Woah Woah Woah... *dick-slaps muscleman for that last post*
It's obvious that muscleman is a very frustrated guy - I don't know exactly why, but Christians historically have taken the most crap for their message (correct my wording if you'd like) than any other religious group. From the lion's den, all the way to modern times (perhaps a healthy backlash in some ways, but a backlash nonetheless).
joegurl - you're exactly right. I've seen my share of
non-Christians and secular people who were more moral than their Christian peers (of course, this was during high school so take that with a gram of salt). And yes, the motivation is different for Christians although I don't claim to be one. I'll try to clarify this all soon, but you'll have to bear with my "preachiness".
Raithere - first, thank you for the thoughtful reply (or maybe you're just good with words
), and I'll try my best to do the same.
It is too easily used as a manipulatable tool of governance as evinced by some of nastier aspects of Christian history.
I'm tempted to say that this attitude is what began the Protestant split from Catholicism (of course, it didn't solve the problem but was a step in the right direction), but frankly I'm not sure. I regret having started this thread without doing more research, but there's an entire group of people with a special understanding of Christianity which I haven't seen represented anywhere. So here goes:
As such it is a leading proponent of a ubiquitous failing in western society. What passes for education is largely a process of indoctrination.
If you're referring to the educational system that existed from Puritan times to the mid 20th century, I definitely see what you're saying. But I'd like to offer some perspective on human failings to live up to God's standards in the next blurb.
Submission to authority becomes more important than the ethic it proposes.
That is an opinion - TO SOME it was used like that. I don't even want to touch the Crusades. I'd like to put it to you this way, and I know this might not satisfy you but Christianity, in its true incarnation, is a total relationship with God - like marriage. It's not some myth or artifact that's supposed to bring our better natures, it's not some conspiracy theory (I used to feel that way sometimes) even though it has been twisted to suit man's ends. This is the perspective that we've seen the disciples, Paul the Apostle (guy who wrote most of the New Testament) and all the *real* Christians take - so it's not just a thesis statement. God wanted our love, a relationship with us - He created Adam and Eve, put the tree of knowledge in the garden so that they could have the choice of refusing Him (because what is love without choice and free will?) and has since stood back watching man refuse Him for his own will (sin: anything that distances you from God, i.e. pride because it blinds you to God, murder because *and this in NO way authoritative* it makes you feel like you're beyond forgiving, it makes you give up hope and not seek reconciliation). In that context, the importance of choice is clear which might explain why the Bible has
any number of interpretations
which btw ISN'T entirely up to the individual. If God were to set down the rules in stone (which he did for the newly-freed Israelis for reasons I will explain later) there would be no possibility for a relationship - just an impersonal standard, a reward system.
Also, Christians are pursuing ONE GOD, ONE TRUTH - it isn't a "Native American" solitary approach, you don't just take to heart whatever is convenient/easy/obvious. Belonging to a church ensures that we aren't left stranded with such a monolithic work; the individual has access to a pastor and a group of intelligent people concerned with the same things, struggling with the same issues - this is the best-case scenario. And the onus is not upon YOU, the mere individual, to *crack* the Bible, to *live up to* a certain standard, or in any way to *earn* your way into heaven because
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast" Ephesians 2:8-9.
It is a relationship, and if you accept it then Jesus will accept you; the definition of Heaven: Eternity with God. If you choose to refuse the relationship, then you are choosing to live a life away from God; the definition of "Hell" is "Eternal separation from God" - the images of "Fire and Brimstone" which made our Puritan ancestors soil their long-johns was IMHO a *device* used in man's spiritual childhood (the same idea from above which I will explain a little later).
Muscleman mentions the Pharisees - now if I may, I'd like to share a minor revelation I had at a Friday Night Bible Study which came from Luke 5:27-39 - the difference between the Pharisees and Jesus was the difference between "religion and relationship": the pharisees, while living up to a rigid standard, were missing the point, were missing out on a relationship with God because they weren't committing but instead drawing a line. Jesus then uses the famous "You can't put new wine in old wineskins" analogy to make it clear that a relationship with him must be total, as in a marriage (If anyone wants the full text or a more in-depth explanation of ANYTHING I've said, PM me).
Although that didn't address all your concerns, especially in your second contention, I think it was neccessary for you and others to see this different perspective on Christianity - in that context, you and I (and the people that will help me answer your questions) will be speaking the same language.
The Bible as a historical document has stood the test of time; the New Testament for 2 millenia. Although I haven't personally looked into it YET, I gathered from my sister's journey in apologetics that the New Testament for example was pretty reliable - i.e. the sheer volume of surviving copies (the number of surviving copies of the New Testament or documents about Jesus's life) completely eclipsing the next best-documented piece of literature, Homer's Iliad (or was it Odyssey? I don't quite remember) - considering that colleges use literature which only has 1 or 2 known recorded copies and call them "authoritative," this isn't to be taken lightly. Also, the agreement between these surviving documents about Jesus and the fact that they were written very shortly after the actual events occured lend the New Testament even more credibility. I hear that the Dead Sea Scrolls do the same for the Old, but I'll have to see it to believe it.
Raithere - is it the historical accuracy which bothers you or just the sheer amount of admittedly difficult material? If it's the latter, everyone feels that way too - but God sees into your heart and is pleased when Christians struggle with the message in an attempt to get to know God better (which is what the Bible does, really) - again, notice the idea of a relationship and not a standard or law.
It had to be said - all of it. No more misunderstandings. Reading muscleman's last post, I'm not so sure he has the same understanding.
- Ed