The Horrors of christianity

No, although they seem similar the are not the same.

"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." is passive, inactive, don't do what is bad to others but just as YOU want men to do to YOU, do the same way to them is proactive, active; get up and act, do what is good and it doesn't matter whether they return it to you, as a Christian you are required to continue doing good for them.

 

Actually I'm not arguing with him, I just pointed out that none of what he says applies to true Christianity. He doesn't seem to be happy with that.

 

Meagain, I'd like to poke and prod you for those 4 quadrants you mentioned.

Intrigued me


So....

 

First, they are facts, whether I explain them or not. Next, I did't quote them. (quote - to repeat or copy the exact words spoken or written by somebody.

Perhaps to you.

They don't need me to explain why I believe they are relevant, and in what manner for them to be taken seriously. Many people don't even know me and still take them quite seriously.

They are just as much facts as anything you've used, you just like your "facts" better than mine.

Good and I have not ignored anything you have said.

Yep

Thanks, I was hoping you would let me see things from my point of view.

What kind of support did you have in mind?

Again what did you have in mind?

I have made many points but you keep saying that is just your opinion, thus you don't actually address it. The thing is, the fact that it is an opinion does not, on face value, make it invalid. So calling something an opinion does not address what is being said.

Cool, now if you would start addressing what is being said instead of just being dismissive.....

Very good, that is exactly what I'm saying.

And you were doing so well.

Okay let's use a hypothetical.

It is possible for me to start a new "Christian" sect tomorrow, it will then be one of the thousands of different sects of christianity. All who join must profess a belief in christianity and follow the tenets of the sect. The tenets are that you must reject all the teachings of the Bible and reject Jesus as the Christ because that is what "true christianity" is and another tenet is that you must kill and persecute any who are not a member of this sect. Now according to your stated definition this would make a member a "Christian" even though they deny every thing Christianity stands for.

As ludicrous as this sounds, the big problem is it doesn't matter whether you or I or historians or anybody else thinks they are Christians, only God and Jesus can say who is and is not a Christian and they gave us some ways for us to determine who is Christian as well.

Like I said; it doesn't matter whether you or I or historians or anybody else thinks someone is a Christian, only God and Jesus can say who is and is not a Christian.

Could be but that is not my decision.

As opposed to those who stir up problems by going to the Christianity Forum and starting threads titled "The Horrors of christianity"?

If you say so, although that is not your decision to make.

Sorry, never said I was a Christian. I'd like to be but like I said it is not my decision whether I am a Christian or not.

Ok, one more time. they were not Christians, they only called themselves that.

Churches that called themselves Christian.

They were following what was called Christian doctrine.

Those who set themselves up as Christian church leaders but taught falsehoods.

Yep, False teachers, teaching falsehoods and misleading many.

They professed a belief in an unchristian church and its false doctrines.

Another unchristian falsehood, hell is the common grave of mankind.

It doesn't, anyone can have these qualities but if a Christian doesn't have them, it's a sign that they are probably not a Christian, no matter what they call them self.

Well, what it's saying is there is no law against manifesting these qualities and no limit to the amount they are manifested.

Nope

That's her choice.

 

Hey when did you become a Muper Soderator? Was there a special ceremony? Was there cake and ice cream?

 

Okay kidding aside, If someone puts a Coke label on a gas can, does that mean I if I want a Coke I have to drink the gas? Do I blame Coke for the misuse of the label? Should I now never drink anything that has a Coke label on it? Should now start telling others that all Coke is bad and no one should drink it? Maybe all Coke should be banned because it's label has been misused? I got it, maybe Coke should change it's name, what do you think?

I could go on but the point is the label Christianity has been misused, so what should be done about it? So when someone starts a thread like this do let people assume that real Christians are the mean violent bigots that are being depicted or do I point out that by definition true Christians could never do such things.

 

OWB and I disagree about many things, but I think we share common ground on this issue. When I adopt the Christian label, I mean that I embrace what I think is the central message of Jesus: the agape principle of unconditional love, especially for society's rejects. He taught that the most important commandments were the first and second--the first being love of God with our whole mind and strength and love of our neighbor. He also preached the Golden Rule and the beatitudes. I think if everybody followed these teachings the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, I've learned that lots of people have a radically different understanding of Christianity. If I say I'm a Christian, people assume I believe in hell, the Trinity, the virgin birth, and a number of other doctrines that are embodied in the Nicene and other creeds developed by clerics at various councils centuries after Jesus's death. In fact, I don't believe in any of them. Can I still call myself a Christian? I do, and gave my reasons. OWB doesn't believe in a number of these things either, like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, a hell of eternal torment after death, and a definition of faith as belief in unbelievable doctrines. So where do we get off saying we're the real Christians and the others have gone astray? Jesus gave us a test: by their fruits we can tell the authentic from the fake. Stillkicking has catalogued the bitter fruits of the "orthodox" position. I challenge you to find examples where preaching peace, love and understanding led to similar "horrors".

 

From Okiefreak:

from owb:
Quote:
That's fine, if you prefer to see things only from your point of view you are certainly entitled to be that way.

So, it is clear from what these two are saying here and in their other posts that it is their perceptions of, their interpretations of, their views of, what the bible said that defines their meaning of what it is to be a christian. I have no problem with that.


by the way owb, I saw where this bothered you quite a bit:
Quote: Originally Posted by Still Kicking
...
No, I said the only way to satisfy the topic is through facts and logic. I presented facts from history, made a statement concerning them, and asked for other peoples opinion on them. So far, all I get is opinion on top of opinion, snide comments, and shit from trolls. So, if you have any facts that or logical conclusions that refute what I have said, then by all means please present them and I will be happy to discuss them with you. But please, if you want to throw scripture at me, then at least have the courtesy to state WHY you think it says what it does, so we have something to start from other than bible quotes that are constantly in question as to validity.

it was supposed to say:
"and asked for other peoples answers regarding them. "

I could see where that was really bothering you. Surely you understand how little mistakes like that can crop up when there is so much going on.

 

Bible quotes are bible quotes. There is no question as to their validity. They are simply quotes from a thing we can all touch and see.

 

Although I believe the topic to be serious, I am not a very serious person and was just kidding you.

When discussing a subject with someone, I tend to spend a lot of time thinking about not only the other person's viewpoint but try to see the subject from as many viewpoints as possible, although I will generally only express my viewpoint on the matter.

Some have accused me of trying to "win" these discussions but I'm more interesting in sharing ideas and concepts, although I can get a little forceful when I think the other person has stopped listening.

Thanx, I appreciate the thought.

No, it wasn't bothering me, I just thought it was really funny. But thanks for correcting it and as for mistakes like that, I've probably made more than my share.

 

I'm sorry but you lost me, would you mind elucidating?

 

Very nicely put and I second it.

 

But you are talking about a label used correctly. It says gasoline and gasoline is what is in the container and can can be both good and bad. Whereas I'm talking about a label used incorrectly, it says Christian but a Christian is not what is found inside.

Does the person who wrote the definition in the dictionary know what the definition of Christian is? If he, like Still Kicking, bases his definition on historical accounts, he may not be defining Christian at all but defining apostasy and calling it Christianity. The only true definition of Christianity is found in the Bible. And that definition carries no bad connotations, that is unless you hate what is good and love what is bad and then you have more problems to deal with than the definition of Christianity.

And thanks for elucidating.

 

So.....

Using the same rational that OWB and Okiefreak have expressed, that it is the individuals personal view of the bible and what it says that defines whether or not he/she is a christian, it is then logical to assume that anyone can call themselves a true christian based on how they define the bible and according to their view of it, simply by declaring it so. There can be no argument against this logic if anyone who defines themselves as christian uses this method to define if they are christians themselves, since others have the same right to use that rational for themselves.

Continuing on in that vein, then, it is also logical to assume that there were people throughout history who claim they were also christians, especially if it was an entire church leadership group and that they interpreted the bible to allow them to commit an act or acts that others considered atrocious. It is then obvious that those acts were done in the name of christianity, and are still done in the name of christianity. And they are all true christians using the same logic as applied by OWB and Okiefreak.

Then, if they were/are all true christians, then my reasoning is sound. The christian god condoned atrocious acts, even encouraged them, during the old testament times, and ignored them during the Inquistion, Crusades, and others, and still ignores them to this day.

So, if all these acts are done in their god's name, and it (the supposed god) does not act to curb this sort of activity when it is presented as a “good, kind, benevolent, etc., god, then it IS logical to assume that it is either being presented in a fraudulent manner, it lied to it's followers since it supposedly makes that claim of goodness in it's “holy book” (if it actually was real) yet allows, and even encourages it's followers to act as they have throughout history, or, it IS logical that we can assume that it actually does not exist, and the followers of christianity then and now use it (god and religion) as a figurehead to their own ends.

That's all I needed to know.

 

What I expressed is that it is not about "the individuals personal view of the bible and what it says that defines whether or not he/she is a christian", in fact that has always been your view. My view is that it is about God's view of what a christian is, as spelled out in the Bible.

Again you continue to misrepresent what has been said to you. The deciding of what true Christians are to be, belongs to God and his son Jesus, not to you, me or Okiefreak.

They are not all true Christians and thus your reasoning is not sound.

Jesus pointed out that such ones although believing they were doing God's will and using God's name are really acting in behalf of God's enemy.

As for your claim that God has not acted to curb this kind of activity just shows that you have not read the Bible or at least did not try to understand it. The Bible gives many accounts of God curbing such activity.

You really want to believe what you say don't you. It seems that you came here not to reason but with a deaf ear dismiss all that is said to you and continue in your ignorance.

 

Not at all. It's quite true that anybody can call himself/herself anything. It's a free country and I believe in free speech. They have the right (in the sense of a legally protected claim). But that doesn't make them right (in the sense of being correct). In exercising their right, they can be wrong. I don't think all opinions are on the same plane. Some are well thought out, informed opinions; others not. Many people think that Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, etc., would be wonderful Presidents. I don't, and while I admit I could be wrong, I'm pretty confident that they would be terrible presidents, even though some people might disagree. It's a matter of good judgement. Likewise, in reading the Bible and making decisions about what Jesus stood for, I think I can make rational judgments about what would further Jesus' values of peace, love and understanding, and what would conflict with those values. I've looked at the political processes leading to the development of the various creeds and dogmas that have been a source of conflict in Christendom, and I think, once again, that they're off base. Some views are right, some are wrong. I put forward my arguments and reasoning and leave it for you and others to judge whether or not my views have merit. That's different from saying:"it is then logical to assume that anyone can call themselves a true christian based on how they define the bible and according to their view of it, simply by declaring it so". I'm sure that many of my views are wrong, but I submit to reason, evidence, experience and judgment as the best tests for determining which ones hold water.

 

In regards to my last post, I think the following illustrates the point I made there regarding the fact that christianity is subject to the interpretations of each individual, it is a fact people have been interpreting the literature surrounding it for centuries according to their own desires or beliefs, on both sides of the situation:


By okie freak:
*Whether God is omnipotent and omniscient is a matter of semantics.
*But I have no problem with saying God may not be omnipotent and/or omniscient.
*I don't believe the Bible is the "word of God"--just the words of men trying to find God. Taken literally, the Bible supports genocide, sexism, slavery, homophobia, and other bad things; so the reader must be discriminating and take things in common to get the good out of it.
*Like most Progressive Christians, I take an historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible. Rather than say the Christian God doesn't exist, I prefer to say the anthropomorphic concept of God depicted in Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions probably doesn't exist, or is far different than the writers conveyed.
*The historical Jesus is murky, and occasionally passages suggest he might have had more in common with David Koresh than I'd like to think.
*I'm willing to concede that seven of Paul's letters were pseudographic (forged) and others altered, but I'd have to see more evidence to accept Detering's extravagant claims.
*I think all belief needs to be consistent with logic, the known facts, and the best understanding of our universe. *That's why I'm not a biblical literalist.
*Science alone doesn't get us very far, since it wouldn't touch many important questions with a ten foot pole. *Rigorous scientific proof is invaluable where attainable, but in the absence of it, we have to use less perfect tools: intuition, experience, and risk taking. In this area, I find the traditions of the great religions, as well as secular history and philosophy, valuable, if taken with a grain of salt.
*"Trust but verify". There's no substitute for reason and sound judgment in sorting truth from fiction, but if we wait until we have conclusive proof, we'll be waiting for all eternity.
*Admittedly, there would be some distortion as the stories passed from mouth to mouth to mouth, etc. And it seems that there was some pseudographia (forgery) along the line, for causes deemed worthy by the perpetrators.
*My own concept of God is consistent with Deism, Pantheism, and Panentheism



*Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Kicking

This is interesting. I am curious about your use of the "(S)he" term. Does this indicate that your beliefs allow room for a determination of the gender of your god?
Yes, I'm wide open in that area.


*Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Kicking
Yet you still use the christian bible as a guide?
Yes, I go along with Marcus Borg that the Bible should be taken seriously, but not literally.






*There are other parts of the country where Christians are quite different, but low key, so they don't get media attention.
*Let me spell out that I, like most Progressive Christians, don't believe in the literalist assumptions you want to attribute to Christianity. I don't believe we ever had a hands on, anthropomorphic deity.
*Christianity is a work in progress
*Like other elements of human culture, Christian memes follow basic patterns of evolution: mutation and natural selection
*Science is great for subjects that lend themselves to rigorous proof, but in my opinion life would be sterile and society unworkable if we confined ourselves to that.
*By applying rational inquiry to Christianity, scholars like those of the Jesus Seminar are able to debunk many claims about Jesus while providing convincing evidence that He not only existed but said and did over 15% of the things attributed to him--good enough for me if not the bible thumpers.
*It's fallible people of good will doing their best to figure out as best they can the mysteries of our existence. *The "best available evidence" can include intuitions, good judgment, and reasonable suspicion falling short of scientific proof.
*I call it "Christian" because that's where I learned it and it's a generally accepted as a source--at least in my circles of fellowship.
*And where do you think the book came from? The book was written by people. Some think they were just taking dictation. Others think it "was just made up." I think it was written by humans just trying to make sense of it all. The Tanakh and the New Testament alike were written by many anonymous authors trying to get it right. Some had some good ideas. I'm glad they wrote them down.


*Quote:
Originally Posted by Still Kicking
This just describes a feeling, you can get that from any feel good activity, it does not prove anything.
Agreed. It's a datum to be assessed along with other information in forming our working hypotheses. My experience was profound enough to change my life, and I still take the basic insight as my prime directive, because it seems compelling. If and when you have one, let me know what you think.
*What we know of Jesus and his ministry can only be inferred from the various somewhat conflicting scriptures (including gnostic ones) that were written decades after His death. My guess is that his views were probably similar to those of his brother James and the Jerusalem church who were Christianized Jews worshiping at the Temple, keeping kosher, practicing circumcision, and preaching the message of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and adopted Son of God. Those people were wiped out in the risings against the Romans in the 65-70 c.e., leaving us with Paul's adaptation. I think your sources do a pretty good job of describing the metamorphosis. I'm not an originalist. I think the continuing development of Christianity and other world religions is, for the most part, wholesome and, in a sense, divinely inspired.
*I disagree completely. The orthodox rabbis are heirs to the Pharisees whom Jesus disputed. Judaism has its inspiring features, notably the Prophets, Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom literature, etc. But orthodox Judaism, like all fundamentalism in any religion, is surely as badly screwed up as Christianity. It is chauvinistic, obsessed with mindless trivia, and preoccupied with the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit. It served its purpose of keeping Israel alive as a nation during centuries of domination by nasty neighbors. But today it's as much part of the problem as any other dogmatic superstition.
*…..was the resurrection supposed or factual? I tend to follow Hume's advice on extraordinary claims. Fellow Progressive Christians like John Dominic Crossan and Oklahoma pastor Robin Meyers doubt that Jesus even made it to a tomb, but might have met the more common fate of crucified victims--being eaten by dogs or birds. There are, however, remains of one crucified Jew buried in a tomb with a spike driven through his heel. Whatever. The important point metaphorically is that Pontius Pilate is dust, and Jesus lives as the savior revered by the largest world religion.
*When I adopt the Christian label, I mean that I embrace what I think is the central message of Jesus
*Unfortunately, I've learned that lots of people have a radically different understanding of Christianity. If I say I'm a Christian, people assume I believe in hell, the Trinity, the virgin birth, and a number of other doctrines that are embodied in the Nicene and other creeds developed by clerics at various councils centuries after Jesus's death. In fact, I don't believe in any of them. Can I still call myself a Christian? I do, and gave my reasons. OWB doesn't believe in a number of these things either, like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, a hell of eternal torment after death, and a definition of faith as belief in unbelievable doctrines. So where do we get off saying we're the real Christians and the others have gone astray? Jesus gave us a test: by their fruits we can tell the authentic from the fake. Stillkicking has catalogued the bitter fruits of the "orthodox" position. I challenge you to find examples where preaching peace, love and understanding led to similar "horrors".


By OWB:
*To be a Christian a person has to do what Jesus Christ asked his disciples to do. Christians are authorized to preach the good news of God's kingdom and only those that are doing so are Christians.
*You were doing pretty well until you said; “we must, if we accept historical sources, admit that they have even been sanctioned by the Christian church”, the problem being that if they sanctioned atrocities, they could no more be “the Christian church” than the people that committed the atrocities and called themselves Christian.
*See that is the problem, no matter what they felt or believed, they were not acting accordance with the tenets of my church, Christianity. My "Church/Christianity" has no such tenets that allow for murder and persecution. Some of the tenets of my "Church/Christianity" are those cited Scriptures that you find so hard to understand/interpret;
*Since, as Jesus pointed out, there are two Christianities, one Jesus approves of and one that does not have his approval, I tend to join these conversations to point out that there is a second group of real Christians that lead meek and mild lives that you seldom hear about that nothing to do with what is be spoken about but are being smeared by being included in the catch-all phrase "Christianity".
*As ludicrous as this sounds, the big problem is it doesn't matter whether you or I or historians or anybody else thinks they are Christians, only God and Jesus can say who is and is not a Christian and they gave us some ways for us to determine who is Christian as well.
*Like I said; it doesn't matter whether you or I or historians or anybody else thinks someone is a Christian, only God and Jesus can say who is and is not a Christian.


Quote from me:
That's fine, if you prefer to see things only from your point of view you are certainly entitled to be that way.
Quote from OWB:
Thanks, I was hoping you would let me see things from my point of view.


*Although I believe the topic to be serious, I am not a very serious person and was just kidding you.


Quote from me:
So, it is clear from what these two are saying here and in their other posts that it is their perceptions of, their interpretations of, their views of, what the bible said that defines their meaning of what it is to be a christian. I have no problem with that.
Quote from OWB: Thanx, I appreciate the thought.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Okiefreak
OWB and I disagree about many things, but I think we share common ground on this issue. When I adopt the Christian label, I mean that I embrace what I think is the central message of Jesus: the agape principle of unconditional love, especially for society's rejects. He taught that the most important commandments were the first and second--the first being love of God with our whole mind and strength and love of our neighbor. He also preached the Golden Rule and the beatitudes. I think if everybody followed these teachings the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, I've learned that lots of people have a radically different understanding of Christianity. If I say I'm a Christian, people assume I believe in hell, the Trinity, the virgin birth, and a number of other doctrines that are embodied in the Nicene and other creeds developed by clerics at various councils centuries after Jesus's death. In fact, I don't believe in any of them. Can I still call myself a Christian? I do, and gave my reasons. OWB doesn't believe in a number of these things either, like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, a hell of eternal torment after death, and a definition of faith as belief in unbelievable doctrines. So where do we get off saying we're the real Christians and the others have gone astray? Jesus gave us a test: by their fruits we can tell the authentic from the fake. Stillkicking has catalogued the bitter fruits of the "orthodox" position. I challenge you to find examples where preaching peace, love and understanding led to similar "horrors".
Quote from OWB: Very nicely put and I second it.



By thedope:


*This question, what would jesus say, is not informative in any fashion. There are arguments about what is said even though two people had read the self same words from the self same translation. It is from debates on general substance as well as on details that sectarianism finds it's hold as we become convinced of the differences.
*I say that the worship of jesus as a personality was not intended by the personality of jesus.
*Books don't do anything, they are inanimate objects. It is all about interpretation of the book and then from there application of interpreted principles.
*Crucifixion is not necessarily to the death. Men gave witness that jesus was seen after the crucifixion, alive. To believe someone dead and then to have them appear as living is an assault on our conception of reality. Or, the person of jesus is represented in this account by more than one person. For instance, the body taken down and prepared by a civil person, not quite dead jesus, spirited off for recovery while miscellaneous cadaver chills out in the tomb,to be again spirited off. There are any number of mundane scenarios that could produce the perceptions of these men and women. Remember, influencing the fulfilling of prophesy, was a collaborative affair, in every respect.
*No matter how the facts(?), appear, perceptions can be substantially off the mark.
*Bible quotes are bible quotes. There is no question as to their validity. They are simply quotes from a thing we can all touch and see.



By Kbartle:
*I can't go with the mainstream beliefs of modern Christianity. Jesus was great and I believe what he said. He didn't tell us to bash everyone or anyone with beliefs or lifestyles different from our own. Many Christian groups today will reject you utterly for refusing to bash the gays with them, or to deny them their civil rights, or to vote for anyone that might respect the rights of others. I believe it's unfair to blame Jesus for the hardness of heart and the mean and ungenerous spirit of these people.


By Noxious gas:
*Christianity isn't a "book" religion, it is an active, alive relationship with God or whatever/however you want to term it.
*Let me ask you Still Kicking, have you any experience with psychedelic substances?
If you do then hopefully you will understand and appreciate that no amount of book study, interviews, meditation, etc. can adequately convey the impact and just utter difference of a psychedelic experience.
*I know for some of you he's was a crackpot. Yes he was a bit eccentric BUT when it came to Biblical history, languages, teachings, church history, doctrine, prophecy, etc.etc. he was/is considered one of the top scholars of the last century.
*Thing is, we are talking about something that from the outset is EXPERIENCE based, not textbook.
*Yet why do you guys want to completely discount an individuals experiences as they relate to the topic of Christianity?
*Still Kicking, the reason you have been asked about psychedelics is because of the ineffable quality of the experience, same applies to religious experience.
*Bottom line, absent the "experience" the books will NEVER make sense beyond a scholarly historical interest.


End of quotes.


Here is the thing, as I stated in my last posts the comments of the others clearly showed that it is the personal viewpoints of the individual that determined whether or not they felt they were christians. OWB agreed with that. The comments shown above are also proof that most of the other people making comments in that regard are in agreement with that assessment, since they all make statements that pertain to nothing else but individual viewpoints and experiences.


We are all lay people when it comes to this topic. No one here has yet professed to any extended education as a scholar on the subject. I certainly am not, I have however done extensive reading on the subject and arrived at my own conclusions. Just like the rest of the people who commented on this thread. We all arrived at our own conclusions on the subject based on how we decided to interpret whatever it was that lead us to our views.


I have stated ad nauseum that I was interested in the facts. I'm not going to post a definition of the term, since we seem to have trouble agreeing on simple words. The reason being that facts are what prove the truth of any matter, regardless what anyone says. You cannot have truth without facts. Statements without facts are conjecture. Ask any judge, they will tell you the same thing. Same as with any scientist, whose profession is supposed to be the finding of fact. In whatever realm the pursuit of truth manifests itself, religion, science, etc., there will always be controversy without truth. Which takes facts to prove. Not some trip on drugs, not some supposed out of body experience, but facts. People who think that taking a mind altering substance experiences truth are kidding themselves. Drugs alter our perceptions, no one can say that what is experienced is valid in regards to truth.


Did they experience something? Undoubtedly. Was it reality? Who could tell? There is no literature on the matter that is definitive on the subject, and so, again using drugs to achieve “truth” is highly questionable. I could care less if the users here castigate me for that, it is my opinion on the matter. Like everything else, it relies on the views of the individual. I use info from here http://www.drugtext.org/Psychedelic...er-5-adverse-effects-and-their-treatment.html
to form my opinion.


So in order to obtain answers to the issues I posted here we needed facts. There are few. Quoting bible verse (and yes, OWB, posting where they are found in the bible is still quoting them, since it references them, as the term drives from; “Medieval Latin quotāretoassignreferencenumberstopassages, from Latin quot how many]”, which is exactly what you did) are not facts. If we are fair to ourselves, we would understand that there is nothing settled so far as any bible goes, due to the absence of facts. What we have are ancient writings that people think are valid, based on how they and others interpret them. So, really, no one can say with any certainty that what the christian bible says really is true, with the exception of some locations of towns, etc.


We have to remember that in those early years when it was written, there were few people who could read. Most people relied on the good nature of those who could to tell them the truth regarding what was written anywhere. If the person reading was not honest, then the illiterate person was at his mercy. It would have been easy to influence people in those years simply by playing on their emotions., and the lie would continue until someone started questioning things that did not add up. After all, we are mostly emotional entities, and most of us seem to need a security blanket to allay all the fears that pester them.


So, none of us are experts. I think we can all agree on that. We will all continue to rely on what we think is right, whether facts figure into the equation or not. The biggest problem here seems to be that we can't agree on how to resolve the issue, do we rely on blind faith? (it is blind faith when it can't be proven), or do we rely on a scientific means (not just science, but a system that provides factual answers) to resolve it? Probably not.


That's all I have to say on the subject and won't be replying to any further posts.