Am I the only fundie in the village (of MN?)

[porridgeisbae]

Anyone else?

]]

And it's a bit like deciding to have a meal, but getting sidetracked by the menu. Then focussing on the description and missing out on the lovely food. Or pointing at the moon and becoming fixated on the pointing finger. I've paraphrased Alan Watts there (badly)

I would disagree that the bible is clear - there wouldn't be so much bloodshed over it if that was the case. The hair cutting is a perfect example of it's lack of clarity.

I hope you find your answers OP. The Bill and Ted quote a PP gave upthread (be excellent to each other, and party on) is a pretty good guide to life I've always found.

My degree was partly in Ancient Greek. I got a 1st in Classical Civilisation from a red brick university. It's not quite the same as Koine Greek but it is similar. And of course this degree means I have been trained in how to study texts in ancient languages and translations, and have an appreciation for cultural context.

I expect the only degrees that would make it any easier than that would be in Theology and direct study of Biblical languages.

So yes, I do somewhat know what I'm doing and how to use the tools required.

I am interested @porridgeisbae, at what caused your volte face?

You say you were an left-wing, intellectual, bisexual.

Then suddenly...

It seems quite an extreme switch. As someone who has self-proclaimed critical thinking skills, what predicated such an extreme reevaluation?

Anyone who says we must cut this child's hair because God says so, is not taking the right message out of the books in any way.

Seems to be as if you are happy to latch on to any ideal that you feel gives you an identity, a structure, a community, but you don't fully buy it.

I fear next time you post you will be a Sikh, or Buddhist or LDS loon.

I respect more (not that I particularly respect their theology at all) people who go 'the bible says X, I'm going to ignore that because it's not politically correct/doesn't let everyone do whatever they fancy' than people who lie and claim scripture says stuff it doesn't, in order to claim it justifies what they want to say is ok.

I'd love it to say I could shag women whenever I want, for instance, or have as much premarital sex as I want. That'd be awesome. But it doesn't.

I’m just absolutely baffled why you keep saying things like ‘I wish I could do x but I can’t’ And ‘I wish it didn’t say that but it does’ (especially when you’re justifying things like homophobia!). Why are you so adamant in following something that you don’t obviously agree with 🙄

The confusion over things like hair is because Christianity started out as a Jewish sect and the members had to decide which temple rules applied to them and which didn't. Over the course of the next few hundred years these things were decided upon and included/excluded in church doctrine according to what had become traditional and accepted. This is why Christians no longer need to be circumcised or avoid shellfish etc. Some of it is cultural as well - some Romanian women in my church cover their heads, whereas the British people usually don't.

Christians love the Bible because it is God speaking to us. You wouldn't say you love your telephone, rather you love the person who you speak to on the phone. The Bible is God's living and active, true Word. We love God so naturally we want to hear what he has to say and live by it.

Because she loves God, she sees in the Bible that God is good and that he created her, that Jesus is the most excellent and trustworthy human who ever lived. She believes that he is King of all. So following his word is a logical response.

Where do you find evidence that Jesus had long hair?

The Christian God is an abusive toxic parent.

I attend a fairly large evangelical Anglican church and I'd say the majority of the congregation became Christians as adults and did not grow up in a Christian household.

The Bible is God's living and active, true Word. We love God so naturally we want to hear what he has to say and live by it.

It's often been observed that it's odd that the omniscient god came up with such an oddly contradictory, open to many translations and interpretations, historically and culturally bound form of communication.

And I should add, the congregation is mainly highly qualified professionals such as lawyers and engineers.

That's not to say that "clever people being Christian" makes it more true. Just that it's not true that adult converts lack critical thinking skills.

I really don't see anywhere in the Bible that teaches us to abandon our critical thinking skills. Quite the opposite. The letters of the New Testament exhort us to think through our answers carefully, to accommodate those with doubts not dismiss them, and to be convinced of the gospel, not blindly follow it. The idea of "blind faith" is not biblical at all. That's why we have 4 eye witness accounts, so that we are thoroughly convinced of the truth and have a firm foundation.

Some examples:

Acts 19:8–10 “Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.”
^^
“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." 1 Peter 3

2 Timothy 2:24–26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Jude 22 “Be merciful to those who doubt…”

Luke 7:19–22 “When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” At that very time, Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

What are these eye witness accounts?

The gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The authenticity of the gospels is a very involved subject that really warrants hours of discussion and citations, but in a very concise nutshell:

(1) the gospels were written within the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries and are not folk traditions that evolved over many centuries. (2) Tradition has it that the gospels were written by followers of Jesus (i.e.Matthew and John) or by people closely in touch with the apostles (i.e. Mark and Luke). (3) Certainly many of the gospel traditions were known and were being preached at a very early date; witness the apostle Paul writing in the 50s ad (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:10–11; 11:23–26; 15:1–7). (4) Despite the claims of many critics, the gospels do not seem strongly to reflect the interests and the situation of the early church (as might be expected if they were the creation of the early church), but they appear to reflect an earlier period; thus, for example, there is not a strong emphasis on the Gentile mission in the gospels. (5) The evangelists are evidently intelligent writers, and they say explicitly that their intention is to give us fact not fiction in their gospels (Lk. 1:1–4; Jn. 19:35). (6) Where Luke’s accuracy as a historian can be checked in parts of the book of Acts, archaeological evidence repeatedly confirms his account. (7) It is true that there are some perplexing differences between the gospels. But the differences are far outweighed by the similarities, and many of the differences are only such as might be expected from different accounts of the same event.

What are these eye witness accounts?

4 eyewitness accounts of what?

Because she's incapable of taking responsibilities for her own descisions.

Ah, xpost. Well, apart from the minor detail that 'nutshell' probably doesn't accord too well with what biblical historians would say, describing ' the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John' as '4 eyewitness accounts' shows an astonishing disregard for actual evidence.

Which four eye witness accounts do you mean?

ETA Ah. "Tradition has it" really doesn't cut it in the field of Biblical studies I'm afraid.

So, not ‘eye witness’ accounts at all, then? Hearsay accounts written at best several decades after the death of Jesus. Who is mentioned a total of twice by non-Christian historians, and there are doubts about at least one of those.