Why (or why not) be Christian?

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing the "Will you make it to heaven?" threads started by @VincitVeritas which have become a more wide-ranging discussion about matters of faith, Christian belief.

Hope to see you on here when the last thread runs out of space! And new posters welcome too.

We've recently been discussing the evidence for God, the soul and life after death, and debating what constitutes reliable evidence in this context.

Also some talk about whether it's accurate to say humans are 'sinful' and why/why not, some discussion of Paul and the validity of his writings and status as an apostle, how the Bible was formed (and why other writings didn't make the canon) the basis of morality/ethics, whether Jesus's message was intended for an excusively Jewish audience, the meaning of Christ (or Messiah), church tradition and different denominations, end times and probably more I've forgotten!

What type of evidence and how do you define what is a fact

There’s a difference between lightening the mood and being insulting.

what questions are unanswered?

but at the same time why are humans creating eg New Testament vs old, if its all ment to be about god or gods words then however those words were intended to be back when originally discussed then once humans rewrote sections or thought thats not applicable for modern society etc then its basically a human made religion inspired by god and therefore no matter how faithful humans choose to be they are basically following other humans philosophy under the guise that its gods will ?

I think if we can all keep it respectful it will help the conversation flow smoothly.

A thing that is proved to be true. It's annoyingly circular. Evidence has to lead to truth/fact, faith and feelings don't come into it. In fact I'd say that faith can never lead to proof or fact as is you had those things you wouldn't need faith. Faith is only needed when you have no proof/facts.

@professorcunning and faith leads to evidence. You need faith enough at least to bother looking and acknowledging that which might be evidence.

Otherwise, without any faith, you can just not look or discount every piece of new data and forget it immediately.

How you can distinguish between something that is unknowable and something that doesn't exist is one.

And I have been insulted on here when I referred to this discission as a debate and I let it go so I don't see how what I said was any worse. I think impregnating children without their consent (or even with it) is abhorrent and you're right, making jokes about that is terrible but luckily I don't believe it happened but you do so really I think insulting that is justified.

I don't think we've rewritten sections, although there are some disputed passages and differences in translations.

What we refer to as the Old Testament are the Jewish scriptures which Christians also accept as we believe Jesus is the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy.

The New Testament tells us about early Christianity - the life and ministry of Jesus, the spread of the church, pastoral letters to churches in different areas, etc.

Christians don't follow the full Jewish Law because we believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, and began a new covenant with humanity from that time. Also because many early converts were not Jewish. I don't think it's ever been taught in Judaism that non Jews have to follow the laws in Leviticus etc, just general moral laws which should be pretty universal.

There are lots of differences in Biblical interpretation though.

Pots and kettles, pots and kettles...

Time for tea?🫖

so in summary its pritty much what ever humans need it to be depending on the politics of the day so to speak

yes please, tea, milk no sugar would be apricated

👍

Well I don’t think God is unknowable I think the divine is ineffable. Knowledge of God is internal and as such words cannot describe it fully.

What does it mean to exist? How much of existence is created internally rather than internally. Is anything ever 100% truly objective?

Theres a great study from the 1950s I think reca crash at an airshow which illustrates how much of what we think exists is actually just created internally.

is it possible that God both exists and doesn’t?

I’m not a fan of either historical revisionism or anachronism do won’t address your final point.

Jesus said "seek, and you will find". I appreciate you said God didn't make Himself known to you but you will also know that many people have stories (testimonies) that He has. I do think that faith proves itself true in being lived out, but you may call that conformation bias.

Then we're back to the question of evidence. I don't think God is a being who wants to be used as an experimental subject, because that leads to a very transactional relationship, however there is also the question of miracles which can't always be easily dismissed. But then we have the usual problem that people won't believe because they're 'impossible'; that is definitely circular reasoning!

I've said earlier in the thread that the Bible itself is evidence of Divine Revelation and I do respect the historicity of the New Testament. But again people don't believe because they already think it's impossible.

Most of the historical critiques I've seen on this thread have been pretty spurious IMO. We can see from the earliest writings (Paul) that there was already a widespread church movement and that the early Apostles absolutely believed that having witnessed Jesus die, He returned to life, spent time with them, ate with them etc. We also know this would not be in any way a typical response to a leader/rabbi being put to death in quite a shameful way.

So there is a rational basis for faith if that's important to you (it is to me), but there will never be 'proof' of something that happened in the past which is generally viewed as impossible.

Ooh oat milk for me no sugar. Thanks. Shall I bring biscuits😀

@Kdtym10 ooh lovely! 🙂

I think this is a misunderstanding of Christian thought and theology, and respectfully I have to assume it's not something you've looked at in depth.

I think my interactions with you have reached a natural conclusion.

Tea and biscuits is a great idea!

@Mustardseed86 🙂

My debate points :
**
it seems more the way religion is changed to fit with how society is now thats puzzling , i dont have examples at hand but at times its been in the past that in the bible is x and at the time society accepts that then society alters some of its morals or thoughts on x subject then suddenly religion is like yes thats now acceptable rather than what the bible originally advocated either that or they say that part of religion is outdated for modern times

to expand my points :

Source Internet :

Critics argue that these adaptations represent a watering down or selective interpretation of religious teachings to align with prevailing societal attitudes. They accuse religious institutions of sacrificing doctrinal integrity in favor of popularity or political expediency, undermining the authority of sacred texts and diluting the distinctiveness of religious traditions.

On the other hand, proponents of progressive religious interpretations argue that adapting to societal changes demonstrates the vitality and relevance of religious faith in addressing contemporary issues. They view reinterpretation and recontextualization of sacred texts as a natural and necessary part of religious evolution, allowing traditions to remain responsive to the needs and concerns of their adherents while upholding core ethical principles and values.

Ultimately, the tension between tradition and adaptation in religion reflects the broader dialectic between continuity and change in human societies. While some may see religious adaptations as compromising authenticity or integrity, others view them as essential for religion to remain meaningful and impactful in a dynamic and diverse world. As society continues to evolve, the ongoing dialogue between tradition and adaptation will shape the future of religious belief and practice.

@RealRubyBee understanding develops over time...perhaps over centuries. The fact is there is stuff within Christianity that many find utterly engaging no matter which century they live in.

This is another question that nobody has answered, why do you need faith if he has revealed himself to you? At that point you no longer have faith, you have proof/fact.

So many Christians say that (other) people need faith when they do not need it as god revealed himself to them when they asked, that is massively hypocritical. If faith was not good enough for you, why should it be for anyone else?

true fair points