Why you believe what you believe I

[inked]

Nurv, just for you...

"We do not merely want to SEE beauty, though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put in to words - to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it. That is why we have peopled air and earth and water with gods and goddesses and nymphs and elves - that, though we cannot, yet these projections can enjoy in themselves that beauty, grace and power of which Nature is the image.
... At present we are on the outside of the world, the wrong side of the door. We discern the freshness and puity of the morning but they do not make us fresh and pure. We cannot mingle with the splendours we see. But all the leaves of the New Testament are rustling with the rumour that it will not always be so. Some day, God willing, we shall get IN. When human souls have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch. ... Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol which Scripture invites me to use. We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects." CS Lewis, THE WEIGHT OF GLORY and Other Addresses, page 16-17, Macmillan paperback 1980.

Beauty is one aspect of God which delights our appreciation of Himself, His Creation, His creatures; - even in those creatures who produce modern art for which I have no taste at all - but others may! As St Paul advised "whatsoever things are pure, ...just, ...wise, ... beautiful, think on these things" which is good earthly advice and good spiritual advice and good ETERNAL advice!


PS Nurv, I bet you could find a Swedish Bible story book aimed at young children to practice your language/reading skills and learn basic stories! Never mess with a former TA: "We have ways of making you learn AND you will LIKE it!!"

[Rían]

(nurvi - yes, I'm still on the seat - busy all yesterday with Christmas play rehearsals, etc., will attempt final round of posting today, finish with responses next few days, then brownie's up!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(nurvi - yes, I'm still on the seat - busy all yesterday with Christmas play rehearsals, etc., will attempt final round of posting today, finish with responses next few days, then brownie's up!)

[Rían]

*gets out her soldering iron, some wires and switches, and disappears under the Hot Seat for a few minutes*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the problem is with your premise... though i admit that anything is possible, i do not believe in god at all, or even an afterlife... yet i find extreme value in the here and now...

But your belief has nothing to do with it ... but I'll save that discussion for when you're on the hot seat.

do these studies cover all faiths? do they differentiate the orthodox from the more casual believer (which would be a more interesting comparison in my mind)? Do they take standard of living into account?

I believe it's a pretty general top-level def'n of faith, thru all levels of living conditions.

i don't put much faith in studies, as they can easily be swayed by what questions/results are examined and what question/results are not examined... but i can speak for myself, and i know i'm doing pretty good all around... you can be happy and healthy both with and without religion... this i know for a fact

Yes - but the studies show a definite trend where those that consider themselves religious rate higher in good areas and lower in bad (to phrase it simply). I'm not saying that those who aren't religious have a terrible life.

And really, you seem to agree with me that it is a reasonable possibility to think that God exists, so I have no disagreement with you here. This post is mainly for those starting at ground zero, or for those people who think it is unreasonable to even consider the question.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think it's fairly reasonable to believe either way...

So we're on the same page here

though i would say that the reasonability declines when people try to define the specifics of that god

And this is what my next post will address

me next!

i explained my beliefs, but never explained my "why"

*tries to hide the smoking soldering iron*

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

These definitions are so general that it sounds like any Christian is evangelical, so why even have the word? What is the difference between an evangelical Christian and whatever the opposite is?

The difference, IMO, hinges on personal choice and day-to-day living. An evangelical Christian is one who has chosen to sincerely seek out God's ways and put them into his every day life, and not just when easy and convenient and it happens to feel good. I think the other type of Christian would be one who say he's a Christian because he went to church on Easter and Christmas, but he doesn't show a priority change in his day-to-day life.

RÃ*an, I am inspired by those stories about Jesus, clearing the money-changers from the temple, weeping for Jerusalem. I also notice that he did his preaching OUTSIDE the church, either on the steps, in the fields, or even in boats. And he ate with sinners and he forgave tax collectors and he let wanton women wash his feet with tears.

Be sure to realize that He also did preaching inside the synagogues But I like how He preached everywhere - and really, that is another way of recognizing a true Christian. Church is not a building ... it's the body of believers. I, myself, as a Christian, am called a temple for the Holy Spirit. I am just as much with God inside a church as I am with Him at a football game. And as a woman, I think one of the coolest aspects of Jesus is his attitude towards women, which was totally radical for his time! (IOW, it's timeless, because it's true, but it didn't jive with the time He was in. Christianity is fascinating because of how timeless it is!) I don't see any other religion that honors women as much as Christianity.

There are so many things that are just incredibly COOL about Jesus that I don't see why so many people are hung up on whether or not he was divine.

Jesus Himself was rather particular on this point , and I agree with Him that it's important to try to determine if He was divine or not

I wish they could just put all that aside and see how he said how wonderful this world could be if we just love one another.

One of the points of Christianity is that we CANNOT just love one another, without God's help. And this is sadly all too evident - just flip on the news for 30 seconds But the good news is that there is a divine Healer who can heal our hearts But only if we let Him.

Sometimes I think he was weeping because he knew they would hate each other because they couldn't agree about him.

Yes ...

I love His passion. As I mentioned in my opening post, I lived for many years in the world of the very intelligent, and my heart was curled up in a corner, cold and lonely and crying ...

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The difference, IMO, hinges on personal choice and day-to-day living. An evangelical Christian is one who has chosen to sincerely seek out God's ways and put them into his every day life, and not just when easy and convenient and it happens to feel good. I think the other type of Christian would be one who say he's a Christian because he went to church on Easter and Christmas, but he doesn't show a priority change in his day-to-day life.

No way! With all due respect, RÃ*an, that's just not true.

I think what you're saying is, you're an evangelical and you are sincerely seeking God's ways and trying to enact them. But that's just you.

There are many Christian Churches who do NOT call themselves "evangelical" who try to put Jesus' teachings into practice in their daily lives. Are you really saying anyone who isn't an evangelical is only Christian when it feels good or is easy? I'm sure you're not.

If really following Jesus is what makes someone "evangelical", and everyone who isn't evangelical is just faking it, then the word has no meaning beyond "real" or "authentic".

We all know it means "preaching" as in evangelist. Isn't spreading the good news, giving testimony, and all that, part of evangelical? Or is this the one different thing that evangelicals do that makes them different from non-evangelicals.

I've heard that Baptists, Menonites, and Methodists are evangelical while Lutherans, Catholics, etc. are not. But I am still at a loss to understand. Why can't they all just follow Jesus together? And who's to say which one of them is right?

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah, I think the word means more than what you said Ri, but is the meaning of the word important to your beliefs? If we're getting OT you can shush us.

One definition of evangelical.

By the way, thanks for the great post at the top of the page Inked. You rule. My signature has been summarily updated.

[Elfhelm]

You know, it is my crazy opinion that Jesus didn't like the synagogue. He only went there to argue. I think he was misquoted. I think one day he was frustrated by their blockheadedness and said to someone something like "I could tear this place down to the ground, and they'd rebuild it in three days." I know. I'm nuts. Who am I to second-guess the Gospels? But it makes so much more sense. He pointed to his followers and said "the church is all of us", or he pointed at Peter, AS AN EXAMPLE of an ordinary person, and said "on this rock I build my church". Of course Peter took it wrong and changed his name to Rock and people say it meant he was supposed to be the first Pope. I don't think Jesus wanted us to have a Pope. I think he could have as easily pointed at James, though James was a little smarter and the point wouldn't have been as obvious. What can I say? I'm goofy, I guess. Something just keeps telling me that everyone has it all wrong. We're supposed to be outside of politics and institutions, not creating groups that fight each other.

[Rían]

OK - here's hopefully the last major post on why I believe what I believe. The previous biggie post was why I think it is an entirely reasonable thing to believe that a God might exist. Now, given that, I think it's a reasonable thing to investigate the various reports that the human race makes about Him. (Of course, He could exist but not want to be discovered, but that will look the same, to us, as if He didn't exist.)

What I'll do here is summarize why I believe my own particular set of beliefs, just to save time. If anyone is interested, I can summarize the problems I've found with other beliefs.

As I said in my first post, I grew up attending a church, and was somewhat familiar with the Bible. I made a decision to become a Christian myself when I was about 12. At that time, I couldn't have disussed doctrine and history and compare Christianity with other beliefs - I just knew it clicked with something in my heart, and it made sense to me, and I chose to accept it and change the direction of my life. And I have never regretted it (except when I get abused for my beliefs, but I still don't regret making the decision, because I still think it is true.) But thru the years, I have put in a lot of study and thought in this area, as is right and appropriate, IMO, and it makes even MORE sense and jives even MORE with my heart. So I'll share, now, why I continue to believe that Christianity is a statement that reflects the actual reality of the universe and beyond.

Atheism is a worldview that does NOT have any accepted writings, so one cannot evaluate atheism against accept written doctrine. Christianity, however, claims that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the tenets of Christianity are in the Bible, and therefore it is entirely appropriate to evaluate the Bible as a piece of historical literature when considering the truth claims of Christianity. And when one does that, it's in a class by itself, right at the very top, by all standard of ancient literature.

I think there's a coupla questions that should be asked about the Bible, starting with :

1. Do we know that what we have now is what was actually written?

I think it was Elfhelm who mentioned something like perhaps the miraculous things were added in hundreds of years later, to jazz things up a bit. This is a good question, and one that can be investigated. Did it "grow" over time, like the Paul Bunyan legend? There prob. was a guy named Paul Bunyan who was tall, but the tale kept growing! So let's look at the documents we have.

There's 3 things that historians look at when dealing with ancient literature and its authenticity (is it really what was originally written) :

• 1. What is the earliest copy in existence? (how much time between when it was originally written and the earliest copy?)
• 2. How many manuscripts do you have?
• 3. How do they vary among each other?

Here's some examples of the norm for ancient literature:

Aristotle - wrote in 340 BC - earliest copy in 1100 AD (1400 years from when originally written) - 5 copies.

Caesar - history of Gallic Wars written in 50 BC - earliest copy 1000 AD (1000 years from when originally written) - 9 copies.

The king of manuscripts, besides the Bible, is:
Homer, Iliad, written around 800 BC, earliest copy 2nd/3rd century (1000 years after originally written) - 650 full/partial copies.

Now the New Testament - and these are just simple facts! -
New Testament - completed in 90 AD (Jesus died in 33 AD), earliest fragments appear less than 100 years later (that's ONE HUNDRED - I did NOT drop a zero!) from John 18 - word for word what we have today.

By the end of the 2nd century, we have the ENTIRE gospel of Luke, the ENTIRE gospel of John, and 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude.

By the end of the 3rd century, we have COMPLETE MANUSCRIPTS in Greek of EVERY book in the New Testament (we're still nowhere NEAR the 1000 years between original and copies of the other ancient documents).

By 900 years, which is 100 years EARLIER than the BEST evidence for other ancient literature - there are 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament. Five THOUSAND (compared to 650 of the Iliad, the next closest). Right now, we have about 24 THOUSAND manuscripts.

And the variance between manuscripts is less than one-half of one percent.

Think about this. In terms of authenticity of ancient literature, that's astounding.

My reasonable conclusion - what we have now is what was actually written.


N.B. - As far as variances - you'll hear some high numbers, but you need to analyze them and realize that the numbers will be high because of the sheer amount of manuscripts! For example, if one word is spelled wrong in 10,000 of the New Testament manuscripts, it will count as 10,000 variants. If one word is spelled wrong in the Iliad, at the most it will count as 650 variants. And also, in the Greek language, position of words does NOT matter! In English, "man bites dog" and "dog bites man" are very different; in the Greek, the subject is still the subject no matter where it is in the sentence, so a variant might occur, but WITHOUT ANY change in the meaning of the sentence, which is what matters.


refpost

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You know, it is my crazy opinion that Jesus didn't like the synagogue. He only went there to argue.

I don't think He liked it, either, because God's truth was getting perverted, IMO. I think He went there to love the people that were there, and to try to get them to see the truth.

I think he was misquoted. I think one day he was frustrated by their blockheadedness and said to someone something like "I could tear this place down to the ground, and they'd rebuild it in three days."

Did you know Jesus was referring to His body with this statement? That He would die and rise again in three days? It's in John, chpt. 2.

I know. I'm nuts. Who am I to second-guess the Gospels?

I think you are a very valuable person with intelligence and dignity, and it is entirely appropriate for you to think about these things.

But it makes so much more sense. He pointed to his followers and said "the church is all of us", or he pointed at Peter, AS AN EXAMPLE of an ordinary person, and said "on this rock I build my church".

I think He was referring to the statement of faith that Peter made as the rock that the church would be built on, as well as Peter's role in establishing the church.

I don't think Jesus wanted us to have a Pope.

I agree, but that's a loooooong and bumpy rabbit trail!

Something just keeps telling me that everyone has it all wrong. We're supposed to be outside of politics and institutions, not creating groups that fight each other.

I agree.

I think what you're saying is, you're an evangelical and you are sincerely seeking God's ways and trying to enact them. But that's just you.

There are many Christian Churches who do NOT call themselves "evangelical" who try to put Jesus' teachings into practice in their daily lives. Are you really saying anyone who isn't an evangelical is only Christian when it feels good or is easy? I'm sure you're not.

I'm not. But this is getting too long and I have to go in a few minutes to get the kids! What I basically mean is "authentic". I'll just leave it at that.

[Rían]

(and I think it was you, Elfhelm, that had a list and was crossing off religions that had atrocities - did you cross off atheism? Remember Stalin - he was responsible for the deaths of millions ... )

[Rían]

(Summary post - con't)

So while the information described above about the authenticity of the NT as ancient literature doesn't prove that the NT is true, it seems to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Bible that we currently have is just the same as it was written. IOW, it is NOT a tale that has grown in the telling, like Paul Bunyan; the miracles were NOT added hundreds of years later to spiff it up a bit. This is an important thing to establish, IMO, before considering the next question -

2. Do I think it is true?

I think there are several areas that an intelligent person should consider.

Again, there are some important points when considering if any piece of ancient literature is likely to be true; things like were the accounts from eyewitnesses and is there any corroborating evidence.

There are lots of pertinent sentences in the NT about eyewitnesses. Luke's whole gospel was specifically said to have been written in order to preserve eyewitness accounts. He talked to eyewitnesses, and he himself was also an eyewitness of many things. In 2nd Peter, Peter talks about how they didn't just follow tales, but they were eyewitnesses of what happened. Now those are specific claims for eyewitness accounts, but there are a ton of secondary ones. When the apostles were preaching, they spoke to people who were alive when Jesus was, and the apostles referenced things that were general knowledge about Jesus. In Peter's speech at Pentecost, he refers to the miracles that were done "in your midst". When Paul is talking with King Agrippa, he refers to the king's personal knowledge of the events surrounding Jesus, and says that "this has not been done in a corner". And when Jesus was brought before Herod, Herod was glad to see Jesus, because he was hoping to see some of the miracles he had heard about! IOW, it was NOT like the apostles were saying, "Jesus does cool things, but it's only when He is around us - we'll just TELL you guys about the miracles, but you can't see any!" It was general knowledge, because these things were done in the open, in front of hundreds of people.

Now some people have objected to the healing miracles, like they were just thought to be miracles because the people were ignorant, or they were miracles like the "miracles" we see on tv *gag*. However, frankly, I think people that make this objection are not really thinking things thru - I think it's usually a second-hand objection picked up from others, because if one looks at the TYPES of healing, you can see this objection doesn't hold any water. The healing miracles that Jesus did were instantaneous and highly visible, and they were always on people that were known by the locals. For example - the man born blind. Jesus healed him, and the neighbors and his parents knew that he had been blind - it wasn't just some guy that no one knew and who faked being blind. The Pharisees were investigating it, and talked to people that KNEW they guy, and KNEW and SAW that he had been blind since birth. Also Jesus healed lepers - I'm sorry, I don't think a person would fake leprosy for years and years. And the woman with the hemmorage - she had it for years, and had spent all her money on doctors - again, not a set-up - a local person with an ailment that lasted for years. Anyway, people can say I think the whole thing is made up, but I don't think they can say it was faked.

To continue with the eyewitness thing - so there are claims to eyewitness accounts of, for example, the healings. And what makes a credible eyewitness? If the rest of the story checks out in the details. Luke, the physician, is so incredibly accurate - for example, he names 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands with complete accuracy. There have been some things that Luke mentioned but had not been heard of, and were later discovered, and Luke was exactly right. There has NEVER been any detail that has been found to be WRONG in Luke. Even the Lysanias tetrarch detail - I found out some more info, that there were TWO Lysanias's, and inscriptions have been found to support this. One said "Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, 14 - 26 AD", which is EXACTLY when Luke said he was!

Another test about eyewitnesses is if they had anything to gain from lying. People have pointed out before that 10 of the 11 apostles died a violent death which COULD have been avoided if they recanted. But there is NO record of them EVER changing their story, even after torture. Now some people say that other people have died for their beliefs in other religions, but that does NOT bear on this issue - we're talking about EYEWITNESSES who died for what they claim to have seen, not just people who believe but were not eyewitnesses, like the 9/11 murderers. So as far as eyewitnesses, this fact makes them extremely credible.

So the NT accounts have been claimed to have come from eyewitnesses, and eyewitnesses of the most reliable kind, and these things were written down during the LIFETIME of hundreds of eyewitnesses, and Christianity was growing during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. And these eyewitnesses appealed to many other people who were also eyewitnesses, and the general knowledge of Jesus and his doings, which could have been refuted by people in the area. And Josephus, the famous historian, refers to the miracles of Jesus. The NT was written in the lifetime of witnesses, and Christianity grew like crazy at that time - it's pretty logical to assume that if it were not true, LOTS of people could have spoken against it and squashed the movement in its infancy.

Again, not PROOF - but strong indication. And as far as the 4 gospels, and how they stand together as eyewitness testimony, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School said this : "There is enough of a discrepency to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction." And he has also concluded that the kind of evidence, and the way it's listed, would make the resurrection stand as fact in "any English-speaking court of law in the world."

So again - not proof, but certainly something ANY reasonable person could consider and decide that it's true, IMO.


refpost

[Rían]

(con't)

A coupla more angles on the question "Is it true" and a related one, "Is it God's word?"

I think a pretty cool thing is how the Bible is timeless. It talks about ancient things, but the teachings are timeless. And one would think that the word of God would be that way. A very interesting example is the medical stuff in the Bible. In the time of Moses, the most advanced medical journal was probably the Papyrus Ebers (sp?) of Egypt. In this medical journal, it says things like to save victims of a poisonous snake bite, give them magic water that's been poured over an idol. For embedded splinters, apply a mixture of worms' blood and donkey dung. And these types of things would be reasonable to expect from a human source.

Now as far as the Bible, which is claimed to be inspired by God - one would expect that God would know medical things and not discover them at the same time as we do. What does the Bible say about people with contageous diseases? Quarantine them. What do we do today? Quarantine them.

A doctor in Venice in 1840, Dr. Semmelwise, followed the standard practice of the hospital he worked at : arrive at hospital, perform autopsies, go upstairs without washing, perform prenatal exams. Now there was a terrible mortality rate - they didn't know about washing hands. Dr. S. suggested that perhaps the doctors just dip their hands in a bowl of water after the autopsies, and he was laughed out of the hospital. Now what did the Bible say about what to do after handling dead bodies, thousands of years earlier? Wash clothing, wash hands in running water! And in the Mishna, which are commentaries on the Bible, it goes even further - after washing hands in running water, don't towel off - hold your hands in the air and let the water drip off the elbows. Remind you of E.R. or MASH? It should!

Another area - if the Bible is the word of God, one would think God would know what morals would work, because He made us. Let's take just ONE of the 10 commandments and see if society would be better if it was followed - the one about adultery. If everyone kept the commandment about no adultery (basically, sex is only for a husband and wife), the following would happen - ALL STD's would cease to exist. AIDS would be GONE. Unwanted pregnancies would drop. Single parent homes would drop. Welfare roles would drop. There would be no rape, no incest, no sexual abuse. Well, I'd say that sounds like a better world - perhaps the Bible came from someone that knew what is true!

Finally, one of the biggest indications that the Bible is true is its power of transforming lives. Personally, I could fill post after post with personal stories of how Jesus has transformed my life for the better, over and over again. But this is too long; I think I'll just share a short story that I think illustrates this. There was a pastor, Harry Ironsides, in the early 1900s who was talking to a crowd. An atheist was heckling him and challenging him to a debate on his beliefs. Finally, Mr. Ironsides challenged the heckler back with this : "I'll debate you tomorrow on this condition - you bring with you one alcoholic and one prostitute that have been transformed by the power of your philosophy. I'll bring 50." The heckler never showed up.

Christianity is unique. People try to compare it with other worldviews, but it just doesn't compare. Other religious leaders said "follow me, and I'll show you the way." Jesus said, "I AM the way." Others said, "follow me, and I'll show you truth." Jesus said, "I AM truth." Others said, do what I say, and you'll find God." Jesus said, "I AM God." There is NO other religious leader that made these claims and backed it up with miracles and personal character. (Charles Manson, David Carresh and Jim Jones claimed to be God, IIRC, but didn't support it with miracles or their character.) Jesus's character is the standard for our behavior. Can anyone think of anything Jesus did wrong?

Other religions say "DO this". Jesus said, right before He gave up His life voluntarily on the cross, "It is DONE." And He did it - FOR us. Other religions are man striving towards God. Christianity is God reaching down to man in love.

I can honestly say that over 30 years, I have never found Christianity to fail. Even the little quirky, counterintuitive bits, like it's better to give than receive, are just ... TRUE, when I try them out. And the love of God just staggers my heart. Christianity is NOT a philosophy or a set of rules; it's a relationship with the God that made us and loves us and wants to be with us. When intelligence was my god, my heart cried. Since Jesus has been my Lord, I can't even express how my heart has grown - both in rejoicing and empathy. For me, to deny that Christianity is true would mean denying both my intellect and my heart. And I can't do that with any type of integrity, so I don't intend to.

People here have commented on how what I have presented is logical. Well, after much thought, I have found it to be entirely logical, and this should be the way it is if something is true. And people have commented on how they think I'm kind and things like that - and I tell you guys honestly that God has just grown my heart so much since I accepted him as Lord, and especially over these last 5 or 6 years (I've been praying that God would help me to love others as He loves them for about 6 years now). He has transformed me, and is continuing to transform me. I have so much love and joy in my heart sometimes that it's painful! Yes, I'm still a twerp, too, all too often but I've found that when God shows me error in my life, it's because He plans to heal it!

I don't know how to close - I've just been kinda saying some things at random here - I guess I hope I've shown that it's reasonable to think that God might exist, and it's reasonable to think that Christianity might be true, and that an intelligent person (by the world's standards) can come to this conclusion.

God rocks! and I am filled with love for all of you, and for the God that loves us all. And I have such joy in my heart - yes, I have many sorrows, like all of you do, too, yet I have such joy Joy is NOT dependent upon circumstances, like happiness is; joy is knowing that a loving God loves me and lives in me, and has saved me and is healing me from the sins that had power over me, and nothing gets to me that He has not allowed with his great wisdom and love for a greater purpose, and that I will be with Him for all eternity.

I guess I'll just stop now! It's late. I could say SO much more, but that's probably enough to read for now



refpost

[Elemmírë]

That's a very nice conclusion, RÃ*an. Thank you.

When Christianity is presented in the right light, I have to say I like it.

I know I could not believe in it and it alone, but I understand it better now (as it was meant to be understood, I think. Not as my hypocritical ministers used to explain it) and respect it.

There's only one thing I had some qualms about:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let's take just ONE of the 10 commandments and see if society would be better if it was followed - the one about adultery. If everyone kept the commandment about no adultery (basically, sex is only for a husband and wife), the following would happen - ALL STD's would cease to exist. AIDS would be GONE. Unwanted pregnancies would drop. Single parent homes would drop. Welfare roles would drop. There would be no rape, no incest, no sexual abuse. Well, I'd say that sounds like a better world - perhaps the Bible came from someone that knew what is true!

Be careful about making overgeneralisations... But I agree that while not perfect, it would be better.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Christianity is unique. People try to compare it with other worldviews, but it just doesn't compare. Other religious leaders said "follow me, and I'll show you the way." Jesus said, "I AM the way." Others said, "follow me, and I'll show you truth." Jesus said, "I AM truth." Others said, do what I say, and you'll find God." Jesus said, "I AM God."...

Other religions say "DO this". Jesus said, right before He gave up His life voluntarily on the cross, "It is DONE." And He did it - FOR us. Other religions are man striving towards God. Christianity is God reaching down to man in love.

That's nice. Unfortunately not true for all branches of Christianity, but nice.

Thank you.

[Nurvingiel]

Very interesting Ri, as usual (and logical, of course! )

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Finally, one of the biggest indications that the Bible is true is its power of transforming lives. Personally, I could fill post after post with personal stories of how Jesus has transformed my life for the better, over and over again. But this is too long; I think I'll just share a short story that I think illustrates this. There was a pastor, Harry Ironsides, in the early 1900s who was talking to a crowd. An atheist was heckling him and challenging him to a debate on his beliefs. Finally, Mr. Ironsides challenged the heckler back with this : "I'll debate you tomorrow on this condition - you bring with you one alcoholic and one prostitute that have been transformed by the power of your philosophy. I'll bring 50." The heckler never showed up.

Not to be a jerk and say that Jesus hasn't done anything for me,.(that is not what I'm saying) but my life hasn't been transformed by Jesus. Jesus has some influence on my life, but I wouldn't say He is really in it.

Do you think He doesn't touch everybody's lives? Or is there a transformation waiting to happen if I just realize something first? (Or something like that.)

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I can honestly say that over 30 years, I have never found Christianity to fail. Even the little quirky, counterintuitive bits, like it's better to give than receive, are just ... TRUE, when I try them out. And the love of God just staggers my heart. Christianity is NOT a philosophy or a set of rules; it's a relationship with the God that made us and loves us and wants to be with us. When intelligence was my god, my heart cried. Since Jesus has been my Lord, I can't even express how my heart has grown - both in rejoicing and empathy. For me, to deny that Christianity is true would mean denying both my intellect and my heart. And I can't do that with any type of integrity, so I don't intend to.

I wouldn't say that 'it's better give than to receive is the best example of something counterintuitive in Christianity. It isn't particularly strange or illogical.
I think it rocks that you have such strong faith. Sometimes I wish I could say the same.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes - but the studies show a definite trend where those that consider themselves religious rate higher in good areas and lower in bad (to phrase it simply). I'm not saying that those who aren't religious have a terrible life.

accepting this for the moment, 'cause i really don't want to argue "studies"... will you conceed that one can have zero belief in god and still be an extremely good, thoughtful and caring person (even if it is less likely as you say the studies show)?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(and I think it was you, Elfhelm, that had a list and was crossing off religions that had atrocities - did you cross off atheism? Remember Stalin - he was responsible for the deaths of millions ... )

LOL! Atheism is not my bag, man! Seriously, it isn't a religion. Stalin's purges weren't atrocities committed in the name of atheism. He was killing any threat to his rule.

But I already said that I have to be careful about atheism because of my wife. She thinks religion IS the problem.

So no, I haven't crossed atheism off the list.

And I will never cross Jesus off the list.

I don't even know if evangelical is a religion that goes on the list in the first place. I hope that isn't insulting. It isn't meant to be. It's my own personal quest.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

Rian and her proclamation of the Good News is evangelical. Does that help you grasp the concept?


Nurv,

You can have Jesus in your life as Rian describes and proclaims. If you make a personal declaration of faith seriously, as is the intended meaning of Confirmation. Were you confirmed? Check out the service of Confirmation in your prayer book. There are specific questions in these regards:

1) Do you renounce Satan and all the forces of spiritual wickedness?

2) Do you turn to Jesus and accept Him as your Saviour?

3) Do you take Jesus as your Lord?

The Anglican view is that the whole is a process. It may have momentous decision moments (as in coming to this belief) but it may be gradual growth into this understanding and experience, and it may be both. It remains, always, a process of growth into understanding, apprehension of the meaning, and personal implementation of the reality. Even, or especially, those we recognize as great believers and achievers in the process, the Saints, all speak to this beginning and continuing. The important thing is to begin for all journeys start with the first step. You are not guaranteed ease or peace as the world understands it. You are guaranteed a Companion in the Way, a Comforter to guide, and a destination worthy of the effort - Life Eternal in the Love of the Trinity!

See, Anglicans are Catholic, Reformed, and Evangelical. We've got it all!