Home & Garden2 mins ago
Am I a Christian?
71 Answers
Following the Women in Church thread, it occurred to me that, although I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe that Jesus was anything other than a man, I've been fighting in his corner far more than the Christians here ever do. The Women in Church thread dealt mainly with the teachings of St Paul, to which all Christians appear to adhere, but one thing that Jesus warned against was false prophets - and I believe St Paul was the first of thousands - and not only the first, but clearly the most influential. Jesus message was simple - 'love one another - and therefore my question is would he really have wanted the opulence of St Peter's in Rome, and other churches - or the pope and the priests setting themselves above the rest of mankind and parading in their wonderful garb? Would he really have wanted the ceremony and dogma? Wasn't Jesus' message simple, and is Christianity, as we know it, really what he intended? Personally, I think not. In fact, as a devout Jew, I think Jesus would have been appalled by what has grown up in his name.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whiffey I don't find it challenging at all. If Jesus was asking God why he had forsaken him, then clearly Jesus was talking to his God. All I assume from that is that he was a man who felt that his God had forsaken him. Why would Jesus pray to God if he was God? Where's the logic in that? By the way, I hope you never stop thinking. Thinking is wonderful!
123, Darwin didn't witness the first cell being formed, but his theories are based not only upon scientific evidence, but on logic, which is more than can be said for Christianity.
You're right - I do believe the soul survives death, but you're mistaken in what you attribute to being my 'facts' with regard to the big bang and the beginning of the universe. I don't believe in the biblical God, but I am not an atheist, and the big bang is something I cannot get my head around, since nothing comes from nothing (although some on AB will tell you differently - but how they rationalise that I have no idea!). Yes, evolution is accountable for our progress, but what caused the big bang in the first instance is a mystery to me, and I wouldn't presume to offer an explanation because I simply don't have one.
However, the creation is not the subject of the question. That relates to St Paul, in my opinion the first false prophet, and whether or not Jesus intended to create a new religion. The argument I've put forward isn't based on what I believe - it's based on simple logic. Here we have someone who never knew Jesus, and yet claims to have been divinely inspired to the degree that he founds a new religion with ideas that are so far removed from the original religion and from the original message that I have to question not only his authenticity, but the relevance of his teaching to that original message. I'd be very happy to read your views on that.
Going to bed now. Goodnight everyone - sleep tight. x
123, Darwin didn't witness the first cell being formed, but his theories are based not only upon scientific evidence, but on logic, which is more than can be said for Christianity.
You're right - I do believe the soul survives death, but you're mistaken in what you attribute to being my 'facts' with regard to the big bang and the beginning of the universe. I don't believe in the biblical God, but I am not an atheist, and the big bang is something I cannot get my head around, since nothing comes from nothing (although some on AB will tell you differently - but how they rationalise that I have no idea!). Yes, evolution is accountable for our progress, but what caused the big bang in the first instance is a mystery to me, and I wouldn't presume to offer an explanation because I simply don't have one.
However, the creation is not the subject of the question. That relates to St Paul, in my opinion the first false prophet, and whether or not Jesus intended to create a new religion. The argument I've put forward isn't based on what I believe - it's based on simple logic. Here we have someone who never knew Jesus, and yet claims to have been divinely inspired to the degree that he founds a new religion with ideas that are so far removed from the original religion and from the original message that I have to question not only his authenticity, but the relevance of his teaching to that original message. I'd be very happy to read your views on that.
Going to bed now. Goodnight everyone - sleep tight. x
Whiffey I am not inflamed by Christianity, neither do I ever attack it per se.
Believing the Jesus story is purely a matter of faith, and a Christian is one who has chosen to hold that belief without regard to the story's origins. I have no argument with that: what other people choose to believe is no business of mine.
Unfortunately, many Christians are not content to leave it there but try to claim that the story has a firm basis in fact and in history, and that is simply not true - for the reasons that I have explained many times, to the boredom of some.
Stick to your faith, Whiffey, and it's fine by me. Start on history , fact and evidence and you've a lot to learn before you can make a serious contribution.
Like naomi, I like to find the truth where I can.
naomi, no, there is no indication, even in the gospels, that Jesus was trying to form a new religion. If he existed, he seems to have been a Jew who preached only Judaeism to Jews.
When Paul first introduced the idea of Jesus in his epistles in AD55, his aim was to make the posthumous following of Jesus open to all people, Gentiles included. The tradition is that this was opposed by the "Jerusalem Church", the remnants of the original followers of Jesus. Whether this is true or not, the idea was certainly opposed by a lot of people, and the dispute wasn't resolved until the 4th Century when the newly-converted Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, bashed heads together and told them to sort it out. The Pauline idea was narrowly accepted and Christianity (with its Creed) became a religion its its own right, completely separate from the Judaeism of Jesus.
I am quite certain that Jesus would have been quite shocked at what has been invented in his name - if, of course, he existed!
Believing the Jesus story is purely a matter of faith, and a Christian is one who has chosen to hold that belief without regard to the story's origins. I have no argument with that: what other people choose to believe is no business of mine.
Unfortunately, many Christians are not content to leave it there but try to claim that the story has a firm basis in fact and in history, and that is simply not true - for the reasons that I have explained many times, to the boredom of some.
Stick to your faith, Whiffey, and it's fine by me. Start on history , fact and evidence and you've a lot to learn before you can make a serious contribution.
Like naomi, I like to find the truth where I can.
naomi, no, there is no indication, even in the gospels, that Jesus was trying to form a new religion. If he existed, he seems to have been a Jew who preached only Judaeism to Jews.
When Paul first introduced the idea of Jesus in his epistles in AD55, his aim was to make the posthumous following of Jesus open to all people, Gentiles included. The tradition is that this was opposed by the "Jerusalem Church", the remnants of the original followers of Jesus. Whether this is true or not, the idea was certainly opposed by a lot of people, and the dispute wasn't resolved until the 4th Century when the newly-converted Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, bashed heads together and told them to sort it out. The Pauline idea was narrowly accepted and Christianity (with its Creed) became a religion its its own right, completely separate from the Judaeism of Jesus.
I am quite certain that Jesus would have been quite shocked at what has been invented in his name - if, of course, he existed!
Chakka, I am a Christian and I have faith. I also have regard for the origins of Jesus and the Bible. I am also very fond of history and science, and well versed in both. Why should I not assert my belief as basis in fact if that is what I wish to believe? I don�t bemoan you for having your own view of the history and for not sharing my faith and beliefs.
You say stick to your faith and I�ll stick to mine, but isn�t that what most of the Christians on here try to do? My impression is that more often we are defending our beliefs and regularly ridiculed because we have a different view to your potted history and fairy story anecdotes. It really is fine for you to think that and so it should be fine for us not to. The simple message I am trying to convey is that regardless of what we know and what we believe - and however much you reassert your machinations for reiterating the same point - is that against all the odds you stack against us, we still have faith. So why can't you just leave us be?
You say stick to your faith and I�ll stick to mine, but isn�t that what most of the Christians on here try to do? My impression is that more often we are defending our beliefs and regularly ridiculed because we have a different view to your potted history and fairy story anecdotes. It really is fine for you to think that and so it should be fine for us not to. The simple message I am trying to convey is that regardless of what we know and what we believe - and however much you reassert your machinations for reiterating the same point - is that against all the odds you stack against us, we still have faith. So why can't you just leave us be?
I should add that I do not wish to stifle debate and conversation, merely for you to perhaps one day accept that whilst you may always believe your history and evidence is correct, that it may also potentially be wrong or that it doesn't apply to basic faith, or to many Christians, it doesn�t really matter.
i thnik the fundamental thing that really irks aethiests like myself (here i am stereotyping myself!) is the thought that the 'history' of the bible is to be taken over actual historical evidence. It really does feel, to me anyway that its making a mockery of all those genius' who have spent years studying -so many branches of science. I used an example before of my Gf showing me how rocks would move over thousands of years and you can physically see how the rocks have bee crushed together and then some christian will say "no no the earth is only 5000 years old"
and that makes me so angry inside i want to burst!!!!
its things like that!
and that makes me so angry inside i want to burst!!!!
its things like that!
Sherman, I know, and often people like that and the homophobic misogynistic Right Wing Christians, make me want to boil their heads too, but you have to give it a sense of perspective. That is what they truly believe, and no amount of arguing etc will really change them from that, probably enforce it. In many respects you have to accept they have that view and maybe one day might come to a realisation of their own or continue on with their own faith in what they believe. The remaining point is whether they really do affect your life and interfere with it. If they are only saying that the world is 5,000 years old, then there isn�t much harm done to you or I.
The ones that really really do get my goat are the type that irritate most of us, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and End of the World Cult. So it is not all one-sided. It�s a bit like the few fans at a Football Match who bring a bad name to all the fans of the same team. It�s a fact of life.
re: Noahs Ark, I thought the authorities wouldn't allow the mountain to be excavated?
The ones that really really do get my goat are the type that irritate most of us, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and End of the World Cult. So it is not all one-sided. It�s a bit like the few fans at a Football Match who bring a bad name to all the fans of the same team. It�s a fact of life.
re: Noahs Ark, I thought the authorities wouldn't allow the mountain to be excavated?
Octavius, I find it difficult to understand how you can still confuse the two quite separate things that I delineated in my last post: faith on the one hand and fact on the other.
I have already expained that I have no problem with faith; it is nothing to do with me; it is not a mind function that I would even presume to pontificate on.
If, on the other hand, you have specific criticisms of what you call my "view of history" or my "potted history" then please tell me about them and I will examine each one of them diligently.
So where, in the accounts I have given you (and Whiffey) of the origins of Christianity, have I got things wrong? Please tell me and I'll do something about it. I notice that you have not trodden that path yet.
Whiffey, the same challenge to you. It wasn't arrogance that I employed, merely straight observation.
You seemed to think that "Luke" was a reliable historian, which illustrated to me that you were rather shaky on the subject. I gave you facts showing that "Luke" was wrong in every area where we can check him against history. You did not counter anything of that.
It is reasonable for me to assume that your knowledge of how the gospels came about is limited, to say the least. If you don't like that being pointed out to you then perhaps you should find a less robust place for discussion - a church for instance.
I have already expained that I have no problem with faith; it is nothing to do with me; it is not a mind function that I would even presume to pontificate on.
If, on the other hand, you have specific criticisms of what you call my "view of history" or my "potted history" then please tell me about them and I will examine each one of them diligently.
So where, in the accounts I have given you (and Whiffey) of the origins of Christianity, have I got things wrong? Please tell me and I'll do something about it. I notice that you have not trodden that path yet.
Whiffey, the same challenge to you. It wasn't arrogance that I employed, merely straight observation.
You seemed to think that "Luke" was a reliable historian, which illustrated to me that you were rather shaky on the subject. I gave you facts showing that "Luke" was wrong in every area where we can check him against history. You did not counter anything of that.
It is reasonable for me to assume that your knowledge of how the gospels came about is limited, to say the least. If you don't like that being pointed out to you then perhaps you should find a less robust place for discussion - a church for instance.
The edict to, "Love one another", hides a powerful weapon. It appeals to the emotional directly bypassing the rational process that could and should show that there is a basis in reality for determining when and how love should be given and where and why it should be withheld. There is no less danger in attributing a moral percept not to the reality that justifies it but to an individual who throughout history has been declared the spiritual leader of various faiths.
When people wave banners declaring, �God is love�, the message they hope to hide is, "Our God is Love, Yours is Not!� It is for this reason we must look not to individuals (yours truly no less included) for the objective meaning and purpose of love, but to the nature of existence that demands and justifies it.
Love is an emotional response, automatically aroused by the sum of our beliefs regarding what is a value to us. If our beliefs stem from a knowledge of reality that justifies them our emotions likewise follow from and guide us in reality. If our beliefs are not grounded in fact they have an ominous potential to lead us down a road that twists and turns finally arriving at a dead end of disaster.
cont . . .
When people wave banners declaring, �God is love�, the message they hope to hide is, "Our God is Love, Yours is Not!� It is for this reason we must look not to individuals (yours truly no less included) for the objective meaning and purpose of love, but to the nature of existence that demands and justifies it.
Love is an emotional response, automatically aroused by the sum of our beliefs regarding what is a value to us. If our beliefs stem from a knowledge of reality that justifies them our emotions likewise follow from and guide us in reality. If our beliefs are not grounded in fact they have an ominous potential to lead us down a road that twists and turns finally arriving at a dead end of disaster.
cont . . .
The rational basis of love is to be found in the reality of its meaning and purpose as dictated by the means by which life survives and flourishes. Life is a process of obtaining that which for a given organism, sustains and contributes to its growth. While these processes are programmed into the structure of other organisms to the extent that they have survived, we as humans have evolved with an advantage for adaptation that has promoted our species dramatically but for which we have grown to totally rely on for our continued success. We have learned to conceptualize our observations of reality, to differentiate and integrate the perceptions of reality that are given to us through our senses; we have learned to reason.
The ability to reason is a gift of inheritance but a gift that we must pay the price for by learning to use and appreciate it. By choosing to accept it and benefit from it we are able to appreciate its value even more, not by squandering what was hard earned by previous generations but by developing it and enriching its value even more.
Love is not a blind allegiance to or faithful following of other men. Love is an commitment and dedication to reason, the faculty that has allowed us to achieve the values we have obtained and enables us to grow and become even better than we were, exploring and discovering the depths and heights of the meaning love.
The ability to reason is a gift of inheritance but a gift that we must pay the price for by learning to use and appreciate it. By choosing to accept it and benefit from it we are able to appreciate its value even more, not by squandering what was hard earned by previous generations but by developing it and enriching its value even more.
Love is not a blind allegiance to or faithful following of other men. Love is an commitment and dedication to reason, the faculty that has allowed us to achieve the values we have obtained and enables us to grow and become even better than we were, exploring and discovering the depths and heights of the meaning love.
chakka, the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion is attested to by non-biblical writers (and therefore possibly hostile - the best kind). You will know of the writings by Josephus and Tacitus, so your 'if of course he existed' is a bit of an own goal. I am incidentally extremely widely read, but I don't blazon that everywhere.
The issue of Quirinius has been robustly answered by other reputable historians (e.g. he may have had 2 terms of office), nobody knows, as simple as that.
Luke (or the common author of both Luke and Acts) is just as much an historian as Tacitus, Josephus, or Pliny. The thrust of the NT writers however is not to present a biography, but a gospel.
You will know that many of the places referred to in the NT have been uncovered by archaeology.
Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans, that is historical fact. I hope sometimes it troubles you, in the most positive possible way.
Sorry not to be robust enough.
The issue of Quirinius has been robustly answered by other reputable historians (e.g. he may have had 2 terms of office), nobody knows, as simple as that.
Luke (or the common author of both Luke and Acts) is just as much an historian as Tacitus, Josephus, or Pliny. The thrust of the NT writers however is not to present a biography, but a gospel.
You will know that many of the places referred to in the NT have been uncovered by archaeology.
Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans, that is historical fact. I hope sometimes it troubles you, in the most positive possible way.
Sorry not to be robust enough.
Well, it seems that some of us non-believers (and Octavius, despite his Christian beliefs) are actually honest enough to say that Jesus never intended to create a new religion. Although clearly people will believe what they want to believe, and that is, of course, their choice, I find it sad that they are so willing to close their eyes and ears to the truth, and to perpetuate what is clearly a gross misrepresentation. Poor old Jesus. What a waste. Seems I'm still fighting his corner - even though I'm not a Christian in the accepted sense of the word.
mib, thank you for that. Love is a very diverse word - and perhaps in some circumstances must be defined as 'tolerate'. We can only do our best.
Whiffey, you still haven't answered my question about the biblical God.
mib, thank you for that. Love is a very diverse word - and perhaps in some circumstances must be defined as 'tolerate'. We can only do our best.
Whiffey, you still haven't answered my question about the biblical God.
Forget about the Gospels, there far too old. The 18th century stigmatic, ecstatic ,Augustinian nun Anna Catherine Emmerich descibed the life of Christ in fine detail through a series of divine relevations. Faith is a supernatural gift from God and we have it in varying degrees. Any attempt at rational argument about the bible stories is a waste of time. If I may quote from the film "The Song of Bernadette" (1943) " For some no explanation is necessary, for others no explanation is possible"
Vale, Octavius. Have a happy Christmas.
Greetings, Whiffey. I am sorry that your faith is not enough for you but that you try to bolster it with unsupported historical claims. Ah well, here we go:
1. It may be (though it is not �a historical fact�) that Jesus was crucified. After all, the Romans crucified many thousands of people and Jesus was a fairly common name. But for the suggestion that he rose from the dead we have only the bald, unsubstantiated, statements of one known person, Paul, and three unknown people, �Luke�, �Matthew� and �John�. (The original �Mark� finishes at 16:8 and therefore contains no resurrection.) No eye-witnesses are to be found anywhere. To believe in such an astounding miracle on �evidence� as flimsy as that requires uncritical credulity of the highest order � faith in fact!
2. The suggestion that there may have been a earlier Quirinius census is an old ploy based on nothing. Marcello Craveri puts it well in his book The Life of Jesus:
�The Christian exegetes, to avoid putting Luke in error, have been constrained to postulate another census, earlier than that of Quirinius. But no historical evidence confirms this, and Luke himself says explicitly that the census to which he refers was the first in Palestine: �And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.�
Other translations � �this was the first of those taken under Quirinius,� or �this was the census taken before Quirinius became governor of Syria� � suggested by M J Lagrange and others, are tendentious and false.�
Couldn�t have put it better myself. If you claim an earlier census you must supply evidence of it.
3. The historians Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, frequently quoted by Christians, were born in AD 38, AD55, AD61 and AD69 respectively and therefore could not have �attested� to anything to do with
Greetings, Whiffey. I am sorry that your faith is not enough for you but that you try to bolster it with unsupported historical claims. Ah well, here we go:
1. It may be (though it is not �a historical fact�) that Jesus was crucified. After all, the Romans crucified many thousands of people and Jesus was a fairly common name. But for the suggestion that he rose from the dead we have only the bald, unsubstantiated, statements of one known person, Paul, and three unknown people, �Luke�, �Matthew� and �John�. (The original �Mark� finishes at 16:8 and therefore contains no resurrection.) No eye-witnesses are to be found anywhere. To believe in such an astounding miracle on �evidence� as flimsy as that requires uncritical credulity of the highest order � faith in fact!
2. The suggestion that there may have been a earlier Quirinius census is an old ploy based on nothing. Marcello Craveri puts it well in his book The Life of Jesus:
�The Christian exegetes, to avoid putting Luke in error, have been constrained to postulate another census, earlier than that of Quirinius. But no historical evidence confirms this, and Luke himself says explicitly that the census to which he refers was the first in Palestine: �And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.�
Other translations � �this was the first of those taken under Quirinius,� or �this was the census taken before Quirinius became governor of Syria� � suggested by M J Lagrange and others, are tendentious and false.�
Couldn�t have put it better myself. If you claim an earlier census you must supply evidence of it.
3. The historians Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, frequently quoted by Christians, were born in AD 38, AD55, AD61 and AD69 respectively and therefore could not have �attested� to anything to do with
(Cont�d) And since they were writing in the late 1st/early 2nd Centuries the very little they say about Jesus was already available in the gospels.
More interesting, and never mentioned by Christians, are the historians Philo and Justus, both of whom were writing about Israel, the Jewish religion, Pilate etc. in the early half of the 1st Century, yet never mention a Jesus who wandered about the place preaching to thousands, miraculously healing the sick, riding in triumph into Jerusalem and so on. And their woks still survive. Odd, eh?
4. Archaeology has uncovered no such places. Various pious people have �identified� some gospel sites quite arbitrarily. An example:
Golgotha is translated in the gospels as �the place of a skull�, so a dome-shaped mound a little north of the Palace of Herod has been �identified� as it. Unfortunately, Golgotha does not mean that (which would be gulgoleth in Hebrew) but �hill of Goath� (Gol-Goath) mentioned in Jeremiah. Constantine had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre built there and his mother Helena found a piece of wood which was, of course, the True Cross. Other �finds� are similar.
More importantly, nothing found relates directly to Jesus.
5. No, I can�t say that anything in the Jesus story troubles me, or anything in the magical stories of Zeus, Apollo or Harry Potter either.
On the contrary, I am delighted that the story has inspired so much beautiful literature, poetry and music. Next week I shall be singing carols lustily � some of the loveliest songs ever written. If Handel�s Messiah is on the air I shall sing along with it, and I fell in love with Milton�s Ode on the Morning of Christ�s Nativity at school.
But I no more need to believe the story to enjoy these things than I have to believe in Romeo and Juliet to appreciate Shakespeare�s play or the music of Tschaikovsky and Prokoviev.
Have a happy
�For some no explanation is necessary, for others no explanation is possible.� Don�t you just love quotes?
�To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.� Thomas Aquinas
�To one who has faith, no explanation is heard. To one without faith, an explanation is necessary.� Graveno
�To one who has faith, no explanation that might bring ones beliefs into question is sought, desired, accepted or permitted. To one without faith, no rational explanation is . . intolerable.� mibn2cweus
�To rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer.� Ayn Rand
�The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.� Thomas Aquinas
�. . . be sure your sin will find you out.� Moses
There has never been a philosophy, a theory or a doctrine, that attacked (or 'limited') reason, which did not preach submission to the power of some authority. [Ayn Rand, The Comprachicos, in The New Left]
�The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.� Ayn Rand
�We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves.� Thomas Aquinas
�The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind.� Ayn Rand
"PROVE all things; hold fast that which is good." Paul the Apostle
�There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.� Ayn Rand
"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true.� Ayn Rand
�To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.� Thomas Aquinas
�To one who has faith, no explanation is heard. To one without faith, an explanation is necessary.� Graveno
�To one who has faith, no explanation that might bring ones beliefs into question is sought, desired, accepted or permitted. To one without faith, no rational explanation is . . intolerable.� mibn2cweus
�To rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer.� Ayn Rand
�The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.� Thomas Aquinas
�. . . be sure your sin will find you out.� Moses
There has never been a philosophy, a theory or a doctrine, that attacked (or 'limited') reason, which did not preach submission to the power of some authority. [Ayn Rand, The Comprachicos, in The New Left]
�The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.� Ayn Rand
�We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves.� Thomas Aquinas
�The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind.� Ayn Rand
"PROVE all things; hold fast that which is good." Paul the Apostle
�There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.� Ayn Rand
"To fear to face an issue is to believe the worst is true.� Ayn Rand
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
