How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[KanadaHye]

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

Nazism was not secular or non-religious. In Mein Kampf Hitler clearly says that god has given him a mandate for his political goals. Most members of the Wehrmacht were confessing Catholics and Catholic churches across the Third Reich were aiding Nazis by peddling their propaganda and spying on their own congregations. The entire hatred for J ews was the result of 2,000 years of Christian dogma about how J ews killed Christ (the official position of the Catholic church until a few years ago). Then you have all the weird Pagan crap mixed in. There is nothing secular or non-religious about Nazism, in fact its the exact opposite of secularism.

How many Chinese died during WW2? Did they kill Jesus too?

Since you brought it up, have you ever heard about the real holocaust (burnt offering) named Dresden? You should really give it a read but I'm sure you'll find yourself disgusted by how the 'allies' during WW2 could massacre an entire city of civilians which had nothing to do with war.

Yes, good ole' Winston Churchill gave the go ahead to disintegrate an entire city of civilians for sh!ts and giggles. There were no J3ws or Nazis there by the way.

[ArmSurvival]

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

When I say you live with the consequences, I mean you live with the consequences of what happens in your afterlife.

So the entire base of your morality rests on the fact that you will be rewarded for your good actions by god in some afterlife. That's bribery and there's nothing noble or moral about that. When I do good things I do it for the sake of the act and for the benefit it gives to the other person. I don't expect to be rewarded with eternal paradise for following the dictates of an overlord. That would mean humans have morals equal to that of a dog listening to its master just to get a treat. And to top it off there is no reason to believe in an afterlife in the first place.

No one is saying that if you don't follow Christianity you are going to be killed in the present life.

Not in this life, but we will be tortured in the afterlife for eternity according to humble and gentle Jesus (nothing humble or gentle about that proposition). You cannot have true morality by using fear to force people to blindly obey dictates. Nevermind that the entity dictating is fictional and all eye-witness accounts of him are lies peddled by charlatans and people concerned with power in THIS life. Its not a coincidence that anyone who claims to have met god also claims to have the right to tell others what to do.

So we sin, which goes opposed to what God desired.

How can you, or any human for that matter, possibly know what god desires? I've never heard anyone make a sensible argument for this. Its really arrogant to say you understand god's desires. Its also contradictory to the Christian tenet of humility.

Multiculturalism is dangerous to our nation because with fragile demographics, we need to focus on strengthening our identity and culture not giving way to foreign cultures that would change our society into something else.

Whats more foreign to Armenian culture than an eccentric J ewish preacher in Palestine who discussed old J ewish desert myths and out-of-this-world entities?

More people have died as a result of Communism, Nazism, and such non-religious/secular ideologies than by Christianity. As I said before though, "In the end, you can't use the failures of some churches throughout history to invalidate the Christian faith. "

Nazism was not secular or non-religious. In Mein Kampf Hitler clearly says that god has given him a mandate for his political goals. Most members of the Wehrmacht were confessing Catholics and Catholic churches across the Third Reich were aiding Nazis by peddling their propaganda and spying on their own congregations. The entire hatred for J ews was the result of 2,000 years of Christian dogma about how J ews killed Christ (the official position of the Catholic church until a few years ago). Then you have all the weird Pagan crap mixed in. There is nothing secular or non-religious about Nazism, in fact its the exact opposite of secularism.

As far as Communism, yes you have to be an atheist to be a communist, however lack of belief in god does not give justification to do horrible things. Being an atheist is like being a non-basketball player - Its not a source of guidance to do any particular thing, so atheism itself does not cause people to commit any one action. By contrast, the horrible things that are done in the name of religion are written in the texts themselves and are advanced by the protectors of the faith. Huge difference there.

Our system of values are greatly influenced by the fundamental teachings of Christianity. The "great men of the enlightenment" didn't invent things out of the air, they are also influenced by this system in one way or another.

That's somewhat true. However its obvious they were more influenced by ancient Greek & Roman knowledge as well as other pre-Christian traditions which were based on logic & reason rather than fear & superstition.

And I repeat once again, you can't use the failures of the Catholic Church for example during some period of time to invalidate the Christian faith. It doesn't work that way.

This is also true and I agree with you. The Christian faith is invalidated because of its actual texts. The horrible actions of its followers is just a natural consequence of the faulty logic & immoral teachings of the religion itself.

[bell-the-cat]

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

So, I can put a gun to your head and tell you that I'm giving you a choice. You can say "Siggie is awesome and I worship her!" or I can blow your brains out. That's totally a "choice", right? "The choice is yours and you deal with the consequences of your choice."

Siggie is awesome and I worship her!

So no gun (or big rack) is needed.

[Hyreniq]

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

How do you come to the conclusion that when people can choose that they choose to believe? Reality shows a very different picture; look at Western Europe where people have the choice and most are starting to chose not to believe in god and all the superstition that it is surrounded with.

Most? Can you provide some evidence for this.

[Haykakan]

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

Btw i got nothing against the use of big racks.

[KanadaHye]

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

Here are some of the wonderful choices that chrystianity offers:
The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by the wrists, which are tied behind the back. Sometimes weights were tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[65] The toca, also called interrogatorio mejorado del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning (see: waterboarding).[66] The potro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently.[67]

Hey now, you're letting all the U.S. military secrets out.

[Mos]

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

So, I can put a gun to your head and tell you that I'm giving you a choice. You can say "Siggie is awesome and I worship her!" or I can blow your brains out. That's totally a "choice", right? "The choice is yours and you deal with the consequences of your choice."

No that's not how it is at all. When I say you live with the consequences, I mean you live with the consequences of what happens in your afterlife. I guess if you reject Christianity, you also reject the notion of its afterlife so it should be no problem for people like you. No one is saying that if you don't follow Christianity you are going to be killed in the present life.

First of all, why should I read that and consider it authoritative in the least? You don't even give any source information whatsoever. What makes the interpretation you share any more valid than any other interpretation of the bible (e.g. Westboro Baptist)?

Also, are you saying that God *is* the creator of sin or you're disagreeing with that interpretation? Is god not also supposed to be omniscient? How about omnipotent? To say something turned out differently than he thought is illogical because then he cannot be omniscient and that contradicts the bible too.

Humans are imperfect creatures. So we sin, which goes opposed to what God desired. It's a fact of life. What does God's omnipotence have to do with what I'm saying? He respects our free will, but with that respect comes the fact that as imperfect creatures we will sin. It's a trade-off but a very important one.

[Haykakan]

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

Here are some of the wonderful choices that chrystianity offers:
The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by the wrists, which are tied behind the back. Sometimes weights were tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[65] The toca, also called interrogatorio mejorado del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning (see: waterboarding).[66] The potro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently.[67]

[Siggie]

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

You are not supposed to do anything. You can do what you want. The choice is yours and you deal with the consequences of your choice. You always have the chance of course for salvation, to repent your sins and wrong-doings, to ask for forgiveness, to better you life. God gives us this chance.

So, I can put a gun to your head and tell you that I'm giving you a choice. You can say "Siggie is awesome and I worship her!" or I can blow your brains out. That's totally a "choice", right? "The choice is yours and you deal with the consequences of your choice."

I recommend you read this:

First of all, why should I read that and consider it authoritative in the least? You don't even give any source information whatsoever. What makes the interpretation you share any more valid than any other interpretation of the bible (e.g. Westboro Baptist)?

Also, are you saying that God *is* the creator of sin or you're disagreeing with that interpretation? Is god not also supposed to be omniscient? How about omnipotent? To say something turned out differently than he thought is illogical because then he cannot be omniscient and that contradicts the bible too.

[KanadaHye]

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

How do you come to the conclusion that when people can choose that they choose to believe? Reality shows a very different picture; look at Western Europe where people have the choice and most are starting to chose not to believe in god and all the superstition that it is surrounded with.

Are they really choosing or is the media doing such a good job of making fun of Christianity to the point where it's "shameful" or not "cool" at a young age to think in Godly terms. It's a similar picture across the world, big cities seem to have little to do with church and family while the outskirts where there is large land/property/farming, etc. hold onto their heritage, ideals, values, etc. With God and Christianity comes self governance, self rule and ownership. Having property and land yields to freedom. Economic freedom is key to personal freedom and political freedom.