Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Rusty Tyler]

And as we all know, thd Bible as we know it today is a compilation of works that Constantine and the Council of Nice thought were pretty nifty. There were a variety of other works kicking around at the time, all subject to Constantine erasing them from history. How much faith do you really have in Constantine and the wsidom of his selections? Cuz I've got like zero.

Any of the texts I have seen that didn't make the cut for the canon are substandard by comparison. IMHO
Like the Didache. Many are useful as resource material though. Like whether the early church observed the Jewish Sabbath.

 

[Mojo]

Any of the texts I have seen that didn't make the cut for the canon are substandard by comparison.

How can you tell?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

An example of objective evidence is a temperature reading of your hands while you're performing a faith healing. If that temperature is 39 ºC when measured, it's 39 ºC for my purposes as well as yours.

I forgot to bring a thermometer. - LOL

My experience and the man I prayed for was tremendous heat.
Would 39 ºC describe a tremendous heat?
I know I was perspiring from the heat.
And that manifestation of heat is reasonably common.

You already thought I was full of hot air, right? - LOL

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The 70% is leftover after the 30% Christians.
A person doesn't have to be recognized as a Christian to accept the Bible.
It's probably 50% or better.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

How can you tell?

I read some.
The Bible is some inspired reading.
Non-canonical writings of the early church don't compare. IMHO

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Since you asked about "proof" for evolution (much having been provided) how about you explain what it is that you find problematic about it?

It conflicts with the biblical record which I had already come to trust.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I read some.
The Bible is some inspired reading.
Non-canonical writings of the early church don't compare. IMHO

Personally I really enjoy reading Isaac Asimov, but I don't find it compelling evidence for the existence of the Second Foundation.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

I forgot to bring a thermometer. - LOL

Then your claim fails to meet a standard of evidence that would convince a skeptic.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I read some.
The Bible is some inspired reading.
Non-canonical writings of the early church don't compare. IMHO

So just your subjective opinion that one source hits you in the feels more than another. No different from someone else saying that they find the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon to be some inspired reading.

 

[JayUtah]

It conflicts with the biblical record which I had already come to trust.

That’s an apples vs. oranges standard of proof.

 

[theprestige]

It conflicts with the biblical record which I had already come to trust.

The more you discuss your religious beliefs, the less well-reasoned they seem. You're now saying that you just reject anything that contradicts what you already believe. What you should be doing is re-examining your beliefs in the light of new information.

 

[acbytesla]

It conflicts with the biblical record which I had already come to trust.

Do you trust the biblical record where God created flowering plants before the Sun? Guess you don't accept photosynthesis.

How about the verse that says you can see every country on earth by climbing the tallest tree? Thems are some good eyes. Guess the earth isn't a sphere then? Line of sight also irrelevant to you?

 

[theprestige]

Miracles have a mind of their own, it seems.
They don't warn us ahead of time so that we can set up an experiment.

Yes, exactly. Miracles can't be predicted or tested. Which is why we doubt the veracity of miraculous claims.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

It conflicts with the biblical record which I had already come to trust.

So, we're back to the feels, rather than anything approximating evidence.

What is the point of you asking anything about evidence, or evidence for anything, if that is your attitude?

So, creationism, but avoiding directly admitting it. Thank you.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Then your claim fails to meet a standard of evidence that would convince a skeptic.

I'm happy to let that be your problem.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

How about the verse that says you can see every country on earth by climbing the tallest tree?

I don't recall that one? Reference?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

So, we're back to the feels, rather than anything approximating evidence.

What is the point of you asking anything about evidence, or evidence for anything, if that is your attitude?

So, creationism, but avoiding directly admitting it. Thank you.

Are there no glitches in evolution?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Do you trust the biblical record where God created flowering plants before the Sun? Guess you don't accept photosynthesis.

As I understand it, God was the light originally.

Anyway, how long can a plant go without direct sunlight?
Certainly not the ages of time required by evolution.

 

[Thermal]

Any of the texts I have seen that didn't make the cut for the canon are substandard by comparison. IMHO

Compared to what? The doctrine you have been assured is true, and other wonderful writings false? How much have you immersed yourself in the Sutras?

Like the Didache. Many are useful as resource material though. Like whether the early church observed the Jewish Sabbath.

I find the Nag Hammadi collection illuminating, because some of the works (G Tommy, G Phil) were referenced by the earliest Church, and they survived Constantine's pick-and-choose party. We get an unedited glimpse of what pre-Nice Christianity looked like.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm happy to let that be your problem.

You’re the one trying to say we’re irrational for not accepting your claims or your proffers
Of evidence. Sounds like your failure to meet that standard is your problem.