest and he learned a lot about how and when the Biblical texts were written and about other early Christian sects when hardly anyone outside of the church had ever heard the word gnostic or any of the others. He got to read non-canonical texts when most of us weren't even aware that there were such things. (BTW, I'm not Gnostic either. They had some interesting stuff to say, but a lot of things with which I disagree as well). Part of it because I've done a lot of reading on my own, both of the Bible and of non-canonical texts and many historical and spiritual writings about all of them from both supporters and critics. There is a reason that it is considered an act of faith to consider the Bible to be a perfect and complete accounting of the word of God. Points with strong evidence do not require acts of faith. They can be covered with simple rationality. Consider the Nicene Creed sometime. Every statement in it is an act of faith, which means that each particular point was in dispute in the early 300s. The Bible was constructed to support these points and to establish the primacy of the Catholic Church and define a spiritual basis for the leadership structure of Catholicism. But, if you take on faith that the Bible is a literal and accurate account of Jesus life, death, and resurrection, the evidence for a physical resurrection is strong.
Coel, thanks for the thoughtful response. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this. Texas baseball definitely takes precedence over religious discussion (although I invoked the name of God several times over the weekend)
LHG, Reading your last post caused me to ask several questions to myself? How do you account for the existence of evil? Is there a thing a true justice? How is that justice brought about? And yes capitalization of the divine names is a late occurrence. The greek manuscripts I have seen either use all caps or all miniscule and Hebrew does not even have different sized letters that I am aware of.
I think good and evil are primarily and properly adjectives, not nouns and don't exist independent of human desire to describe attributes of things. Not a dig, not a thread ****, not obsessed, just a view.
NBMisha, I understand your point and agree. When I ask about the existence of evil, that is shorthand for the fact that people perform evil actions which are a result of evil desires. The issue is some people do not believe those desires and actions should be categorized as evil. LHG, that is interesting. I think you interpreted my questions correctly. If I can summarize, you believe people do evil but there is no punishment or reward from a personal divine being. However, there is some kind of "force" for lack of a better term that acts to guide a person away from evil by means of learning or discovery. Is this a fair statement of your belief? If so, then evil is kind of like mistakes that we must learn to avoid, and there are consequences for committing those actions but nothing we can describe as justice?
I agree with Longhorn girlie. If you study the historical context of the Bible, dogmatic religion quickly becomes hard to accept. But...without going too much into the true nature of the Bible. Where does Satan appear exactly? I studied the Bible quite a bit in my youth. And today, I still read it for literary purposes and some bits for moral guidance. I'm not sure where the figure of Satan comes in. I kind of remember learning in a Christianity class at UT that the idea comes from one of the Apocryphal books, Enoch I? This is a legitimate question.
I answered my own question with Wikipedia,The Link Satan's role in the Bible -- old and new testaments -- is very limited and the typical conception of Satan does in fact come from apocryphal works.
Dogma, meaning a rigid set of principles. Dogmatic, meaning following a rigid set of principles. Dogmatic Religion, religion that follows a rigid set of principles. Considering how much any set of principles are given over to interpretation, chance and historical influence, i find it hard to seek to adhere so much to the sort of absolutes and undeniable truths of dogmatic religion. I would consider the idea that Jesus being the one way to salvation as being dogmatic. Many would point to John 14:16, "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me," as going straight to the origin. I would disagree because of my other point, which was that understanding of the bible's historical context makes it difficult to believe. By historical context I meant the indications based on the text and other verified historical sources that question the accuracy of the whole deal. For example, "John's" gospel goes further than the synoptic ones in establishing Christianity as a separate sect. There is much more third person language in reference to the Pharisees. The typical explanation for this development is that John was written later than the synoptic gospels at a time when the Pharisees held more political power and thus would have been a bigger target of resentment. They were competing with the early Jesus movement. This would also explain the exclusive language like John 14:16. Many christian denominations which I would consider to fall under the category of dogmatic, depend on John 14:16 and similar verses to condemn non-christian religions. To me, based on my understanding of the development of the Christian bible, this is simply wrong. Does that help?
When I look at the historical context of the Bible as you say, I have an opposite reaction. I see God over time revealing His nature and plan to mankind in an understandable and reliable way. Much of the things that you mention that causes your doubt seem to be items that are speculative at best. I am not sure how substantial these "contextual" items really are. There are no doubt differences in gospel accounts. I think the reasons for them have been assigned out of imagination more than anything.
HornCyclist: I think the principle of Christianity is the sacrifice of Jesus: Either he died on the cross for our sins or he didn't. One of those alternatives must be true, and the other must be false. They cannot both be true, and they cannot both be false. Which do you believe is true? And would such a principle, on its own, be enough to qualify it in your eyes as a dogmatic religion?
I think that faith involves a good amount of free will. God does not force me to believe, or have faith. I have chosen to "have faith." I have come to the point that I don't worry so much about the literal nature of Biblical stories, but try to take from them the lessons offered. I call it my "as if" faith. I find that my life runs better, that I make fewer blunders, that I hurt fewer people when I live my life "as if" the stories were literal. By living "as if" there were a God who could part the Red Sea, I find peace. By living "as if" there was a Jesus, who was one with God the Father, who suffered unspeakable torture and death, I am able to live with the knowledge that God knows what I am going through...He has been through worse. Some of the "problem areas" of the Bible seem less problematic when one remembers that the Bible was written for all people, and for all times. 21st Century man may not need the bogey man of Satan to keep his distructive insticts under control. In centuries past, when we were less sophisticated, when we were less enculturated, less civilized, at that time the heavy hand of a Satan may have been needed. Likewise, should this world, this era come to an end...say World War or global warming...whatever, the humans left over, who will repopulate the world, might need that stronger bogey man as they reform societies and civilized cultures. There may have been a time, or there may come a time when the admonition to "stone disobedient children" is not such a far fetched idea. I don't know the total context of that particular Biblical passage, but use it here only as a "for instance." Some passages seem less silly when you realize that passage may have been written for someone else. The commandment to honor one's parents is not very relevant to me. I have, and always have had, a great relationship with my parents. The commantment to not covet another man's wife...well, that one was written to nudge me in a direction that will keep me out of trouble. Another man may be able to resist the temptation of another man's wife, but has trouble honoring his parents.
