Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

    I almost think it is a catch-22.

    The humanists want undeniable proof that God exists, yet Jesus Christ himself values faith in the "things not seen".

    How can we reconcile the two? I think the only answer is an open heart and personal experience. Be that as it may, you can scream and holler from the rooftops that you want more proof than what has been give, but even Christ told his followers when they asked for a sign, "no sign shall be given except that of Jonah".

    Question to all the humanists on this board:

    As a side note,

    Would it be possible for you to read one Gospel book, setting aside your biases and need for proof? I.e. without saying: I do not believe that this miracle could happen or God must be terrible to send his own Son to die, etc. Or is this not possible?

    Comment


    • #22
      Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

      Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
      So using your logic...

      I used to think Armenians were good because I saw that they are a very hospitable people, very intelligent and give much cultural value to the world, but then I saw that there are certain Armenians who are involved in Insurance fraud and the like, so therefore all Armenians and Armenianism is bad?
      I think the more correct extension of my logic is this:

      Suppose you have two methodologies for doing things: A and B

      A: Let's call this "faith" based. Is not really a logically sound approach by definition. Sometimes it will have positive outcomes (like calming people in stressful situations) and sometimes it will have negative outcomes (e.g. the parents that may let their kids go untreated with proven medical techniques in the hopes that prayer will help or starting wars and such).

      B: Fundamentally sound way to reason about thoughts and actions given what we know. Sometimes it will be very unpleasant (like facing the inevitable truth that you are in a shitty situation about to die) and sometimes it will do great things (e.g. all of our scientific and technical accomplishments as humans).

      Given A or B as the choices, I would ALWAYS pick B even if I have to face certain possibly painful facts such as life might be completely pointless .. sometimes accidents happen with no good "reason" behind them. In other words, about these people that choose to pray when they face a life threatening situation, I guess I rather die very scared but knowing the Truth rather than be all calm warm and cozy thinking I am going to meet my creator and hang out on some fluffy clouds for the rest of eternity.
      this post = teh win.

      Comment


      • #23
        Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

        Originally posted by Siggie View Post
        Aaaaand ctl-a and delete...
        That is OLD school (assuming you meant ctrl-alt-delete)
        this post = teh win.

        Comment


        • #24
          Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

          No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.

          Comment


          • #25
            Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

            Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
            I almost think it is a catch-22.

            The humanists want undeniable proof that God exists, yet Jesus Christ himself values faith in the "things not seen".

            How can we reconcile the two? I think the only answer is an open heart and personal experience. Be that as it may, you can scream and holler from the rooftops that you want more proof than what has been give, but even Christ told his followers when they asked for a sign, "no sign shall be given except that of Jonah".

            Question to all the humanists on this board:

            As a side note,

            Would it be possible for you to read one Gospel book, setting aside your biases and need for proof? I.e. without saying: I do not believe that this miracle could happen or God must be terrible to send his own Son to die, etc. Or is this not possible?
            Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
            No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.
            You mean the one I quoted as well?

            Comment


            • #26
              Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

              Originally posted by KarotheGreat View Post
              You mean the one I quoted as well?
              No, the long post.

              Comment


              • #27
                Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

                Originally posted by Sip View Post
                That is OLD school (assuming you meant ctrl-alt-delete)
                No, I meant ctl - "a" to highlight all. Just deleting everything I had typed because you posted about that realization before I could point out that same problem to you.

                Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
                No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.
                No, that's not it all. It was just longer than I had time to read at the time. I am planning to come back to it!
                [COLOR=#4b0082][B][SIZE=4][FONT=trebuchet ms]“If you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”
                -Henry Ford[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

                Comment


                • #28
                  Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

                  Oh wow ctrl-a is cool ... never knew that!

                  As far as the long article, I will admit to my bias about reading long texts about church and religion. My problem is, as long as the Armenina Church is fundamentally based on the hocus-pocus part of Christianity which somehow wants to insist Jesus was supernatural, I just can't take things derived from it seriously.

                  The kinds of things I would love to have dialogs on (and what I think is really precious about Christianity) is the moral teachings of Jesus and how to live life as a good human. The stuff about genesis, resurrection, conversational prayers which often involve humans commanding God to do this and that or trying to barter in some way or another with the almighty, or just the superstitious asking for blessings type of things I could definitely go without.
                  this post = teh win.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

                    I feel like the prayer thing or general tendency to attribute things to a deity is problematic also because it tends to promote an external locus of control. Meaning that people attribute their life's outcomes to something external to themselves.


                    This provides people an excuse and a way to avoid taking responsibility for their own circumstances (in the cases when the outcomes really aren't due to external factors) or feeling helpless to improve their outcomes.


                    To illustrate with an example not related to religion:

                    E.g. I failed my exam because my teacher is a sadistic b!tch who loves writing difficult and tricky test questions.

                    If you do this... what's next? What can you do? You can't study more, study earlier, seek help, go to tutoring, use relaxation techniques during the exam, employ good test taking strategy, etc. You have no control because the outcome is attributed to something we cannot control.
                    [COLOR=#4b0082][B][SIZE=4][FONT=trebuchet ms]“If you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”
                    -Henry Ford[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

                      Originally posted by yerazhishda View Post
                      How much of the Bible must be historical to believe?

                      This is such a loaded question on so many levels, and within it are many underlying presumptions and ideas that do not necessarily reflect reality. I will try to take what I think is the position of the Armenian Church and all Orthodox Churches, since the beginning of Christianity.

                      Basics:

                      The Bible is not one "book", but a compendious volume that encompasses many different types of works from many different authors directed towards specific audiences at specific time periods. It is more appropriate to think of the Bible as more of an encyclopedia than a book, to be exact. For example, you cannot read Proverbs in the same way that you would read the Gospels; the former is wisdom literature of the 800's BC while the latter is evangelical literature of the early 1st century AD. The mistake that many in the West make (especially mainline Protestants who tend to be the most vocal, or at least get the most attention, in American culture), is that it takes all of these books at face value and does not critique them the way they should or were meant to be, as can be seen from ancient times (200's AD forward).

                      So, given the fact that there are so many different types of literature within the Bible, by more than likely 100+ different authors, how is it that we can make sense of it all. How does the Orthodox Church integrate this into her life as Church, and how does it explain its beliefs to those outside the church?

                      The answers is: through study, exegesis and commentary of the Holy Fathers.

                      One of the main problems with Protestant Christianity* - and in my humble opinion that which keeps people away from the Faith - is that every individual member is allowed his or her own interpretation, and they are all equally correct. The Protestant can just say, well the Holy Spirit revealed to me that this piece of Scripture really means this or that. This is why you see more than 30k + denominations in America alone today; anyone who has a theological disagreement just makes their own church, instead of trying to resolve it with church leaders. This is also why you see ridiculously anti-Christian churches such as Westboro Baptist which uses Scripture for its own wicked political purposes. Most assuredly, you have all heard the famous quote of William Shakespeare in his masterpiece, The Merchant of Venice:

                      Even the devil can site scripture for his own purpose!
                      An evil soul producing holy witness is like
                      a villain with a smiling cheek.


                      This is also very evident in the Gospels, in which Satan quotes Scripture to tempt Christ.

                      The Holy Fathers: Who are they, and why should I care?

                      This is where the Holy Fathers come in. The Holy Fathers (and Mothers) of the Church are those people who have been recognized as leading lives so holy and virtuous as to have a certain type of 'authority' within the church of spiritual matters. Since their beliefs are also Orthodox, they are considered to be chief among those whom we should trust in terms of doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. These are not just random people who picked up a pen and decided to write down their thoughts about Christianity, rather they 'put their money where their mouth is', most dying horrible deaths for their defense of Christianity against those who would like to see it destroyed. Some of the Holy Fathers that the Armenian Church recognizes and who have extent works are St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Anthony of the Desert, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Narek, St. John of Lambron, St. Gregory of Tatev, just to name a few.

                      These Fathers lived anywhere from 200-500AD, with the exception of the last three who came later at around 800-1400AD. It is important to understand that the magnitude of work and the holiness of life that these men (and women) lived was so great, that the Church (at this time, it was one Church) recognized them as having authority - i.e. when they speak you should listen. Although those who are not familiar with the history of Christianity may not know most or even any of these names, people like St. John Chrysostom were basically the most educated scholars of their time. Chrysostom himself should really be compared to the stature of modern day academicians such as Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, etc. (although in fame only, not in belief!); you could even go so far as to say that they were the day's celebrities (although today that carries a lot of baggage as a term, so I use it catiously). Chrysostom himself studied at some of the best Lycees of the Greek world, studying science, geometry, music, literature, history and above all, rhetoric - he asserts that all of these subjects should be implemented by Christian theologians, in order to better inform ourselves of the world around us. It is no wonder why they are so greatly admired by the Church.

                      What do the Fathers have to say about the historicity of the Bible?

                      The Fathers are not your modern day Christians, who rely on the doctrine of sola scriptura** to define their beliefs. Rather, they know that Genesis was never intended to be a history book, and that it wasn't even important to the Faith as a whole. From the earliest times, Genesis was regarded as a book explaining God's relationship to man (See St. Augustine's exegesis on Genesis). Genesis was never understood to be literally 100% true down to the last detail, as should be apparent to anyone who reads the first two chapters (two Creation stories)! The Holy Fathers recognized that the Pentateuch was oral tradition that was at one point written down by xxxs nearly 3500 years ago, so it should not be read in the same fashion as say the Pauline Epistles.

                      In conclusion, the Orthodox Church (and the Church from the beginning) has never worried about whether certain facts do not 'add up'. As Fr. Thomas Hopko always says, 'the Bible is not a Koran'. The Church does not care that there is a difference in accounts between the Synoptic Gospels and the Johannine Gospel. These "trifles" (as Chrysostom called them), have absolutely nothing to do with the validation or refutation of Christ, His Truth, and His Church. The Church is validated by the very fact of its existence. This is something that I can write about later to those that are interested, but now is perhaps not the time nor place for it.

                      I encourage everyone to examine these ideas with an open mind and open heart. If you want to believe that it is not true, that is up to; I am only expressing my interpretation of what the Armenian Church believes at the core. Do not come to the Armenian Church with an American Christian disposition/prejudices, you are doing yourself a disservice and are in fact being highly un-academic. There is a wealth of knowledge out there if you are just willing to tap into it.

                      If you want to believe that God exists, but rationally cannot bring yourself to believe, I encourage you to in a sense "pray" for guidance. Pray "to whom it may concern" and ask them to show you if they are real or not - if you keep your heart and mind open, you might be surprised at what you find.

                      I want to end with a prayer.

                      Իմաստութիւն Հօր Յիսուս, տո'ւր մեզ իմաստութիւն,
                      զբարիս խորհել եւ խօսել եւ գործել առաջի Քո յամենայն ժամ:
                      Եւ ի չար խորհրդոց ի բանից եւ ի գործոց, փրկեա' զմեզ, ամէն:


                      Jesus, Wisdom of the Father, give us wisdom,
                      to think, speak and do what is Good before you at all times.
                      And save us from evil thoughts, words and deeds, amen.


                      May you all be blessed on your spiritual walks.

                      Additional Information: I encourage all of those who are interested in this topic (believing and non-believing alike) to listen to the following podcast by world-renowned Biblical and Patristics scholar Dr. Constantinou. This lecture is fully in line with what the Orthodox Church beleives. It might prove to be very enlightening, regardless of what you believe at the end of it:

                      Introduction to the Bible, Lesson 2: Inspiration and Inerrancy

                      Another interesting interview is that between Dr. Constantinou and Fr. Vahan Hovhanessian at the Society of Biblical Literature in 2010, here Father explains the position of the Armenian Church:

                      Society of Biblical Literature: Part 1 (with Fr. Vahan Hovhanessian)


                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      *I use Protestant Christianity as an example, only because it is the most prevalent and widespread theological system in America today. Most of what the 'un-churched' think Christianity believes is influenced by this form of Christianity.

                      **Sola Scriptura is a new theological doctrine accepted by most mainline Protestant denominations that the Holy Bible (sans what they call the "Apocrypha" and what the Armenian Church accepts as Scripture) is directly divinely inspired, free from human error. This creates many theological problems which the traditional churches (Catholic/Orthodox) do not have.
                      Okay, read it. Well-written btw. Thank you for the clarity and thoughtfulness of the post (if not for the brevity! *tickle* ).

                      So, the Armenian church deals with this easily because they're not biblical literalists, basically.
                      What do they do with the really ugly (violent, antitolerance, anti-woman, etc.) passages though? Just recognize them as products of the times in which these works were written? Can't they just be edited out in an official Armenian Apostolic version? :-/
                      [COLOR=#4b0082][B][SIZE=4][FONT=trebuchet ms]“If you think you can, or you can’t, you’re right.”
                      -Henry Ford[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X