To find the Christian faith difficult to understand?

[redshinyshoes]

Firstly, I am not looking for a fight, trying to upset anyone and I can see why this may sound ignorant but I am genuinly curious. I was brought up in a very atheist household where anyone religious was treated with suspision but as an adult I have a few Christian friends and would consider myself agnostic. I want to know (but don't feel I can ask my Christian friends as don't want to offend) whether Christians believe the bible word for word or see it as more metaphorical? If it's word for word, how otherwise down to earth intelligent people can fathom a virgin birth, the Earth only being a few thousand years old and the sea parting?

'If it's word for word, how otherwise down to earth intelligent people can fathom a virgin birth, the Earth only being a few thousand years old and the sea parting?'

But just because I don't believe it all word for word, doesn't mean that I think these things are impossible. Who created all the things that science discovers? Are we done or is there more scientific disoveries? Can one of these lead to an explanation, or is it what created all that we discover through science was able to create the non-explanable?

And, don't forget the historical context and interpretation of the time, and how this fits in with science and rationality.

Science being about proven 'truths' is pretty out of date now anyway. It is widely acknowledged that just because you can't prove something doesn't mean it isn't true.

Sorry if I am being stupid... but some of you are saying you are christian but don't give much weight of authority to the bible. Other than the bible (2 old books) and a game of chinese whispers what else do christians have to teach them about their religion?

I'd also like to ask the christians -

who created god?

Great posts on this thread and many showing that we are perhaps more unified than may be thought, representing believers across the spectrum.

I believe in creation and I believe in evolution. The word for 'days' in the genesis account is actually literally translated as 'an unspecified period of time' rather than '24 hours'. I have no problem with one fitting with the other.

Miracles and stuff...well I believe, but not just because I have been told to but due to personal experience and good 'ole faith, which yes it comes down to in the end.

Virgin birth - again I believe. If I'm going to believe in this stuff what's the blardy point in only half believing? Surely watering it down leaves only something so weak it doesn't actually do anything very much apart from talk about Being A Good Person. And you sure as heck don't need to be a Christian to do that. Unfortunately I know of many 'Christians' that would fit that kind of description far less than some jolly nice athiests.

I don't believe in the immaculate conception (of Mary) or that she was a virgin forever. But I believe Jesus is God incarnate and that's the difference between Christianity and other religions; God got down here into the mess with us all and got us a way out of it. Doing good is all very well but with the best will in the world we all screw up all the time. Grace is kind of cool.

Bible missing out bits/changing blah blah blah....well whatever. Hasn't really changed, actually, and all mainstream versions basically say the same, some in more twee language than others. NRSV prob the closest to original, and it is close. Council of Nicea and all that prayed about the right stuff to go in. I kind of go with all that. And agree with the pps about it being a library of all sorts of random stuff written by random people with different understandings and of their time. But I totally believe it is inspired by God.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity in it's multiplicity of forms still has a heart of purpose, and that purpose is to love God and love each other. And if we're not doing that and worrying incessantly about whether women should speak in church or that kind of stuff then we're missing the flaming point.

Gone on too long, so will stop for now.

Love it though how you always get posters on these threads claiming that Christians must be poor, uneducated, brainwashed fools.

If you like dear, if you like.

I take the bible as metaphorical in many parts.

I once read a book by a historian/archeologist possibly David Rohl. He argued that many of the stories in the old testament were based on actual events or series of events that actually happened. They had then become altered in a Chinese whispers kind of way as well as been deliberately exaggerated in some cases. The book contained very interesting theories including one on the origins of the parting of the sea story.

Wanksock, I believe that certain parts of the bible were never meant to be taken literally by the writers. The Jews have a rich tradition of story telling and passing on from generation to generation, and that they would have had a greater understanding of which stories were just that, and which were historical facts. Perhaps they still do have that understanding? And in any case, in Genesis there are actually 2 creation accounts, possibly from different Jewish traditions and likely from different periods in history, merged into one story.

And who created God? No-one. He has always existed. A bit difficult for anyone to get their head around, but that is what we believe.

It is hard then, how are you supposed to know which bits to take literally?

Thing is we're never going to be able to come to any conclusions on this matter wanksock (can't type that name without a ) because there isn't easy answers and there isn't broad agreement. I think it's why Myrrhy and I referred to Jesus' summing up of the commandments: Love God and love your neighbour as being at the heart. Jesus as God incarnate, in it with us is the bit to take 'literally'. Jesus' earthly life, ministry, death and resurrection sum up what it is all about. Christians can get so hung up on debating the intricacies and ins and outs of biblical writings they forget to follow the one they think they are arguing in the name of.

Unsatisfying, isn't it? That's faith for you.

OP, can I recommend this book ? Just recommended it on another thread and it made me think of your OP. It's an exploration of many forms and styles of the Christian faith, bringing together the heart of it, written in a refreshing, honest and non-cringeworthy style, if you read the reviews you'll get an idea.

Study of the scriptures helps, and reading widely and wisely, but ultimately it is down to faith. There are some things I believe which are essential for my faith, others are less important - for example, it is less important to know how God created the world, rather that he DID create the world.

Thanks. 1 more question from me - why was god so active for want of a better word back in bible times (speaking to prophets, sending jesus down etc), and now he has gone quiet on it for 2000 years?

Just wanted to address an earlier point - I think it was Baroque who said atheists have a faith that there is no god?

I can't speak for all of the people who do not believe for one reason or another, but I do not have a faith like that. I currently accept, given the evidence that I have seen and heard, that there is probably no god. That is not the same thing as having faith.

I think God is still active wanksock and has been throughout history.

Well, many people believe that God is still speaking to modern day prophets, and some people claim to BE modern day prophets, but I think the world is a lot more sceptical nowadays. I also believe God speaks to people on a personal level, and hearing that "still small voice" is a gift to be encouraged, discerned and developed. And secondly, when Jesus comes again, it will be the end of the world, and we don't know when that will be, but have "to be ready".

Not going to read the rest of the threads as your op says it all - you are from and atheist background -that's your upbrinhging and it shows in your thread.

I'm from a very multi religious background and probably for that very same reason I cannot commit to any faith or lack of it at all.

giveitago - can you explain a bit further?

Every time I see the name 'wanksock' I laugh & the nature of the thread makes funnier somehow!

Me too redshiny. Class name

Why thank you

a good book to read:

conversations with god - books 1,2 and 3

God does not judge! That is a crazy notion

For me, true Christianity means believing in Jesus as the son of God, that he sacrified himself for our sins, this is being saved by "Grace", but that we also should aspire to be Christ-like, and therefore God-like.

Real Christianity is pure, selfless love. Read the Sermon on the Mount. It is all you need to know.

The thing is, God can't very well appear now can he. It would completely ruin Christianity as it is based in faith and the world would destroy itself.

I can see why Jesus coming again would be the end of the world.

I hear so many people say evolution is compatible with god creating the world, living things and specifically humans. But they don't seem to really grapple with the nature of the contradiction.

People often seen to focus on the seven days bit, and assume that if you substitute x million years for 'days' and read the rest a bit metaphorically it makes sense.

But evolution really blows the whole idea of a creator god with a special relationship with human beings out of the water.

Evolution explains how species evolved with no plan and no purpose ( although with plenty of suffering). There is no desired end point of evolution, no role for a designer, nothing special about human evolution. The capacity for love and hate, greed and altruism all evolved, just as a cats tail did.

These facts seem to contradict the very idea of a god who in any way created humans to a plan and for a purpose. I guess people don't really understand evolution?

You can say that evolution and god creating the world goes together simply by saying that at every jump of evolution - every time the 60 parts required to make an eye happen to evolve in the right way at the same time - that is God guiding the right animals to mate, or picking out the right genes to continue on at conception.

You can also say that humans were the endgame of all this effort, and that the rest of the world which is also the consequence of his guiding evolution is there for our stewardship, and to help us develop as people.

I'm not christian, but this is the way I understand it, and I'm not sure what the problem with this argument is?

A strength of christianity at the moment is that you can believe the bits you like, bend the bits that aren't quite right, and just ignore the rest.

Another thing about christianity is how sociable it is. You go to church, meet the same people every week, and do a structured activity; read a bit, sing a bit, have a walk around.
Theres not much else to do on a sunday morning.

LaWeaselmys - you are right you can 'explain away' the contradiction between religion and evolution like that, and I expect that is what most people do.

But the thing is, the theory you are describing of god-assisted selection isn't the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't have a plan or an endgame. It is a different, competing theory, and one that isn't supported by the evidence.

I suspect fundamentalist Christian leaders know this and that is why they defend biblical creation so hard. It isn't that they are just stupid or pigheaded.