There are a lot of posts in here that put my thoughts into words much better than I could, so I "liked" many of those posts.
I put off reading this thread because I've been sick, it got terribly long very fast, and it's a sore spot for me.
Of the more recent posts, this (special emphasis mine)...
I was raised in a Roman Catholic family and through study of religious texts and teachings, as well as studying science, I came to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a deity.
Note This is my current opinion, and I do not inherently expect everyone to agree with it. I voice these opinions solely to have them challenged, in the hope of either strengthening my arguments or being convinced of any error in them.
This is not to say that I demand a clear-as-day sign indicating the presence of a deity. I will admit that if some person walked up to me and said "Hey, I'm God" I wouldn't believe them, and if they started performing "miracles" then I also admit that my first thought would not be "It's God" but rather "ok... maybe it's God... maybe there's something else going on here I don't understand yet." I wouldn't be resistant to the idea that a deity existed, and I'd like to think that if one did, it would be understanding that I would like to come to know it in my own, scientific way.
That being said, I don't see the evidence. A book, even if it does say great things about being nice to each other, isn't evidence enough on its own. It was written by men, edited, revised and translated by men, and the only thing saying it's "the word of God" are other men. Similarly those men who say it is "the word of God" also themselves have stated that it has been mistranslated. The new versions of the Bible being released by the Catholic Church, among other things replaces every mention of "virgin" in reference to Mary with "young unmarried woman."
Similarly, in my experience I find that a lot of the teachings said to be "from the mouth of God" are scientifically inaccurate and harmful. Even in relatively noncontroversial matters such as conception and pregnancy, the Church teaches a "proper" human sexuality that actually decreases the likelihood of conception and increases the risk of unsuccessful pregnancies.
It's difficult to believe an institution that tells you there is an all-powerful entity behind the universe and then goes on to tell you "absolute truth" about the universe that you can 1) see is incorrect, and 2) they sometimes admit was incorrect themselves.
Miracles unfortunately do not occur, this seems relatively clear to me at the moment. First off, the observable world is too constant for such disruptions to occur. Every miracle that has been subjected to scientific scrutiny has, to my knowledge, been explained. The examples you cite could easily be the result of misdiagnosis or the body successfully repairing itself. Particularly when young there is capacity for conditions such as asthma to lessen in severity and disappear. I myself was plagued by seizures as a child, but as I grew up and my brain developed, the disorder corrected itself. Secondly, if miracles do exist then they are incredibly selfish, as how could one possibly justify giving miracles to only a select few?
A relative of mine is a teacher who specializes in the education of the severely handicapped; so much so that it is not uncommon for a child to simply die in the chair in front of him. Where was that child's miracle?
Recently my (by marriage) aunt's sister's entire family got into a car accident. Of the 8 family members only the father and the youngest daughter (4) survived. The father is mildly brain damaged and can no longer care for the daughter, who herself is now brain damaged and will probably never regain full functionality. Where was their miracle?
When making these arguments in the past I've often heard the phrases like "God works in mysterious ways" and "He only gives us the burdens we can carry." I'm sorry but those kinds of arguments are hollow, and in my experience are said only to make those who haven't had to face these tragedies feel better. If you look at the whole of human experience on a case by case basis, the unfortunate truth is that a lot of life is wasted, a lot of people are born and die in suffering and horror and nothing comes of it. Claiming that minor turns of fortune are miracles only cheapens what they're going through.
(Sorry, it sounds a little heated at the end there, but that's always been a sore point for me and I'm a little passionate about it)
True. I know it's Wikipedia, but Confucius was just one example among many. The principle of reciprocity has appeared in cultures all over the world in places that couldn't possibly have known of or read Leviticus, least of all in its current form (which developed during or after Confucius's lifetime). How did pagan societies arrive at that conclusion?
And how do we know that that particular passage from Leviticus is a great and valid moral precept, but requiring women to sacrifice doves every time they menstruate is not (Lev. 15:19-33)? We rely on some metric to determine an action's morality other than whether it's the word of God. While I won't challenge your own line-by-line interpretation of scripture, I only want to stress that it's an interpretation - taking scripture as literally 100% true fatally ignores its vagaries.
Theodicy is a problem that's plagued the concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god for centuries. I've yet to see a philosopher or theologian provide an adequate defense, and from what I've seen of Strobel, I doubt he's the man to do it. His tendency to ask disingenuous, leading questions of his interviewees in The Case for Christ belies his bias and just comes across as (forgive the pun) preaching to the choir.
Definitely an interesting theory. But shouldn't society be getting more and more balanced and less violent and less altruistic? I know evolution acts slowly, so all of recorded history might not be enough time to prove or disprove.
Abusive, violent people may be unattractive mates, but their mates tend to have a very hard time leaving them. I don't think is a new phenomenon, evolution needs to get to work on that.
I think the model does a decent job of explaining how populations function in large numbers over a long period of time, but it also dehumanizes individuals and turns them into a cog on a giant wheel. I have to believe that my life has more meaning than that.
To your direct question about those incapable of perceiving right from wrong, or being overcome with a physiological, emotional response:
We live in a world that was initially created perfect, but then fell into the curse of sin. The addition of sin into the environment brought many consequences, among them disease and genetic malformities.
There's more than one school of thought on how they are, as you say, handled. What I have settled on is that God will judge them according to the amount of responsibility they had for what they did, on a case by case basis. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, this will not be a difficult task for Him. For a Biblical basis, I look to the passages of scripture that discuss the age of accountability, which I take to mean an ability to perceive right from wrong, not an arbitrary date on the calendar.
As to rage producing hormones that overpower an individual, I'm not a fan at all of the temporary insanity plea. Maybe they lost control at a point, but what were their actions and conscious decisions up to that point? In more cases than not, I think they have to take responsibility. In the end, God sorts it out, He's the only one qualified to make the final decision.
But these questions seem to be coming from the idea that God has some kind of tally board where he marks good and bad deeds, and if the good exceed the bad, you win. I think God is less interested in assigning blame than we think He is. I think God would be more concerned with how to redeem said individuals rather than dreaming of how to condemn them.
I've read some accounts that Jeffrey Dahmer and the Son of Sam killer came to Christ during their time in jail. If God can redeem them, I don't think anyone, sane or insane, is without hope.
Sorry, I missed this comment before posting my previous one.
As to society becoming more balanced, evolution as the current theory holds does not have an end-game. There isn't a target species that one has to evolve into, as such is shifts back and forth as it "progresses" (temporally speaking, as without an endpoint evolution is "improving" nor "degrading" it is only changing). As such, while the frequency of a particular trait changes over time it can still remain in the population for a protracted period, indeed evolution may even select for it to remain.
Similarly to the topic of abusive mates; unfortunately this is a quality of the species as is the psychology that protracts abusive relationships.
I don't agree with the idea that being a "cog in a giant wheel" as you put it is either dehumanizing or detracts at all from our existence. Being part of a larger community has a great deal of meaning. Simultaneously it does not detract at all from who you are as an individual. You are simultaneously an observer and participant of the universe around you which is, in my opinion, an awe inspiring perspective.
As to your response to my more specific question I accept your logic and think you made a very good point. I do think that that would be a reasonable way to function such individuals into theology. I am, generally speaking, also not a huge fan of "temporary insanity pleas," particularly in the majority of cases in which I've heard them come up. I suppose where I was going with that part of the question however was more towards; not an individual incapable of perceiving right and wrong, but someone who can while at times being prevented by their biology from acting accordingly. Another example would be people who suffer from dissociative seizures in which they are for all intents and purposes unconscious but still act. Sometimes these can be the products of situations completely unlinked to any other behavior they exhibit.
Finally, I don't think I'd buy the tally board idea either, I just wonder about people who's personality (through no fault of their own) is incongruent with common morality. As such, for them to participate in a society (i.e. heaven) their personality, and as such who they fundamentally are, would have to be completely changed.
Quick aside, genuine curiosity here its something that's never occurred to me before, but what's the current theology on people's personalities in heaven? Even the best of us have some personal flaws, do we still exhibit them there or would we be "perfected?" Followup: if who we are was changed to fit in there, do you think we'd still be us?
Another example I just remembered: it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that the eucharist actually, physically (not in any metaphorical way) becomes the flesh and blood of Christ during communion. I emphasize this because a lot of people (myself included for a while) when they hear that still default to thinking "its just symbolism." The teaching of the Church is not symbolism it is actually human flesh; skin muscle, etc. and blood, red blood cells and all. Having (in the Church's eyes) performed cannibalism in this manner, I can tell you they are wrong. Unless people taste like stale bread and watered-down wine. :S
Yeah, they are completely wrong. Transubstantiation has no Biblical basis. Unfortunately, a lot of error crept into the Catholic Church, hence the 95 thesis by Martin Luther and the birth of Protestantism. Not that I or any other person has it completely figured out either.
Try not to get too hung up on weird church traditions or petty differences in denominations. They have nothing to do with the core of Christian faith, let me give you a short list.
1 God exists in three Persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God in 3 coequal manifestations.
2 God's nature and character is love
3 Everyone has sinned
4 Jesus was born from a virgin
5 Jesus never sinned
6 Jesus died on the cross
7 Jesus rose from the dead
8 Jesus then ascended into heaven after appearing to many people
9 Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to comfort, guide and empower Christians
10 Jesus will one day return to gather all believers into heaven
11 Accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and believing in His deity is the only path to salvation
And that's about it. Just about all of which sound crazy to a secular mind I have no doubt, but the carnal mind cannot comprehend the things of the spirit.
There are Christians that would debate whether some things belong or don't belong on there, but those are largely accepted across the board.
Anyway, I consider that list to be the indispensable core tenants of Christian faith. You can believe in transubstantiation and think you're practicing cannaballism if you want. All things being equal, you aren't going to hell for that.
I was being catty. It doesn't really matter if the first record of the Golden Rule is scripture or somewhere else. It is a Biblical, universal truth. Another is the law of sowing and reaping, a form of karma. Since we all live in the same universe, it makes sense that others have noticed these things at work.
I don't think the problem of theodicy will ever be truly solved. Again, I have to fall back onto faith in God. I intend to ask Him about this when I get to heaven. I'd love to hear Him explain it.
Personalities in heaven. I've never heard the question put that way.
Here's what my understanding is: we retain our souls, that is our mind, will, emotions, and spirit. Everything about us that makes us who we are. We are given new bodies that are close enough in appearance to our present ones to make us recognizable to people that know us. Jesus was sporting one of these new bodies after His resurrection. He had true physical form, He could be touched and He ate food. He also had superpowers, like appearing and disappearing, teleportation, and walking through walls. We do not become angels, no mention of wings. I am hoping for flying ability, but nothing in scripture promises me that.
Many Christians believe that we will all look about 30 years old, regardless of our age at death because Jesus was about 30 when he died. Maybe. The scripture is silent on that.
Jesus mentions at one point that there is no marriage in heaven, and no distinction between the sexes. How will we look naked? Will we have belly buttons? No idea. The biggest downer is that this may mean no sex in heaven. For eternity. Maybe I won't miss it, but I'm going to get it while I can, just in case.
Personal flaws such as deformities, my understanding is that they are gone. Jesus had the scars on his wrists and side. Will we all keep our scars, or are His special? Personally, I believe the latter.
We are in perfect form, as God intended at the beginning of Creation. The Bible mentions no pain, sickness, or sorrow. Does that mean we are invulnerable? That we can no longer appreciate a sad poem? I might have family members that are not in heaven, wouldn't I weep for them? I think so, because God Himself weeps over the lost. Some Christians believe that we forget the lost entirely. I'm not in that camp.
Keep in mind that only believers are in heaven, so no one there is going to miss any imperfection that was removed. More likely they'll be relieved to no longer carry it.
A side note: the Bible mentions animals in heaven, specifically lions and lambs. I'm hoping this is literal and not just a metaphor. I also have hope that we may be reunited with lost pets, but nothing supports that in the Bible.
One last kind of cool thing- we don't technically reside in heaven, the place where God is now. God creates a new earth and the New Jerusalem, the Capitol city of the new earth descends to it. Based on measurements given in Revelation, the city alone is something like half the size of America, so it's apparently a very large planet. Revelation says there is a new heaven as well. Is the cycle of Creation going to start over again? Could be.
Some Christians are likely going to be disappointed, there is no reasonable expectation that I have found for mansions. Apartments or condos seems more likely, though I'm not sure we will actually require housing at all, at least not in the same way we do now.
One last kind of cool thing- we don't technically reside in heaven, the place where God is now. God creates a new earth and the New Jerusalem, the Capitol city of the new earth descends to it. Based on measurements given in Revelation, the city alone is something like half the size of America, so it's apparently a very large planet. Revelation says there is a new heaven as well. Is the cycle of Creation going to start over again? Could be.
I like this idea alot Because the writer in me immediately went Hey, what if that's already happened and it's where we are right now.
And then went on it's crazy side-tangents like writers do.
Ridiculous side note: I was also cured of horrific asthma at 6th grade (exactly). My asthma was so bad that doctors didn't suspect I'd live past grade school. One day I literally woke up and went "I'm done with being sick."
It's been gone ever since.
Never thought to attribute that to a higher power though. I literally attributed it to a self-induced placebo effect. Self-manifestation of a reality. etc. etc.
Yeah, they are completely wrong. Transubstantiation has no Biblical basis. Unfortunately, a lot of error crept into the Catholic Church, hence the 95 thesis by Martin Luther and the birth of Protestantism. Not that I or any other person has it completely figured out either.
I see where you're going with this and I totally agree. My withdrawal from the Catholic Church was a gradual process; early on I'd attempt making arguments to support their theology with science and reasoning, rather than just throw it all out the window one day. Unfortunately I got a lot of resistance on that, particularly in high school where we had to take religion class. On topics such as the paradox of an omniscient God and free will I'd make an argument like "well maybe its like how you can know your friends so well that you're virtually certain how they'll react to a situation, and since God knows us perfectly then we still have free will but he can already tell what we're going to do with it," and I'm not saying that's brilliant or anything but it made rational sense to me. The response to that one I believe was something like "Nope. He's omniscient. We have free will. It's not a paradox." Which was frustrating to say the least. My transition then went something like Roman Catholic kid that didn't really think about why he went to church -> actual Roman Catholic -> I tell you I'm Roman Catholic, but the Church would say I'm lying -> atheist.
Somewhere near the end of that transition I began looking at Protestantism, thinking that their less rigid teachings would allow them to be more "in tune" with reality as I understood it (e.g. transubstantiation, pope being an infallible voice of God, etc.). I didn't just jump ship though because I still didn't see exactly what I was looking for in Protestantism for example, particularly coming from the Catholic Church and its emphasis on faith and good works, I had difficulty accepting the idea of Sola Fide.
This delay however created the opening into which atheism made its way, because I began to look at it from another angle. Protestantism is an attempt to correct the errors that crept into the Catholic Church as you put it, primarily by focusing on the Bible itself, however for ~1,500 before the beginning of Protestantism that Bible was in the custody of the Catholic Church. Christianity as a whole started as the Catholic Church, and for hundreds of years the history, literature, theology and perceptions of Christianity were translated, edited and debated by men whom you have considered to have made mistakes. For many of which there is also significant evidence that they ran and edited Christianity for personal gain. Even if you disagree with their current opinion, how can you trust your own when it comes from such suspect material?
The next logical step for me is best explained by the interaction of Napoleon and Laplace, a famous French astronomer and mathematician. He presented Napoleon with a thesis on the solar system, who pointed out to him that his model made no mention of God. His reply was, "I had no need for the hypothesis," essentially pointing out that everything could be adequately explained even without a deity in the equation. From here I began to see that the world can indeed be explained without any Creation story, and that science could answer my questions.
How does one determine what to believe and what not to believe about what's found in a particular book, or about what the people who for ~2,000 years have been considered the authority on Christianity (for ~1,500 the only authority). Also, how does one know to disregard the teachings of newer traditions, such as Mormonism and Islam? The New Testament and teachings of Christ were a large shift from Judaism, isn't it possible God intended further larger shifts as well?
Personalities in heaven. I've never heard the question put that way.
Here's what my understanding is: we retain our souls, that is our mind, will, emotions, and spirit. Everything about us that makes us who we are. We are given new bodies that are close enough in appearance to our present ones to make us recognizable to people that know us. Jesus was sporting one of these new bodies after His resurrection. He had true physical form, He could be touched and He ate food. He also had superpowers, like appearing and disappearing, teleportation, and walking through walls. We do not become angels, no mention of wings. I am hoping for flying ability, but nothing in scripture promises me that.
Many Christians believe that we will all look about 30 years old, regardless of our age at death because Jesus was about 30 when he died. Maybe. The scripture is silent on that.
Jesus mentions at one point that there is no marriage in heaven, and no distinction between the sexes. How will we look naked? Will we have belly buttons? No idea. The biggest downer is that this may mean no sex in heaven. For eternity. Maybe I won't miss it, but I'm going to get it while I can, just in case.
Personal flaws such as deformities, my understanding is that they are gone. Jesus had the scars on his wrists and side. Will we all keep our scars, or are His special? Personally, I believe the latter.
We are in perfect form, as God intended at the beginning of Creation. The Bible mentions no pain, sickness, or sorrow. Does that mean we are invulnerable? That we can no longer appreciate a sad poem? I might have family members that are not in heaven, wouldn't I weep for them? I think so, because God Himself weeps over the lost. Some Christians believe that we forget the lost entirely. I'm not in that camp.
Keep in mind that only believers are in heaven, so no one there is going to miss any imperfection that was removed. More likely they'll be relieved to no longer carry it.
A side note: the Bible mentions animals in heaven, specifically lions and lambs. I'm hoping this is literal and not just a metaphor. I also have hope that we may be reunited with lost pets, but nothing supports that in the Bible.
One last kind of cool thing- we don't technically reside in heaven, the place where God is now. God creates a new earth and the New Jerusalem, the Capitol city of the new earth descends to it. Based on measurements given in Revelation, the city alone is something like half the size of America, so it's apparently a very large planet. Revelation says there is a new heaven as well. Is the cycle of Creation going to start over again? Could be.
Some Christians are likely going to be disappointed, there is no reasonable expectation that I have found for mansions. Apartments or condos seems more likely, though I'm not sure we will actually require housing at all, at least not in the same way we do now.
There are a lot of posts in here that put my thoughts into words much better than I could, so I "liked" many of those posts.
I put off reading this thread because I've been sick, it got terribly long very fast, and it's a sore spot for me.
Of the more recent posts, this (special emphasis mine)...
...this I just had to quote. I was thinking this exact thing. Thank you.
I see where you're going with this and I totally agree. My withdrawal from the Catholic Church was a gradual process; early on I'd attempt making arguments to support their theology with science and reasoning, rather than just throw it all out the window one day. Unfortunately I got a lot of resistance on that, particularly in high school where we had to take religion class. On topics such as the paradox of an omniscient God and free will I'd make an argument like "well maybe its like how you can know your friends so well that you're virtually certain how they'll react to a situation, and since God knows us perfectly then we still have free will but he can already tell what we're going to do with it," and I'm not saying that's brilliant or anything but it made rational sense to me. The response to that one I believe was something like "Nope. He's omniscient. We have free will. It's not a paradox." Which was frustrating to say the least. My transition then went something like Roman Catholic kid that didn't really think about why he went to church -> actual Roman Catholic -> I tell you I'm Roman Catholic, but the Church would say I'm lying -> atheist.
Somewhere near the end of that transition I began looking at Protestantism, thinking that their less rigid teachings would allow them to be more "in tune" with reality as I understood it (e.g. transubstantiation, pope being an infallible voice of God, etc.). I didn't just jump ship though because I still didn't see exactly what I was looking for in Protestantism for example, particularly coming from the Catholic Church and its emphasis on faith and good works, I had difficulty accepting the idea of Sola Fide.
This delay however created the opening into which atheism made its way, because I began to look at it from another angle. Protestantism is an attempt to correct the errors that crept into the Catholic Church as you put it, primarily by focusing on the Bible itself, however for ~1,500 before the beginning of Protestantism that Bible was in the custody of the Catholic Church. Christianity as a whole started as the Catholic Church, and for hundreds of years the history, literature, theology and perceptions of Christianity were translated, edited and debated by men whom you have considered to have made mistakes. For many of which there is also significant evidence that they ran and edited Christianity for personal gain. Even if you disagree with their current opinion, how can you trust your own when it comes from such suspect material?
The next logical step for me is best explained by the interaction of Napoleon and Laplace, a famous French astronomer and mathematician. He presented Napoleon with a thesis on the solar system, who pointed out to him that his model made no mention of God. His reply was, "I had no need for the hypothesis," essentially pointing out that everything could be adequately explained even without a deity in the equation. From here I began to see that the world can indeed be explained without any Creation story, and that science could answer my questions.
How does one determine what to believe and what not to believe about what's found in a particular book, or about what the people who for ~2,000 years have been considered the authority on Christianity (for ~1,500 the only authority). Also, how does one know to disregard the teachings of newer traditions, such as Mormonism and Islam? The New Testament and teachings of Christ were a large shift from Judaism, isn't it possible God intended further larger shifts as well?
First, reconciling free will with omniscience. It absolutely is a paradox and it's unfortuante that you got smacked down for trying to feel rational about it. Some people cling to dogmatic belief rather than honest criticism because they are uncomfortable with things they cannot fully explain adn they are insecure in their own understanding.
I have three theories or models for this issue that I toss around, one or none of them could be accurate. The first is the same as yours, every decision that we make is a no-brainer, obvious thing to God because He knows us so well. Just because I know you are going to choose to spend the million dollars rather than set it on fire doesn't mean that I forced you to spend it. Everything is similarly easy for God to understand in his omniscience.
The problem I have with that theory is that it doesn't go far enough, so try this one on for size. Not only does God know what the outcome of is of every decison that is made, He also knows the outcome of every possible other decision that COULD have been made, taken to the nth degree. This radically expands on the amount of things that God knows, since now He is privy to alternate universes and timelines which may or may not exist. There is nothing in the Bible to support alternate realities, but since such realities arguably would have no effect on us in this one, discussion of them would be unnecessary.
That one gets a little messy when exposed to serious criticism and isn't very simple, so here's my favorite as of today: God knows everything because He exists outside on known reality and time. He created it, so He is not bound by it. As such, every moment throughout history exists for God in an eternal NOW. So He can speak definitively on what will happen because He has been there and seen it happen. In some cases, He even makes it happen. This one also shows how God can orchestrate events to cause chain reactions that provide certain outcomes, such as positioning the nation of Israel where he wanted them. He has a bird's eye view of history and creation. This also explains why His plans can also include periods of very bad things happening- with the big picture in mind, He can manipulate it to an ultimate positive outcome. Not much comfort to those caught up in the very bad things, but at least it's an attempt to explain it.
The second thing is the validity of scripture. Along with the "Hundreds of Contradictions" argument, this seems to be a favorite among skeptics. My response usually is, to which changes or rewrites are you referring?
We already talked about transubstantiation, which is not in any Protestant or Catholic Bible, so apparently they didn't get around to inserting that. How about Purgatory? Also not in there. Praying to Mary and the Saints? I would argue that the Bible is actually against this, I haven't heard yet how it is justified. What about Mary's perpetual virginity and assumption into heaven? Again, I have no idea where they got that, and the Bible was never changed to include it.
So if the Roman Catholic church was hellbent on changing Christianity to suit them, why were these and other core tenents of Catholicism never inserted into scripture? I believe that it's because of the awe and reverence in which the Catholic church held the Bible and continues to do to this day. That's one thing that I think Protestants have wrong. We toss the Bible around willy-nilly like it's any other book. Our Catholic brothers have that one right at least.
Another reason why it wasn't changed is because they didn't need to. The Bible was only available in Latin, which only the priesthood knew, so it was very easy to slip extra church doctrine into sermons and no common person could fact check them. One of the main pushes of the Protestant movement was to translate the Bible into a common tongue. Catholics cried heresy because they knew it would expose their false teachings. So they had the chance to change it, but they didn't. Maybe a few of them wished they had.
The Bible, particularly the New Testament, holds up incredibly well to historical and document criticisms. I have never come across an instance where a discovered, validated historical document contradicted or invalidated a passage of scripture. Certainly, translation errors occurred. Maybe "man" was changed to "mankind" or some such thing, but I maintain that the Bible I have today is in essence and in every meaningful way that impacts a point a doctrine, exactly identical to the orginal as given by God to the authors. It is extremely important to me that this is the case. Skeptics love to say the Bible has radically changed over the years, but they have failed to provide an example.
I believe that God actively protected and preserved the integrity of the Bible through the millenia. It makes sense that He would; He has a large vested interest in it. I do not see the burden of proof to be on Christians to show it never changed; it is on the skeptics to prove when changes occurred.
A more humurous example of a mistranslation is the "wicked" Bible whcih states, "Thou shalt commit adultery." Once discovered, almost all copies were burned, making surviving copies quite valuable. A friend of my broher in law owns one. The point is, when errors were found, they were corrected and burned. There is no indication of a mass conspiracy to change scripture from it's original form. With the amount of scrutny that has been paid to this issue, is it logical that a mass conspiracy and coverup occurred? Less evidence for this than the shooter on the grassy knoll.
Lastly, the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, which is a fantastic topic. Prior to Jesus, Judaism and Christianity were one and the same, as far as I can tell. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah. Many Jews rejected this notion and continued believing the Messiah was yet to come, in part because Jesus was not the political Messiah they had been hoping for.
I do not believe that God intended Christianity to be an offshoot of Judaism or a replacement of Judaism, it was fulfillment. In my view, Judaism spurred off of God's plan at that point, it is no longer the mainstream of God's plan. Thier ship came into harbour, but many refused to board.
The changes made by the early church to accepted traditons of the time is actually a great argument for the sincerity of what they believed. For example, changing the Sabbath to coincide with the day Christ rose from the dead. A huge sacrilige unless they were very sure of what they were doing. Also, the discontinuation of sacrifices. Judaism eventually dropped this as well, but the early church did it immediately. Also very dangerous because if they were wrong, their sins would no longer be forgiven. There are others, but I've tangented enough.
I have at least a partial answer for you about the various laws found in the Old Testament and why some are disregarded and others are not. The answer is not yet complete to my satisfaction, but I'll give you what I have so far.
Assume with me for the moment that all the laws that were passed to the Israelites were not arbitrary, but for specific reasons. Everything from don't murder to don't bring a menstrating woman to the tabernacle had a reason behind it. There are too many laws for me to go through them exhaustively here, but it has been done in soem good Bible commentaries.
Just taking a couple examples, the menstrating women were not allowed in the tabernacle because the surrounding nations had pagan rituals that utilized the blood. God was keeping Israel differentiated from their neighbors and trying to prevent them from falling into pagan practices. I think it is safe to say that menstrating women can now attend church without worry of it causing pagan worship rituals, however the underlying principal of avoiding things that can bring error does still apply.
Some laws, such as don't have sex with your sister still apply in their entirety because keeping the gene pool clean today is just as important as it was then.
Contrary to the meme you posted, most infractions of law did not require death. It was actually a much less brutal code than that followed by many other nations of the time, most notably the Assyrians.
The vast majority of Penteteuch law can be explained rationally and with intellectual integrity in a similar fashion.
So, the question is, does the taboo on homosexuality still apply. I believe it does for a few reasons. First, it is in oppositon to the family model that God instituted, which is one man with one woman living married together in monogamy until their deaths. Any departure from that model is a result of sin (immorality, adultery, divorce) or tragedy (untimely death of a spouse, involuntary separation such as military deployment). God set that model because He determined it to be the healthiest course of action. Many studies have borne out that idea. Intact family homes tend to produce more stabilty in communities, less crime, and better educated children. Anecdotally there are excpetions to this of course, I'm talking broad, general welfare.
That reason is sufficient for me because I submit myself to God's authority. I can understand if it isn't enough for you.
One last thing, Jesus showed us that even though God still detests sin, we no longer have to immediately stone some one caught in a sinful act. Because Jesus fulfilled the law, He brought God's ultimate plan to fruition. No more to we have to stand condemned for our sin, Jesus provides a way for forgiveness (the removal of sin) and repentence (the ability to resist sinning in the future). So, no, modern Christians are not required to stone sinners in the street. Not because we arbitrarily decided not to do it, but because Jesus showed us a better way.
I have at least a partial answer for you about the various laws found in the Old Testament and why some are disregarded and others are not. The answer is not yet complete to my satisfaction, but I'll give you what I have so far.
Assume with me for the moment that all the laws that were passed to the Israelites were not arbitrary, but for specific reasons. Everything from don't murder to don't bring a menstrating woman to the tabernacle had a reason behind it. There are too many laws for me to go through them exhaustively here, but it has been done in soem good Bible commentaries.
Just taking a couple examples, the menstrating women were not allowed in the tabernacle because the surrounding nations had pagan rituals that utilized the blood. God was keeping Israel differentiated from their neighbors and trying to prevent them from falling into pagan practices. I think it is safe to say that menstrating women can now attend church without worry of it causing pagan worship rituals, however the underlying principal of avoiding things that can bring error does still apply.
Some laws, such as don't have sex with your sister still apply in their entirety because keeping the gene pool clean today is just as important as it was then.
Contrary to the meme you posted, most infractions of law did not require death. It was actually a much less brutal code than that followed by many other nations of the time, most notably the Assyrians.
The vast majority of Penteteuch law can be explained rationally and with intellectual integrity in a similar fashion.
So, the question is, does the taboo on homosexuality still apply. I believe it does for a few reasons. First, it is in oppositon to the family model that God instituted, which is one man with one woman living married together in monogamy until their deaths. Any departure from that model is a result of sin (immorality, adultery, divorce) or tragedy (untimely death of a spouse, involuntary separation such as military deployment). God set that model because He determined it to be the healthiest course of action. Many studies have borne out that idea. Intact family homes tend to produce more stabilty in communities, less crime, and better educated children. Anecdotally there are excpetions to this of course, I'm talking broad, general welfare.
That reason is sufficient for me because I submit myself to God's authority. I can understand if it isn't enough for you.
One last thing, Jesus showed us that even though God still detests sin, we no longer have to immediately stone some one caught in a sinful act. Because Jesus fulfilled the law, He brought God's ultimate plan to fruition. No more to we have to stand condemned for our sin, Jesus provides a way for forgiveness (the removal of sin) and repentence (the ability to resist sinning in the future). So, no, modern Christians are not required to stone sinners in the street. Not because we arbitrarily decided not to do it, but because Jesus showed us a better way.
(Let me know if I'm way off on this somewhere. I'm trying to explore this line of thinking. It's a totally new perspective to the bible you're introducing me to here. Also I haven't read that Solomon passage yet. Want to after you mentioned it.)
I'd assumed the meme was an exaggeration to some degree at least. It is from a T.V. show, after all.
But it's interesting, because on this line of thinking the means to evaluate potentially outdated biblical law is to remove the idea that it is "God's mandate" (empirically non-discoverable), and employ a broad grasp of "common sense". (Who wants to start fights at a tabernacle anyhow?)
Further re-evaluating the homosexuality bit.
"it is in oppositon to the family model that God instituted, which is one man with one woman living married together in monogamy until their deaths. Any departure from that model is a result of sin (immorality, adultery, divorce) or tragedy (untimely death of a spouse, involuntary separation such as military deployment). God set that model because He determined it to be the healthiest course of action. Many studies have borne out that idea. Intact family homes tend to produce more stabilty in communities, less crime, and better educated children. Anecdotally there are excpetions to this of course, I'm talking broad, general welfare."
We have to remove half of this in evaluation because we're searching for the "common sense" underpinnings. That leads us to it being the healthiest course of action. Do intact family homes produce more stability in communities, less crime, and better educated children. Absolutely agree with you there. But a homosexually led household with an adopted child?
I'd probably agree with you there to.
But for totally different reasons.
The taboo of homosexuality is spread across a far greater landscape in the U.S. than not. If I had to guess, the smaller the population of the town/city, the more likely the taboo to exist. (Just a guess. I've had to travel a lot, and that's just what anecdotally seems right.) And if the taboo is strong enough, the mere existence of a homosexual household would cause communal disruption. Or the notion of a child being from a homosexual household would present an open opportunity for bullying. Possible hate crime.
There's a strong analogy with this and with black/mixed house holds. Place one in a white community in the 50's/60's and chaos erupted. Lives were threatened. People moved out. But now?
So where does that stop? Or does it? Is there an irony that this could become a self-fulfilling biblical prophecy? You take an incredibly well thought out and educated stance on the bible Kel, but you're among few I've ever met who do. (or, perhaps, that I've conversed this deep with). Many would just take it for what it is. God says homosexuality = bad. Homosexuality = bad. It might perpetuate the instability.
But suppose that were all gone.
Suppose we as a society had moved to a point of accepting a homosexual household for being as real and natural as a heterosexual household. Where having two fathers or two mothers and an adopted set of children were common place, and were not judged for being simply who they are. As common place as having neighbors of minority ethnic backgrounds is today.
Would it still be disruptive? Or would it ward off crime and produce as much stability and education as a heterosexual household?
I don't know. We can't entirely test for that because we don't entirely live in that. (Not the U.S. anyway. Europe?)
If the two households were homogenous in a non-judgmental environment, then the problem with this isn't God (as his mandate seeks the healthiest environment), and isn't the bible (for attempting to set that mandate into an easily acceptable paradigm).
It's us. For taking the good intentions of the lord, and forging those words into a blade.
Or, perhaps, we will discover in the future, when/if completely accepting environments like this exist, homosexual households still somehow bring instability, lesser education, and crime.
Then I suppose (with great hesitation, because I don't believe this at all) they'd become culturally inferior...like the Down's Syndrome kid or the enfeebled old man we talked about earlier. But weren't we going to treat them compassionately anyway?
"Healthiest course of action" in God's view includes spiritual health as well as physical health, which can be more tenuous.
For example, I recently had an experience while riding the bus. I felt a strong impression that God wanted me to speak with and pray for other bus riders. If I had ignored this prompting, I would be sinning because I would be in disobedience due to my inaction.
No physical harm would come to me or them because of my inaction nor would I violate a social taboo, but spiritually I would be harmed because sin causes a rift or tear in my realtionship with God. This makes it more difficult for me to clearly hear His voice in the future and could result in me missing out on blessings (physical or spiritual) that God would otherwise be able to give me. Aside from just feeling really uncomfortable knowing that I let God down (like a child disappointing a parent that they love).
Heterosexual immorality is a sin with pretty much zero stigma in society today. Yes, it can have unhealthy results due to STDs and unplanned pregnancy, but those can largely be avoided with common sense and good risk reduction, such as using a condom. Even if the risks associated with it could be reduced to zero, it would still be a sin because it is in rebellion to God's prescribed model of behavior.
Now take out the word "heterosexual" and put in "homosexual." Within the next 15-20 I expect it to be just as socially acceptable and I expect God to view it the exact same way. This is because the spiritual component to the sin- the separation from God- still exists in spite of our attempts to accept the activity as acceptable.The underlying principle of rebellion against God is still vioated, so this sin still exists. In God's view, the spiritual violence done to an individual's soul is much worse than any natural, physical consequence.
This spiritual component (creating a rift in our relationship with God) is difficult for nonbelievers to accept since they may deny the existence of the supernatural altogether. This is why "God said so, so it's a sin!" makes perfect, obvious sense to a Christian, but is pure, dogmatic, hate-mongering craziness to an unbeliever.
PS- when I began this discussion a couple days ago, I did not know how to articulate why homosexuality was a sin. Apparently, I have now been able to hash that out. This discussion has really helped me grow in my understanding of my faith.
I like this idea alot
Because the writer in me immediately went Hey, what if that's already happened and it's where we are right now.
And then went on it's crazy side-tangents like writers do.
Ridiculous side note: I was also cured of horrific asthma at 6th grade (exactly). My asthma was so bad that doctors didn't suspect I'd live past grade school. One day I literally woke up and went "I'm done with being sick."
It's been gone ever since.
Never thought to attribute that to a higher power though. I literally attributed it to a self-induced placebo effect. Self-manifestation of a reality. etc. etc.
I've thought of that, too. There's no real problem that I can think of with this being just one of the many realities God has created, either consecutively or concurrently. Maybe that's where angels came from? Total mind trip.
Complete and total lack of any Biblical basis, but it doesn't stand in contradiction either. It's fun to muse about.
Now.... You say, according to the bible, that homosexuality is a sin. But does it say anywhere within the bible, the degree of the sin? Nobody is without this supposed sin, and we are even able to get our slates wiped clean at any point. What degree of sin is homosexuality in your faiths belief? It can't be any worse than some of the other sins. I'd assume that it's on par with many other sins for that matter. So why does it matter if you partake? So long as you repent for your actions, you're as clean as anyone else, correct? The only thing that's really different between homosexuality as a sin, if it is one, is that it is visible, where not every other sin is.
"Healthiest course of action" in God's view includes spiritual health as well as physical health, which can be more tenuous.
For example, I recently had an experience while riding the bus. I felt a strong impression that God wanted me to speak with and pray for other bus riders. If I had ignored this prompting, I would be sinning because I would be in disobedience due to my inaction.
No physical harm would come to me or them because of my inaction nor would I violate a social taboo, but spiritually I would be harmed because sin causes a rift or tear in my realtionship with God. This makes it more difficult for me to clearly hear His voice in the future and could result in me missing out on blessings (physical or spiritual) that God would otherwise be able to give me. Aside from just feeling really uncomfortable knowing that I let God down (like a child disappointing a parent that they love).
Heterosexual immorality is a sin with pretty much zero stigma in society today. Yes, it can have unhealthy results due to STDs and unplanned pregnancy, but those can largely be avoided with common sense and good risk reduction, such as using a condom. Even if the risks associated with it could be reduced to zero, it would still be a sin because it is in rebellion to God's prescribed model of behavior.
Now take out the word "heterosexual" and put in "homosexual." Within the next 15-20 I expect it to be just as socially acceptable and I expect God to view it the exact same way. This is because the spiritual component to the sin- the separation from God- still exists in spite of our attempts to accept the activity as acceptable.The underlying principle of rebellion against God is still vioated, so this sin still exists. In God's view, the spiritual violence done to an individual's soul is much worse than any natural, physical consequence.
This spiritual component (creating a rift in our relationship with God) is difficult for nonbelievers to accept since they may deny the existence of the supernatural altogether. This is why "God said so, so it's a sin!" makes perfect, obvious sense to a Christian, but is pure, dogmatic, hate-mongering craziness to an unbeliever.
PS- when I began this discussion a couple days ago, I did not know how to articulate why homosexuality was a sin. Apparently, I have now been able to hash that out. This discussion has really helped me grow in my understanding of my faith.
---
As a preface to this, even though we don't see eye to eye regarding it all, I'm glad your understanding of your faith has grown considerably amidst this forum. Personally, I'd take a room full of educated, critical, and dissenting opinions over a room full of those ignorant but alike.
---
By this, the thought has become incredibly polarizing.
It no longer shifts to "homosexuality in and of itself is a sin", more as it does "sex out of wedlock is a sin." And there's this loophole, wedlock only exists for straight people. And the only way a religion that bases itself on compassion and acceptance can work around this conundrum of creating a club for straight people is to fall back on the idea that "it's a choice". Anyone can be straight.
Well, at least I understand how that's derived now.
Religion doesn't have a monopoly on spirit either though. Though not religious myself, I've had the impulse, and carried through, the notion of praying for others. Just as I've had the impulse to keep them in my thoughts as I've meditated. The few times I've ignored this, I've most definitely felt a rift. A spiritual guilt, as it were.
Societal impact aside, the only defining characteristic left is this spiritual rift. Something intuited. And generally undefined. Yours speaks to the immorality of homosexuality. Mine speaks to the immorality of denying love between consenting adult people, on any level.
If you'll pardon the extreme example...
Yours also doesn't beget a spiritual rift upon seeing a woman in menstruation at a church. We'd both agree this is silly. Though the Good Book lists no official repeal of this (right?). So at some point, for this to no longer be a spiritually rending action, God would have had to changed his mind on this?
And how do you know he hasn't with homosexuality? Because the spirit rends you with one and not the other?
Then doesn't this mean that the true compass isn't the book itself, but an inner connection to something greater? Even if it defies the original text? Tenuous lines indeed.
Even if I returned to the faith (which is entirely possible, apparently I was prophesied over as an infant and spontaneously elected myself for baptism as a child), I'm damn near positive I would never feel this rift when looking at a gay couple.
Now.... You say, according to the bible, that homosexuality is a sin. But does it say anywhere within the bible, the degree of the sin? Nobody is without this supposed sin, and we are even able to get our slates wiped clean at any point. What degree of sin is homosexuality in your faiths belief? It can't be any worse than some of the other sins. I'd assume that it's on par with many other sins for that matter. So why does it matter if you partake? So long as you repent for your actions, you're as clean as anyone else, correct? The only thing that's really different between homosexuality as a sin, if it is one, is that it is visible, where not every other sin is.
Degrees of sin are a human construct. We made it up so we could look down on others and say "At least I'm not THAT bad."
According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. Death in this passage is referring to spiritual death- complete separation from God for all eternity, aka hell. Are there degrees in punishment in hell? I've heard arguments for yes and no, but the fact is, you're in hell. It doesn't matter if you stole a candy bar or went on a mass murdering spree. "Hidden" sins, such as lust, are just as bad as outward sins, like immorality. Neither are hidden from God, they all have the same prescription for redemption; they all have the same ultimate consequence.
As to your question, "What does it matter, just ask forgiveness afterward", I adressed it earlier with tr1age. In a nutshell, if you are an unbeliever, it doesn't matter to you at all, but neither is there forgiveness or repentence.
For an individual claiming to be a Christian, it's a huge matter. One must proclaim Christ as Lord- the one ultimately in charge of their lives- in order to be saved (Romans 10:9). If you SAY Jesus is you Lord, but you willfully and knowingly continue in a sin expecting Him to just roll over and forgive you time and time again, I'd argue that you are lying. Jesus is not your Lord, He's your genie in a bottle. He's your forgiveness vending machine for use whenever you need. God is not naive, deaf, blind, or stupid, and He can see straight into our innermost heart. A person claiming to be a Christian but living like the devil is probably the single most destructive force against the kingdom of God- a hypocrite.
This is contrasted against an individual who has genuinely accepted Jesus as Lord. Do they still sin? Yes, but the distinction is that they are not OK with it. They fight against it and continuously strive to improve themselves to become more and more free from sin and more like Christ. This journey takes an entire lifetime. Often, God will slowly reveal issues the Christian's life, poking and prodding, revealing impurities and secret sins that they did not even want to acknowledge were there. This brings conviction (a Godly form of guilty remorse, acknowleding the sin has occurred), forgiveness (the removal of the sin), repentence (a complete turning away from the sin in order to not repeat it), and finally freedom (you no longer even miss the sin or find it difficult to resist temptation).
This is not an easy process and single issues can take years to work through. But you are working. You are taking the journey, not resisting the Holy Spirit. You're not wallowing in the sin and pretending it's OK.
It no longer shifts to "homosexuality in and of itself is a sin", more as it does "sex out of wedlock is a sin." And there's this loophole, wedlock only exists for straight people. And the only way a religion that bases itself on compassion and acceptance can work around this conundrum of creating a club for straight people is to fall back on the idea that "it's a choice". Anyone can be straight.
Search as I might through scripture, I can't find an indication that homosexuality is OK in any context, not even marriage. He doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room at all with His one man, one woman description of relationships. He's OK with being single, if that's any consolation to anyone.
I'm still hoping to discover that caveat that explains why that, most everything else seems to have a logical, or at least acceptable explanation. I'm confident this has one (beyond just the fact that it deviates from God's definition of a healthy, proper relationship), but I have yet to uncover it to my satisfaction.
/sigh I guess I'm not as far along in my understanding as I had hoped.
I thought about this the whole way home today, and I think this is going to be my last word on the question of homosexuality ans sin.
I've tried to quantify it in a clinical, theoretical, intellectual way, and I now think that this entire approach is fundamentally wrong. While I sit and discuss whether its bad or not and why, the fact of the matter is that individuals are in pain and suffering.
That's why homosexuality is wrong. Not because of a clever argument I can tritely lay out in a forum. It is born of hurt and pain, it thrives on hurt and pain, and it's result is more hurt, pain, and death. That is the nature of sin and the truest way of identifying it.
To anyone in a homosexual lifestyle, I say that you do not have to keep perpetuating the cycle of pain. Christ offers true love, true completeness, true acceptance, complete peace. It can be terrifying to trust anyone, even a God that purports to be pure love with such a deep and personal wound. But He's worthy of your trust, He will heal the wound you've been trying to so hard to hide.
To anyone else, I say the same thing. Whatever your personal struggle is. I'm saying it with conviction because I have experienced it personally. Taste and see that God is good. I don't know what else I can say.
First, reconciling free will with omniscience. It absolutely is a paradox and it's unfortuante that you got smacked down for trying to feel rational about it. Some people cling to dogmatic belief rather than honest criticism because they are uncomfortable with things they cannot fully explain adn they are insecure in their own understanding.
I have three theories or models for this issue that I toss around, one or none of them could be accurate. The first is the same as yours, every decision that we make is a no-brainer, obvious thing to God because He knows us so well. Just because I know you are going to choose to spend the million dollars rather than set it on fire doesn't mean that I forced you to spend it. Everything is similarly easy for God to understand in his omniscience.
The problem I have with that theory is that it doesn't go far enough, so try this one on for size. Not only does God know what the outcome of is of every decison that is made, He also knows the outcome of every possible other decision that COULD have been made, taken to the nth degree. This radically expands on the amount of things that God knows, since now He is privy to alternate universes and timelines which may or may not exist. There is nothing in the Bible to support alternate realities, but since such realities arguably would have no effect on us in this one, discussion of them would be unnecessary.
That one gets a little messy when exposed to serious criticism and isn't very simple, so here's my favorite as of today: God knows everything because He exists outside on known reality and time. He created it, so He is not bound by it. As such, every moment throughout history exists for God in an eternal NOW. So He can speak definitively on what will happen because He has been there and seen it happen. In some cases, He even makes it happen. This one also shows how God can orchestrate events to cause chain reactions that provide certain outcomes, such as positioning the nation of Israel where he wanted them. He has a bird's eye view of history and creation. This also explains why His plans can also include periods of very bad things happening- with the big picture in mind, He can manipulate it to an ultimate positive outcome. Not much comfort to those caught up in the very bad things, but at least it's an attempt to explain it.
The second thing is the validity of scripture. Along with the "Hundreds of Contradictions" argument, this seems to be a favorite among skeptics. My response usually is, to which changes or rewrites are you referring?
We already talked about transubstantiation, which is not in any Protestant or Catholic Bible, so apparently they didn't get around to inserting that. How about Purgatory? Also not in there. Praying to Mary and the Saints? I would argue that the Bible is actually against this, I haven't heard yet how it is justified. What about Mary's perpetual virginity and assumption into heaven? Again, I have no idea where they got that, and the Bible was never changed to include it.
So if the Roman Catholic church was hellbent on changing Christianity to suit them, why were these and other core tenents of Catholicism never inserted into scripture? I believe that it's because of the awe and reverence in which the Catholic church held the Bible and continues to do to this day. That's one thing that I think Protestants have wrong. We toss the Bible around willy-nilly like it's any other book. Our Catholic brothers have that one right at least.
Another reason why it wasn't changed is because they didn't need to. The Bible was only available in Latin, which only the priesthood knew, so it was very easy to slip extra church doctrine into sermons and no common person could fact check them. One of the main pushes of the Protestant movement was to translate the Bible into a common tongue. Catholics cried heresy because they knew it would expose their false teachings. So they had the chance to change it, but they didn't. Maybe a few of them wished they had.
The Bible, particularly the New Testament, holds up incredibly well to historical and document criticisms. I have never come across an instance where a discovered, validated historical document contradicted or invalidated a passage of scripture. Certainly, translation errors occurred. Maybe "man" was changed to "mankind" or some such thing, but I maintain that the Bible I have today is in essence and in every meaningful way that impacts a point a doctrine, exactly identical to the orginal as given by God to the authors. It is extremely important to me that this is the case. Skeptics love to say the Bible has radically changed over the years, but they have failed to provide an example.
I believe that God actively protected and preserved the integrity of the Bible through the millenia. It makes sense that He would; He has a large vested interest in it. I do not see the burden of proof to be on Christians to show it never changed; it is on the skeptics to prove when changes occurred.
A more humurous example of a mistranslation is the "wicked" Bible whcih states, "Thou shalt commit adultery." Once discovered, almost all copies were burned, making surviving copies quite valuable. A friend of my broher in law owns one. The point is, when errors were found, they were corrected and burned. There is no indication of a mass conspiracy to change scripture from it's original form. With the amount of scrutny that has been paid to this issue, is it logical that a mass conspiracy and coverup occurred? Less evidence for this than the shooter on the grassy knoll.
Lastly, the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, which is a fantastic topic. Prior to Jesus, Judaism and Christianity were one and the same, as far as I can tell. When Jesus came, he fulfilled the Law and the Prophets and claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah. Many Jews rejected this notion and continued believing the Messiah was yet to come, in part because Jesus was not the political Messiah they had been hoping for.
I do not believe that God intended Christianity to be an offshoot of Judaism or a replacement of Judaism, it was fulfillment. In my view, Judaism spurred off of God's plan at that point, it is no longer the mainstream of God's plan. Thier ship came into harbour, but many refused to board.
The changes made by the early church to accepted traditons of the time is actually a great argument for the sincerity of what they believed. For example, changing the Sabbath to coincide with the day Christ rose from the dead. A huge sacrilige unless they were very sure of what they were doing. Also, the discontinuation of sacrifices. Judaism eventually dropped this as well, but the early church did it immediately. Also very dangerous because if they were wrong, their sins would no longer be forgiven. There are others, but I've tangented enough.
I hear what you're saying on the paradox thing... it being a paradox however I'm not going to continue that discussion because we've already got enough things going on forever lol.
While in reading the Bible I do feel that some of its logic doesn't follow, I don't really jump onto the "hundreds of contradictions" bandwagon. I also let slide all the really harsh things found in the Old Testament, I've heard the explanation of Jesus fulfilling... the phrasing is escaping me right now but basically that those really harsh old laws didn't apply anymore cause he paid the tab on that one. I can follow that argument and as such I don't dwell on the rather... prolific... use of the death penalty heh.
On the topic of changes or rewrites however, I don't necessarily refer to a deliberate attempt to defraud the Bible's audience, though I do think that such is possible. Rather, I refer to the numerous translations that have been in use, from the earlier languages such as Greek, through Latin and into modern languages such as English, as well as the process of canonization itself. Also, while Protestants hold that matters such as transubstantiation are not in the Bible, the Catholic Church does believe that the evidence is there (e.g. John 6:53-56) so they wouldn't need to add anything else.
On a related note, how would you reconcile your belief regarding transubstantiation with the fact that the majority of Christians today (albeit across a few denominations) believe that this occurs? Regardless of theology, if God is shepherding this canon, why would a majority of his followers be incorrect in their belief?
On the issue of languages, changing the meaning of particular words between languages can dramatically change passages. For example, the original Greek word later translated into "virgin" when used to describe Mary, is actually more accurately translated as "young unmarried woman." This is one of the new changes in translation the Catholic Church is introducing in upcoming versions (though they still maintain the theology that she was also a virgin). In regard to canonization, there are actually numerous texts that were considered by many to be a part of the New Testament for hundreds of years after the time of Christ. Through a series of councils and public opinion, new documents were included, old ones were dropped out, and vice versa. This begs the question to me as to how trustworthy this document can be after it has been changed so much over time. While I concede that if God exists He should be able to protect their validity, I don't see the logic in assuming that the documents are accurate first, then using them as evidence that God exists, and subsequently using that as evidence that the documents were accurate in the first place.
I can follow what you're saying in regards to Christianity and Judaism, but I'm curious how that then compares with newer religions in the same theological vein, such as Mormonism and Islam. For what reasons do you not also view those as fulfillments of Christianity as Christianity was a fulfillment of Judaism in your view? Their followers would view Christianity then as spurring off of God's plan, why do you think they are wrong?
