Why is Christianity always attacked?

[ticklingnemesis]

From Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code to James Cameron's The Lost Tomb of Jesus, it seems like Christianity is always taking a beating. Like everyone feels the need to prove it wrong or poke holes in its foundation. For example with the Lost Tomb of Jesus, Cameron basically wants to prove that Jesus never resurrected and never ascended into Heaven, which would destroy the very foundation of Christianity.

But how many people question Buddhism? Or Wicca? Compared to the great lengths people have questioned Christianity? Was Jesus real? Was Jesus married? Did Jesus resurrect?

Now every religion is not perfect. It's all based on faith. And as a Christian, I do not need these things proven in order to believe.

But in some ways this is good for Christians. It'll get us to read the Bible, to search our hearts and remember why we're Christians, to strengthen our faith.

[tickledgirl]

But how many people question Buddhism? Or Wicca? Compared to the great lengths people have questioned Christianity? Was Jesus real? Was Jesus married? Did Jesus resurrect?

Quite a few people have attacked Buddhism. Although it tends to happen more when there are more Buddhists around. So try looking at the (recent) history of Buddhism in Korea, or India.

As for attacking Wicca, did you miss the story about the Wiccan soldier who was killed in Iraq? His family wanted a Wiccan symbol (a pentacle?) on his grave stone. The VA has 38 different markers (http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp) (most for different branches of Christianity.) They've got markers for Christians (including different ones for Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episopals, Methodists, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu...they've even got a marker for Atheists. But nothing for Wiccans. His family is suing to get a grave marker that honors his beliefs. The VA is fighting them in court now.

[ChosenofMystra]

Plenty of people have attacked Wicca. I myself have been physically attacked for being a Wiccan.

But I do agree with you, the entire point of religion is to have faith in its doctrines. People should be allowed to believe and worship how they choose. You sound like an intelligent person Nemesis and I hope you haven't been personally attacked for your beliefs.

[LovesHeels]

I'm waiting for the person with the balls to make the film that challenges everything about Islam...

[tickledgirl]

I'm waiting for the person with the balls to make the film that challenges everything about Islam...

That'd be Submission (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7106648073888697427) by Theo van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)).

He was murdered by Islamic extremists.

[bugman]

I'm waiting for the person with the balls to make the film that challenges everything about Islam...

Their was also Salmon Rushdie (sorry if the spelling is not correct) who published a book about Islam,and lived or is still living under a death sentence ,and his book was a novel.

(And a stupid and silly one at that.)

[LovesHeels]

Maybe the reason Chrsitianity is always attacked is because everyone knows there'll be no violent reprisal from the Christian community.

Say something about bad Christianity = whatever it is you're selling (movie, book, whatever) will be very publicly boycotted and bashed by the Church, which just draws more attention to it, and most likely does more business for you in the long run

Say something bad about Islam = say your prayers, your days are numbered


Which would YOU rather attack?

[bugman]

Maybe the reason Chrsitianity is always attacked is because everyone knows there'll be no violent reprisal from the Christian community.

Say something about bad Christianity = whatever it is you're selling (movie, book, whatever) will be very publicly boycotted and bashed by the Church, which just draws more attention to it, and most likely does more business for you in the long run

Say something bad about Islam = say your prayers, your days are numbered


Which would YOU rather attack?

I wish that was true,but some so called *Christians* have bombed abortion clinics,or made threats against the doctors who work there.And in some cases have murdered these doctors.Fanatics come in all colors,and must be opposed by anyone who loves freedom.

[Xodlirv]

Fanatics come in all colors,and must be opposed by anyone who loves freedom.

Truer words were never said, my brother.

[ChosenofMystra]

These fanatics do not represent the whole of Islam, just as psychos like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not represent the whole of Christianity. There are nutcases in every religion as Bugman said, which is why I tend to look at religion objectively rather than focus on whats happening in the present by a select few individuals.

[bugman]

See also Fred Phelps and his merry little band.:xlime:

[Haltickling]

Because dogmatism of any kind always attracts criticism, particularly if it becomes some form of state policy. Luckily, we live in a society where such criticism is allowed, as long as it's non-violent.

[Mastertank1]

1) The most vocal and visible of those who set themselves up as the leaders and spokespersona of Christianity fall so incredibly, often disgustingly far short of the ideals that Christianity is supposed to stand for, and yet have so many followers of such unthinking, fanatical loyalty, that non Christians are terrified of the power these hypocrites wield and feel that their movement must be opposed by any means possible.

2) These same vocal, visible, hypocritical leaders are engaged in an openly avowed attempt to take control of the US government, with the openly avowed aim of using the coercive power of government to punish any person whose behavior varies from their narrow view of proper Christian behavior, regardless of what religion, or none, those being punished follow. That not only terrifies non-Christians, it scares the crap out of a lot of Christians I know.

I am quite serious in saying that I know a LOT of Christians who have stopped giving any visible support to their churches lest that support be mispercieved as support for people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, or the Catholic League For Decency (one of the most ironically mis-named organizations in history). These people also refrain from responding to attacks on Christianity, because they have faith that these attacks will not outright destroy their religion while hoping that the attacks WILL decrease the political power wielded by Christian extremists.

As for attacks on other religions; when was the last time a Wiccan burned a Christian at the stake? Of course, Christians have burned EACH OTHER at the stake fairly frequently, and not all that long ago. Usually for heresy.

Oh, and the official spokesman for that Catholic League for Decency ataacked Judaism and Jews YESTERDAY. Also, there are still saints on the official Roman Catholic roster of saints whose alleged martyrdom consisted of being bled to death by Jews who needed the blood of a Christian Virgin to make passover matzohs. That is called the blood libel, because it never, ever happened, anywhere, to anyone. The pope before last officially repudiated the blood libel, and yet there are still official saints who alleged died as a result of the blood libel.

Don't try to tell a Jew, a Wiccan, a Native Ameican Traditional Worshipper or a follower of Asatru that Christianity is the only religion attacked.
Lets also be aware that most attacks on Christianity are made BY CHRISTIANS. Dan Brown and James Cameron are not Jews, Moslems, Wiccans or Bhuddists, you know.

Jews in particular wouldn't dare attack Christianity. We're far too vulnerable, even here in the USA. Of course, even when attacks on Christianity come from Christians, the 'defenders' of Christianity still blame it on Jews. That's what the Catholic League For Decency spokesman was ranting about yesterday; blaming Jews for James Cameron.

Makes me wonder; if these Uber Christians got their wish, and suddenly there were no more Jews on Earth, who would they blame then?

[bugman]

See also the quote in my signature picture by H.L. Mencken.

[wendynpeter]

Read "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," both by Sam Harris.

The problem with any religion (be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc...) that finds its core in scripture that claims to be the true word of God is what fundamentalists (that is to say, those who really, truly, deeply believe) do with it. Which, inevitably, is to cause far, far, far more suffering and misery than good. This is an absolutely undeniable truth about religion. Christianity gets its share of criticism right along with the rest.

[GodlessTickler]

These are all good points, and I think they are valid, but to me the reasons that Christianity is attacked (and judging by your examples you are talking about attacks in the form of criticism, rather than religious prejudice) more often is really simple. The kind of people who ultimately are going to criticize religion are often (though not always) those raised in free societies and allowed to think for themselves. A lot of middle eastern countries for example you are simply not allowed to openly criticize the dominant religion of the region. And then for those people who are allowed to think for themselves... Christianity is the big one in town. I mean sure there are other religions, but very often those people were raised in at least a Christian environment, if not a Christian home... it is Christians they deal with on a day to day basis, it is Christians who are trying to wield enormous influence over their governments to further there religious beliefs. I think in short that is why. I may not have said it perfectly... also when your talking about Cameron, or the Da Vinci Code... there AUDIANCE is more Christian. I mean sure they could chose one of the tiny tribal African religion and attack the foundation of their beliefs, but what kind of change is that going to make in their world. The African tribe probably wont see it... and the majority of the religious will not see that their beliefs are just as far fetched. I think particularly American's and Europeans who are concerned with religion, may be concerned with all religion, but they realize they are going to reach the most people be discussing Christianity. The one they, and their audience understands. Now a lot of atheist thinkers do deal with ALL religion, and there are plenty of cases of dealing with other specific religions, but again in American and Europe when you go up against Christianity that's when your going to get the attention. That's a little simplistic I admit, but I think it helps answer the question.

[kurchatovium]

Ok let me say a few simple words.

I believe in God. I believe in Jesus and accept him as my Lord and Savior. I know personally he has saved my life on several occasions. I could give a crap about any special Mr Cameron has now or makes in the future. Faith is something you feel its not proven in the lab anymore then you can prove you love someone. Also I find it amazing that no one ever mentions the good things Christians do everywhere, everyday to help others. There are many that stand out like Mother Thersea or Pope John Paul II. The Salvation Army also comes to mind and does countless good. There are however many that will always remain unknown cause they want to do good and not seek fame or money like Mr Cameron. Christians are far from perfect and that is simply bacause we all fall short of the glory that is God. The point is for the most part we try. Try to be a bit better than we were before. Try to help a few more people then maybe we did last year. We all Masterpieces of art I think but God has left the last few brushstrokes for ourselves. Ok back to the bunnies for me. :D

[Iggy pop]

Maybe it is just me, but I do not see Christianity as always under attack.

[nowayjose]

Because it's been attacking us for hundreds of years. Time for paying back.
Because it's stupid nonsense.

[german]

"us" meaning who exactly???

Priest

[NavelTickler75]

Ok let me say a few simple words.

I believe in God. I believe in Jesus and accept him as my Lord and Savior. I know personally he has saved my life on several occasions. I could give a crap about any special Mr Cameron has now or makes in the future. Faith is something you feel its not proven in the lab anymore then you can prove you love someone. Also I find it amazing that no one ever mentions the good things Christians do everywhere, everyday to help others. There are many that stand out like Mother Thersea or Pope John Paul II. The Salvation Army also comes to mind and does countless good. There are however many that will always remain unknown cause they want to good not seek fame or money like Mr Cameron. Christians are far from perfect and that is simply bacause we all fall short of the glory that is God. The point is for the most part we try. Try to be a bit better than we were before. Try to help a few more people then maybe we did last year. We all Masterpieces of art I think but God has left the last few brushstrokes for ourselves. Ok back to the bunnies for me. :D

I totally agree with this statement.
Secondly, one of the reasons' Christians and most importaly all religions are attacked is because technically most of us do not completely follow the norms of the world. As Jesus said, His Church would not part of the world, and thus there would be bitterness about that.

[Amnesiac]

Christianity is a driving force in the history of the Western world, and that impact has been downright atrocious over the millennia. Despite how thoroughly it has shaped our values, these long-past experiences with it are the cause for it being attacked.

In it's 1700+ years of organized existence, Christianity has racked up a lot of notches on the Human Rights Abuses list, and the modern world has inherited the fallout from these offenses. This is at the core of why Christianity is attacked so openly.

Humans need validation and certainty to act on anything; when these are present, a human can be willing to act in spite of mortal danger for a cause. The more immutable the authority, the more solid their devotion. And because the nature of God is such that His character can never be brought into question, His authority is absolute, and those who are obedient to his dictates have absolute conviction. Therefore, many of them are capable and willing to act according to His demands without resistance. Dictators and military leaders have long understood the practical value of this kind of mindset, and often attempt to copy it themselves.

Armed with the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, and the final true word of God finally given to the right people, the Christians (unlike their Hebrew counterparts) were determined to bring this truth to the rest of the world...partially out of altruism (people like to share good things with others), and partially because God said to do so. The world was made up of various beliefs, and these people were as devout to their gods as the Christians were to Jesus. When conversions wouldn't come voluntarily, Christian leaders decided to implant their teachings by force...you see this kind of mindset in parenting: "It's for your own good". If the people were forced to follow the "True" faith, they would be saved and therefpre grateful in the end. And God would be happy...that seems to be the important thing.

Over time, Christians took control of local governments and ran a very sizable empire. But their belief in the righteousness of their cause led them to grow indifferent at best, hostile at worst, to anyone different than them. They were also afraid that outside ideas would contaminate the purity of the dogma that standardized proper worship. Righteousness and conviction breed elitism, and elitism combined with power often leads to what we would now call fascism. With paranoia and divergent religious bureaucracy running rampant throughout Europe, governments all over the place instituted rigid and violent suppressions on the various peoples...once again for their own good. It was also conveniently beneficial to religious AND royal leaders.

Put all this together with aristocratic heirarchies in a feudal system and you have an untouchable leadership with complete power over the people, with the will to invade their lives and an excuse to do what they please. And over the course of centuries, Christianity (as a whole) was complicit in suppression, repression, censorship, torture, slavery, and even genocide as a means to preserve it's insular world view. After a few more centuries of this, the people occupying the peasant class (which eventually made up the population of the future United States) became quite familiar about the kind of behavior they could expect from leaderships and governments allied with absolutist righteousness-based religions.

As events go, you have the various Inqusitions (although details about them have been embellished by Protestant activists), the Irish Laundries, Nazi collaboration/indifference during WWII, and the recent pedophile-priest cover ups, Christianity has been directly involved in many abuses of human rights; yet this paragon of virtue that champions the "punishment of the wicked" has evaded responsibility for it's cruelty; try to bring the nuns of the Irish Laundries to trial for Crimes Against Humanity, and the Catholic Church will probably not even give you their names. Apparently, the religion believes that because it follows a divine and righteous cause, any wrongdoing is the fault of corrupt people and the religion itself blameless.

Then you have the cumulative effects of their influence. There's no telling how much history has been altered by Christian scholars (William of Tyre to name one of the most aggregious offenders) for the sake of preserving a pure Christian image. The attacks on new ideas that bring doubt to the absoluteness of Christian history have probably set back the course of human progress thousands of years. And its violent psychological, sexual, and emotional reprisals on homosexuals, foreign nationalities, eccentrics, and especially women have probably led to more dysfunction in our society than we are even aware.

It's particularly trendy to attack Christians now because the current politcal climate has shown that this tendency of Christians to pursue power over others out of righteous conviction is still alive. Consider the growth of revivalist fundamentalism, the ties this movement has towards nationalism, and the indifference of this mindset to ponder the validity of any viewpoint other than their own, and it reminds many of us that old phrase: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" and how the practices of the old will come back if they aren't restrained.

It was hard enough the first time for people to break free of the restrictive environment. If the old system came back with 21st Century technology, there won't be a second time. We've learned from experience that Christianity (and Islam) is willing to commit sanctioned forms of cruelty against humanity as long as it enforces obedience to God's law, and if you give either one an inch, they'll hang you with it.

That is why we attack it...because we know better than to trust it.

[german]

I have read an "us"...now I just read a "we"...who are we referring to??

Priest

[Redmage]

But how many people question Buddhism? Or Wicca? Compared to the great lengths people have questioned Christianity? Was Jesus real? Was Jesus married? Did Jesus resurrect?Go into any Christian bookstore and ask to see their section on Satanism and cults. You'll find whole shelves full of books attacking Wicca, Buddhism, Islam - any religion that is NOT Christian (and some that are, if the author doesn't think they're the right flavor of Christian).

It's not as important socially because those religions aren't as important socially, in the US. Most people haven't even heard of Wicca, let alone bothered to attack it.

Everyone has heard of Christianity. It's a social institution. And every social institution comes under scrutiny and even attack. And anything about Christianity - pro or con - sells books. So authors go where the money is, and the more sensational it sounds the better.

It's not any great anti-Christian conspiracy. It's exactly how you'd expect an important social institution to be treated in a society where people can read and write whatever they want to.

[Amnesiac]

I have read an "us"...now I just read a "we"...who are we referring to??
- german

Sorry...pronoun trouble.

Loosely speaking, I'd say the "us" and "we" I used refers to more secularly-minded people, to which I belong. This doesn't necessarily mean purely atheist or non-spiritual people...just ones with more worldy concerns and/or a criticism of the religion in question. If it had been a pro-Christian post, the "us" and "we" would imply a Christian body/poster.

It can easily be confused as hypocrisy: how can you attack Christianity for having an "us v. them" outlook when you yourself use "us vs. them"? It's not a mission statement...it's just lazy use of pronouns.

[drew70]

There can only be one reason. The Truth hurts. That's why it's constantly attacked.

[Iggy pop]

There can only be one reason. The Truth hurts. That's why it's constantly attacked.

So is this the reason why many Christians attack other religions?

[wendynpeter]

There can only be one reason. The Truth hurts. That's why it's constantly attacked.

And the "Truth" is -- exactly what?

(Be prepared all, here we go.)

[areenactor]

i was going to back you up, till you started on movies. davinci code, was a great book, and ok movie. but any christian that felt attacked is too sensitive!
and what the heck would be wrong with finding jesus's tomb??? geez, then all the christians could say "see he was real"!
if you want to complain how the liberals, the aclu, etc are always attacking, and defaming you guys, hey i'm right there with you! i may be jewish, but i know what's right. things like a cresh/nativity sceen at christmas time; liberal media making fun of devout church goers, and religous based pro-life groups, those are real problems. ones you have a right to resent.
but bring in movies, and you loose credibility.

[GodlessTickler]

There can only be one reason. The Truth hurts. That's why it's constantly attacked.
With all do respect drew... you don't really believe that the reason that people like myself question Christianity is because we somehow know it's true and don't like it's dictates do you? I mean that is typically sort of what I see "the truth hurts" kind of statement as meaning. I mean we all know it's not some kind of objective truth, by it's definition it requires a "leap of faith" so to speak. Just typically, and maybe this isn't what you meant, when someone says something like you said, it is in reference to some obvious an objective fact that reasonable people can't really disagree about... now even the most devout Christian shouldn't believe that Christianity is likewise obvious or beyond the debate of reasonable people. Maybe you just meant it in another way... I'm not sure. I mean it's one thing to think your right and I'm wrong... but to just ignore the idea that people have LEGITIMATE questions about Christianity, or that people just think it's downright wrong, with a dismissive comment like the "truth huts" just seems... dismissive, unfair and altogether unreasonable.

[NavelTickler75]

i was going to back you up, till you started on movies. davinci code, was a great book, and ok movie. but any christian that felt attacked is too sensitive!
and what the heck would be wrong with finding jesus's tomb??? geez, then all the christians could say "see he was real"!
if you want to complain how the liberals, the aclu, etc are always attacking, and defaming you guys, hey i'm right there with you! i may be jewish, but i know what's right. things like a cresh/nativity sceen at christmas time; liberal media making fun of devout church goers, and religous based pro-life groups, those are real problems. ones you have a right to resent.
but bring in movies, and you loose credibility.

Why are religious based pro-life groups a problem? The Church IS a religious based pro-life group as a major player.

Secondly, if we do not protest many of the smaller thing, people get the idea to go that route. It sticks, becomes mainstream, and once we open that trickle of ideas, we then start to see the flood.

[wendynpeter]

now even the most devout Christian shouldn't believe that Christianity is likewise obvious or beyond the debate of reasonable people.
You are kidding, right? The bottom line for any person who belives (regardless of the religion) is that the document which sets forth the dogma says it's true, period. That is the foundation of faith. Belief unjustified by any evidence whatsoever -- in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

[tickledgirl]

You are kidding, right? The bottom line for any person who belives (regardless of the religion) is that the document which sets forth the dogma says it's true, period. That is the foundation of faith. Belief unjustified by any evidence whatsoever -- in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Belief isn't "in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary." AFAIK, there isn't any conclusive evidence that God does not exist.

Belief isn't the team opposing reason. It's on a different playing field.

Moreover, if you think people of faith don't debate their faith, then let me introduce you to any Talmud study group. Heck, let me introduce you to the newspaper, where you can read about Episcopals debating whether gays should be priests.

[wendynpeter]

Belief isn't "in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary." AFAIK, there isn't any conclusive evidence that God does not exist.


I'm not talking about evidence about whether God exists. That's another conversation entirely. I'm talking about evidence concerning the truth of scripture, and the attributes assigned to God by scripture. Faith that some God, in some form, exists is one thing. Faith that what a book says is the absolute truth and the word of God is quite another.

In terms of debating one's faith, there's debating interpretations of passages (scholarship) and there's debating the veracity of one's religious beliefs altogether. I'm saying that there is no good evidence for believing any scripture is the true word of God, or even the inspired word of God, etc... in fact, quite the opposite.

[GodlessTickler]

I wasn't kidding or trying to be a smart aleck... it is that assertion that it is based on faith... even someone who believes it about should KNOW that it requires faith... and as such is not obvious like empirical evidence. That is all I meant, and ok, perhaps talking about the "most devout" is bringing us into fanatics and that wasn't really who I meant, but I do not believe that all or even most religious people are so utterly blinded by their faith that they can not see WHY anyone would question it. Sure we can get into the semantic arguments about what "real belief" in religion is, and how fanatics are more logically congruent than moderates (yes, I've read Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and so forth as well) but I hold out a degree of hope... hope that not everyone who has faith is essential made into a complete slave by it and can see it for what it is, something that they CHOSE to believe. They won't always admit it this way, but I think the majority (not all) of intelligent, educated people know that on some level. Perhaps I am wrong... but it's one thing to say that logically from this kind of belief comes this... but there is the reality, and the reality is that there are different levels of belief, and different kinds of faith. This isn't really a logical argument... its just something from my experience, I know people who are very devout, who believe deeply, but don't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. Now again maybe I said the wrong thing with "most devout" but I just try despite the temptation to not lump all the religious in with the fanatics... sure there support of faith in place of reason SUPPORTS the fanatics, and that is enough of a reason fro me to challenge them, but I think they are a fundamentally different entity. Perhaps I'm just too generous. (I know where your coming from so I hope this makes sense)

TG;
Belief isn't the team opposing reason. It's on a different playing field.
Maybe belief isn't, but I think faith very well may be. Especially when faith leaves the realm of "I think this is true" to "I know this to be true". When people begin using their "knowledge" that comes from faith as if it has objective value then I feel it is in direct opposition to reason. It seems to me we can know things because of a rational, reasonable examination of the evidence, or we can just know anything because we chose to believe it really hard, it doesn't seem as if the two co-exist very well. Because IF faith is allowed to be a substitute for logic and reason then logic and reason lose much of their value. For an easy example... we KNOW through logic and reason that people can not walk on water (I'm not talking about ice, or skis I'm talking about real miraculous walking on water) but lots of people BELIEVE that at least one person could for no better reason than that they chose to believe that. Now if that's an acceptable belief there shouldn't be anything to stop someone from BELEIVING that they are one with god, trusting god, and stepping off a cruise ship in the middle of the Atlantic. The fact of the matter is... they will likely die. Faith inside your own head is one thing, substituting it for reason is another and unchecked does lead to fanaticism. I think it depends somewhat on the 'kind' of faith and how you use it.

[hivoltage]

People often consider Judaism to be an ethnicity rather than a religion, but the fact is that nearly all religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) stopped being "religions" years ago (when they were founded).

Now they are "nationalities" that you can draw on a map.

http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/socst/grade3/geoimages/Image12.gif

For example, take a look at Shiites and Sunnis. Hardly any "chose" their "sect", but many will die for it, as if they had sat down for years and decided "I want to be a Shiite - a faith worth dying for".

Maybe if people were more flexible about their "faiths" (and people generally are NOT), there would be far less animosity. I mean it's just not that difficult to find a war between groups of different faiths, especially over the centuries - even though many "faiths" are separated by hundreds or thousands of miles.

[wendynpeter]

Many folks are making the same argument, so I'll respond generally. As a believer gets more "devout," that believer gets more, not less, conservative with interpretation of scripture. That is, the person approaches fundamentalism. To cast fundamentalism as "radicalism" simply undermines any justification of one's own faith. Fundamentalism is the rejection of the notion that one can "cherry-pick" through the Bible or the Koran and choose what to believe and what not to believe, based on what's convenient. The fact is that once a person rejects any one part of the Bible, that person leaves himself with no grounds for insisting that any of the remainder is the "real" truth.

It is very true that when it comes to religion, most people's beliefs are not even internally coherent. But that doesn't give anyone license to call someone else a "fanatic." At the end of the day, the more of a "believer" one is, the closer to fundamentalism one gets.

But that doesn't let the less devout off the hook. It makes little sense for a moderate to call others "fanatics," when it is the moderates themselves who are in most cases the enablers of fundamentalist terror.

[ticklingnemesis]

i was going to back you up, till you started on movies. davinci code, was a great book, and ok movie. but any christian that felt attacked is too sensitive!
and what the heck would be wrong with finding jesus's tomb??? geez, then all the christians could say "see he was real"!
if you want to complain how the liberals, the aclu, etc are always attacking, and defaming you guys, hey i'm right there with you! i may be jewish, but i know what's right. things like a cresh/nativity sceen at christmas time; liberal media making fun of devout church goers, and religous based pro-life groups, those are real problems. ones you have a right to resent.
but bring in movies, and you loose credibility.
So if I had left the movies out, you would have agreed with me. I used those as examples. And I agree, I read the Da Vinci Code, thought it was good too.
As for what's wrong with finding Jesus's tomb is, like I said, shakes the very foundation of Christianity. Christianity is split when it comes to how Jesus resurrected and how he ascended.

If it were the actual tomb, it would show that Jesus was indeed married and had a family (a son and not the daughter that some believed Jesus and Mary Magdalene had), it would question if Jesus was crucified. If He wasn't, then Christianity is shot straight to hell.

To continue the questions: believing He was crucified and rose again three days later, did His Earthly body ascend to Heaven or just His soul? It wouldn't destroy Christianity, but it does shake it. Some Christians believe His Earthly body ascended to Heaven, and others believe just His soul. So finding the tomb would prove it was just His soul.

And I'll say it again: I do not need anything proven in order to believe.
I just felt like it is always attacked, always questioned. Like people are determined to destroy it just because they don't like it or don't agree with it.

I know Christianity has bloody past. Most religions do because of fanatics who believe it's the only truth. I'll probably be attacked for this, but I believe Christianity is the Truth. However, I'm not going to force anyone to convert to Christianity. Jesus told His disciples to go to every nation and spread the good news. He didn't say force these nations to believe. That goes against our free will. God wants us to come to him because we want to, not because we have to.

[magic fingers]

These fanatics do not represent the whole of Islam, just as psychos like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not represent the whole of Christianity. There are nutcases in every religion as Bugman said, which is why I tend to look at religion objectively rather than focus on whats happening in the present by a select few individuals.


I don't think it's accurate to compare Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell with Islamic terrorists. Robertson & Falwell might be intolerant, but they're not advocating terrorism, and mass murder. Islamic terrorists are 100 times more dangerous than Christian Fundamentalists

[wendynpeter]

I know Christianity has bloody past. Most religions do because of fanatics who believe it's the only truth. I'll probably be attacked for this, but I believe Christianity is the Truth.

So that makes you a fanatic. Right?

[wendynpeter]

I don't think it's accurate to compare Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell with Islamic terrorists. Robertson & Falwell might be intolerant, but they're not advocating terrorism, and mass murder. Islamic terrorists are 100 times more dangerous than Christian Fundamentalists

Think about Robertson's and Falwell's explainations of why the tsunami happened or why hurricane Katrina happened. Falwell and Robertson may not be mass murderers, but they certainly believe God is one.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that they are any less dangerous in and of themselves. Were America a theocracy and Americans all raving Christian fundamentalists, they would do things just as horrible.

[ticklingnemesis]

So that makes you a fanatic. Right?
Okay, I worded that wrong. Fanatics who believe its the only truth and everyone else has to believe it too, whether the people want to or not, disregarding God's Will.
Okay that's not sounding right. I don't know how else to word this.
I'm not a fanatic despite believing God's Word is the Truth. I won't kill someone because they don't believe that. I won't force someone to believe. But I will die for my belief because I won't forsake what I believe.

[wendynpeter]

Okay, I worded that wrong. Fanatics who believe its the only truth and everyone else has to believe it too, whether the people want to or not, disregarding God's Will.
Okay that's not sounding right. I don't know how else to word this.
I'm not a fanatic despite believing God's Word is the Truth. I won't kill someone because they don't believe that. I won't force someone to believe. But I will die for my belief because I won't forsake what I believe.

You won't force someone to believe. Will you let someone suffer and die a horrible death because of what you believe about God's will?

[ChosenofMystra]

Robertson & Falwell might be intolerant, but they're not advocating terrorism, and mass murder.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5755

There's your advocate for political assassination.

[magic fingers]

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=5755

There's your advocate for political assassination.


And exactly how many assasination attempts have their been on Chavez? Has the U.S. Gov't., or any of Falwell/Robertson's "dangerous" followers attempted to assasinate Hugo? When Falwell and Robertson's followers become suicide bombers, and start flying planes into buildings, then I'll consider Christian fundamentalists as dangerous as Islamic terrorists.
BTW, I tried to post a link that detailed how Chavez supports Islamic terrorism, but for some reason, I couldn't post it.

[magic fingers]

Think about Robertson's and Falwell's explainations of why the tsunami happened or why hurricane Katrina happened. Falwell and Robertson may not be mass murderers, but they certainly believe God is one.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that they are any less dangerous in and of themselves. Were America a theocracy and Americans all raving Christian fundamentalists, they would do things just as horrible.

How do you know that? You can't prove that. Are Robertson's & Falwell's followers flying planes into buildings? How many hard core Christians are strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up in crowded shopping centers? (And please don't mention Timothy McVeigh. He was one nut job working alone. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are worldwide networks, supported and funded by governments, and millionaires all over the world) And Robertson/Falwell's explanation of the tsunami & hurricane Katrina might make them crazy, but tell me how many people have been murdered, because of that explanation? When is the left going to stop being so PC, and realize that while not all muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are muslims?

[NavelTickler75]

Okay, I worded that wrong. Fanatics who believe its the only truth and everyone else has to believe it too, whether the people want to or not, disregarding God's Will.
Okay that's not sounding right. I don't know how else to word this.
I'm not a fanatic despite believing God's Word is the Truth. I won't kill someone because they don't believe that. I won't force someone to believe. But I will die for my belief because I won't forsake what I believe.

Let me try.

Fanatics are people who are shown where even their faith and religion contradicts their actions, such as forcing people to become one of them, or killing those who are not, but continue to remain murderers and tyrants.

Like you ticklingnemesis I believe the Church is the truth. The one Truth the Only Truth, BUT there is certain glimpses of that same truth in every religion. A doorway if you will a crawlspace where if one were to peak through their faith they'd see the Christian faith.

This is why we should not force people to convert, or kill those differently than us. And those who do are fanatics

[korovan]

Christian fundies may not be flying planes into building...

But they ARE constantly trying to occupy and control certain buildings: courthouses, city councils, governors' mansions, state legislatures, the Capitol Building, and the White House, too mention only a few...

THAT is why so many American non-Christians and moderate Christians fear the Christian Right (or the Christian Reich, as some call it...) and attack it and its agenda wherever they can. We (the pronoun should be obvious even to the dullest) don't want to be RULED by them, and have the laws of our nation re-written to suit the dogma of a faith (or faith-version) that we do not follow or believe in. We want to be left alone.

And that, really, is why Islam and Christianity have been duking it out in one way or another pretty much continuously for the last 1.400 years or so... because both faiths appear to contain in their deepest nature a kind of "viral imperative" that commands the faithful to convert the rest of humanity: willing or not. Neither faith, at the end of the day can stand to mind its own spiritual business and let others do the same.

My 2 cents.

[Mastertank1]

It's called MacDonough's Song, and it's about the proper response of a free people to fanatacism of any stripe; and, IMO, any attempt to take over government and use it's coercive power to enforce the tenets of any religion is fanatacism, and that is EXACTLY what the Christian Right is engaged in right now.

MacDonough's Song
by Rudyard Kipling

WHETHER the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth—
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.

Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again!

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote—
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again!

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King—
Or Holy People’s Will—
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!

Saying—after—me:—

Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again!

As so often when I read what he really said, I find myself in total agreement with Kipling's sentiments.

On a personal note; it is not only Christian fundies I object to. I am not now a resident and citizen of Israel because the Israeli constitution grants entirely too much power and authority to the farthest right wing sects among Judaism, know as the Orthodox and the Ultra-Orthodox.

(So, if an Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi has a mistress, is she his Ortho-Doxy? Sorry. Couldn't resist. God will PUNish me.)

[wendynpeter]

How do you know that? You can't prove that. Are Robertson's & Falwell's followers flying planes into buildings? How many hard core Christians are strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up in crowded shopping centers? (And please don't mention Timothy McVeigh. He was one nut job working alone. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are worldwide networks, supported and funded by governments, and millionaires all over the world) And Robertson/Falwell's explanation of the tsunami & hurricane Katrina might make them crazy, but tell me how many people have been murdered, because of that explanation? When is the left going to stop being so PC, and realize that while not all muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are muslims?

I agree. Christians are not flying planes into buildings. Here's what they are doing:

- Seriously impeding progress on stem cell research while millions of people all over the world suffer.

- Preventing proper sex education and the use of condoms in Africa while millions die of AIDS.

Shall I go on? Yes, it's true that Islam is a particularly violent social organization and is a major, and growing, problem. But that doesn't mean Christianity is benign. It most certainly does not provide the answer to the problem of Islam. Anywhere you find dogma, be it religious or political or any other type, you will find those who would die for it. But worse, you will find people who don't mind if others die for their beliefs, either. Those people are very, very dangerous. And they absolutely should not be tolerated.

[GodlessTickler]

I am pretty much in agreement with what WendynPeter said, but I just want to add something. When talking about Christian extremists vs. Islamic extremists... it is as WnP said, about dogma. Dogma, is an very dangerous thing. The idea that Christians are not typically as violent (at this particular point in time) as the Islamic extremists does little to ease my mind, and I don't think it should ease yours either. These people (the Christian Fundamentalists) are trying to force EVERYONE into personal, intellectual, and spiritual slavery. Some people act as if that is not as bad as killing because they aren't as successful, where as killing is successful in taking life if nothing else... but make no mistake, those who would kill you are not worse than those who would enslave your mind. It is nothing more in my mind than an attempt to separate yourself form the "bad guys". People who believe in dogma, and want to force it on other people... they are the bad guys... just because they act more like you, just because they use the political channels your used to, to promote their agenda, make no mistake there agenda is no less oppressive. No less damaging. In my view no less evil. The dogma, is the cancer, to act as if they are different because there means are different, is to miss the point... and leave yourself open to disaster.

[ChosenofMystra]

I am pretty much in agreement with what WendynPeter said, but I just want to add something. When talking about Christian extremists vs. Islamic extremists... it is as WnP said, about dogma. Dogma, is an very dangerous thing. The idea that Christians are not typically as violent (at this particular point in time) as the Islamic extremists does little to ease my mind, and I don't think it should ease yours either. These people (the Christian Fundamentalists) are trying to force EVERYONE into personal, intellectual, and spiritual slavery. Some people act as if that is not as bad as killing because they aren't as successful, where as killing is successful in taking life if nothing else... but make no mistake, those who would kill you are not worse than those who would enslave your mind. It is nothing more in my mind than an attempt to separate yourself form the "bad guys". People who believe in dogma, and want to force it on other people... they are the bad guys... just because they act more like you, just because they use the political channels your used to, to promote their agenda, make no mistake there agenda is no less oppressive. No less damaging. In my view no less evil. The dogma, is the cancer, to act as if they are different because there means are different, is to miss the point... and leave yourself open to disaster.

Godless, you hit the nail exactly on the head. Wonderful post that sums up what I wanted to say much better than I could ever hope to articulate.

[NavelTickler75]

I am pretty much in agreement with what WendynPeter said, but I just want to add something. When talking about Christian extremists vs. Islamic extremists... it is as WnP said, about dogma. Dogma, is an very dangerous thing. The idea that Christians are not typically as violent (at this particular point in time) as the Islamic extremists does little to ease my mind, and I don't think it should ease yours either. These people (the Christian Fundamentalists) are trying to force EVERYONE into personal, intellectual, and spiritual slavery. Some people act as if that is not as bad as killing because they aren't as successful, where as killing is successful in taking life if nothing else... but make no mistake, those who would kill you are not worse than those who would enslave your mind. It is nothing more in my mind than an attempt to separate yourself form the "bad guys". People who believe in dogma, and want to force it on other people... they are the bad guys... just because they act more like you, just because they use the political channels your used to, to promote their agenda, make no mistake there agenda is no less oppressive. No less damaging. In my view no less evil. The dogma, is the cancer, to act as if they are different because there means are different, is to miss the point... and leave yourself open to disaster.

So because people like myself believe in dogma, we are evil?

[GodlessTickler]

It's not as much about the person... as the thing they are doing. It is a combination of 2 factors that I believe make it evil... the belief in dogma, AND the desire or attempt to force it on others or force others to live by it's tenants. It is one thing to believe that your faith is right... it is another thing ENTIERLY to use try to force it on others. It can be by flying planes into buildings, or by trying to turn a democracy into a theocracy... but at the end of the day a use of some kind of power to force other people to follow or at least obey your dogma is (and this is admittedly my PERSONAL opinion) a VERY evil thing. Now good people may do evil things... so I am not going to get into the question of "are you evil" but if those are your aims (and I am not saying they are) then those aims are evil, from my judgment. Dogma is a dangerous thing... and I think dogma is bad for society and bad for freedom, and bad for the pursuit of knowledge, but in my view it requires action behind it to become evil.

I would also point out that in the case of religion people tend not to be being intentionally evil. Because of the nature of dogma they honestly THINK they are doing good. It's like a quote from Steven Weinberg
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Now that may not be entirely true, there might be other ways to get good people to do evil things, but religion is certainly ONE way to get good people to do evil things. So do I think ALL people who believe in dogma are evil people, no, but I think the nature of dogma often makes them do evil things.

[Redmage]

And exactly how many assasination attempts have their been on Chavez?What you said was that Falwell was not "advocating terrorism." That is clearly untrue - he has advocated it on the public record. The actions of the US government in carrying out his demands are neither here nor there.

How many hard core Christians are strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up in crowded shopping centers?They bomb abortion clinics, gay night clubs, and the Olympics, and shoot doctors instead. Does the choice of targets make them better?

And please don't mention Timothy McVeigh. He was one nut job working alone.So? The debate is about doctrine, not organization.

When is the left going to stop being so PC, and realize that while not all muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are muslims?Probably sometime after that actually turns out to be true. Or have you forgotten that bombs planted in London by Muslims are actually a recent development? Remember the Irish Republican Army?

[asutickler]

There are nut jobs in every religion. Since there are an awful lot of Christians in America, there are also an awful lot of Christian nut cases. These people are usually very loud, and love to seek out attention... Attention that the American media is happy to provide to them.

You don't see a whole lot of media coverage about things like the Salvation Army providing food to the poor, but they'll jump right up to cover jerks like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. The media's constant coverage of the various asshats of Christianity has led many people to think that they represent the majority of Christians... Just like their constant coverage of al-Quaida and their ilk has led a similar segment of people to think that most Moslems are terrorists. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who will believe whatever they see on their television, particularly if it reinforces their own personal prejudices.

[AGThePoet]

heres my thoughts on why Christianity is attacked:

From a secular perspective:
1. First and foremost, it says that you can't lie, steal, have sex, etc. And people dont like being told what to do. This leads to bitterness.

2. Christians that don't follow Christianity. Such as bombing abortion clinics, the Inquisition, etc. The Bible asks "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?", which basically means that we need to focus on our own behavior and not that of others (though it also mentions to reprimand your brother with love if he starts down the wrong path - this means a discussion, not violence). I will admit that "Christians" have done horrible things - but thats the failing of a Christian, not the failing of Christianity. But we all know humans aren't perfect, religion or not.

3. Especially in America, there is a growing movement of self-worth, self-preservation. Basically, relying on oneself for everything, and seeking everything for oneself. This of course runs in direct opposition to the teachings of Christianity, and therefore a choice has to be made. O think we all know what the general choice has been ;)

From a Christian perspective:
1. America is falling into sin, and its a very slippery slope. Without getting into a sermon, every form of sin is becoming more common in society. Society tributes this to lack of parenting, MTV, etc. Christianity blames it on human weakness, and the actions of Satan.

2. Matthew 10:34-36 records Jesus saying the following:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw — a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

This isn't meant to be so much actual in-family fighting (though it does include that), but moreso that of friction with the surrounding society. After all, a proclamation that THIS religion is the only way, and that if you do not follow it you are doomed to Hell, forces a decision. And if you choose to not believe, then the only other option is active rejection.

3. The Bible says that everyone can sense God through their own consciousness. This isn't to be confused with the 70's movement of "we are God", but merely an inborn sense of a deity. In the same line of thinking as #2, if people feel there may be a God, then they are forced to consider their choices and lifestyles. Most people won't admit there is a God, and then intentionally not follow him, so the answer to not following God is to deny him. There may be some truth to the old saying that "Those who shout the loudest are only trying to convince themselves."



You can take what you would like out of these perspectives - I'm only 18, I don't have it all figured out yet either :P But the question everyone needs to ask themselves is pretty simple: Do you believe there is no God because of logical/theological arguments, or because you don't want to have to live your life in submission to him?

Food for thought :)
-Alex

[GodlessTickler]

Alex;
I think that's an interesting perspective... but I don't think that the majority of non-believers (at least the one's I know) don't believe because they really believe but they don't want to do what god says... I think this is a common misconception... I think we REALLY don't believe. I think we really think there isn't ANY good evidence supporting god, and ANY logically strong argument that can be made about god is about an abstract kind of god and not the specific god of some religion. Also IF we have an inborn sense of god (and that is far from certain) it is again that kind of abstract god that we don't know anything about, SOMETHING bigger than us, not a Christian god. That's a common mistake, even if I were to admit there was a god there is no reason for me to "follow him" in a Christian sense unless I admit there is a god AND accept that a lot of other things are true as well (that in my view are even more preposterous than the possibility of god... Just because I admit there might be a supreme being doesn't cause me to believe that an all powerful super being considers what I do in my bedroom one of his primary concerns for example). The assertion that even if a proof of god existed that it would give much validity to organized religion is a common misconception, but I think it is a misconception.

[AGThePoet]

Youv'e got some good points there - just proving the supernatural, or a theological argument, would only prove the existance of "the supernatural", perhaps even a god, even if it isnt the Christian one. In that argument, I agree with you.

However, Christianity can be proven (or at least give enough proof to deserve some thought) historically, through the events described in the bible. The Bible isn't just a book that describes God - it also follows the lives of a great many people, all of whom existed in history (according to the Bible). On that note, you could easily prove Christianity false, if proof was brought about that the Bible was inaccurate in it's record of history.

An especially interesting application of this line of thought is the prophecies that Christ fulfilled in his life. All of these prophecies were recorded hundreds or thousands of years before Christ (archeological evidence shows that), and scripture later shows how Jesus fulfilled them all. Granted, there are a few ways to prove it false:

1. Prove that Jesus didn't fulfill all the prohecies, as his life was described in the Bible (i.e., he wasn't born in Bethlehem.) This would prove a theological fault, and would disprove the faith. For a quick look at Old Testament prophecy (I just googled this), check here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html. Keep in mind that there are many of these that Jesus could not have possibly tried to fulfill himself (time and place of birth, etc).

2. Prove that the prophecies were written about Jesus, after his life. This would be hard, considering all the manuscript evidence we already have to show when each part of the Bible was written, who it was written by, etc.

3. Assume that the prophocies were just someone putting down random guesses, hoping to make a religion out of it (no divine guidance). This is a pretty sad outlook. For starters, a fake prophet wouldn't put in things as specific as a time and place of birth, method of death, etc. Notice how vague Nostradamus' claims are. Secondly, if the prophets (there were several predicting the characteristics of the Messiah) had just made lucky guesses, how would you possibly explain that Jesus happened to fit every single one of them? This is beyond any logical assumptions.

4. Prove that the authors of the Bible penned Jesus' life in a way to fulfill the prophecies (in short: they lied). This is open for anyone to explore. However, it is iimportant to note that the 4 people who wrote the most about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) faced intense persecution for their beliefs. Eleven out of the twelve original disciples were all murdered. Would you preach a new religion you knew was false when you were beaten and imprisoned dozens of times for it? There are further logical arguments that follow that line of thinking if you would like to hear them, but for now I gotta get to bed :)

The prophocies of the Messiah are just one line of archeological/theological arguments for Christianity that I have time to type about right now. I can suggest several authors in the areas of apologetics if anyones interested. For now, I'm up in about 5 hours, so time for bed. I'll check back Monday.

-Alex

[Knox The Hatter]

There can only be one reason. The Truth hurts. That's why it's constantly attacked.

Drew's right. I've felt for years that this is why Liberals and Progressive Thinking have been attacked ad infinitum ad nauseum as far back as anyone can remember. Thanks for illuminating this, Drew :p

When is the left going to stop being so PC, and realize that while not all muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are muslims?

Gee. The ETA Basque Separatists are Muslims. That's news to me. I'm sure it would be news to King Juan Carlos as well.

Here's what I've noticed...if the Cameron/Brown theories really did pan out, it would do little to shake the faith of the true believers...it would only upset those whose faith was on shaky ground.

I've met very, very, very few people who can be called true Christians...people who try to live as Christ did, who see the beauty in all people. People who would sit and break bread with the flotsam and jetsam in the world, as He did. Most so-called Christians I've met are ignorant bigots. The face of Christianity in the world is presented by Catholic Priests who A) defile your children, and B) steal enough from the collection plate to live grand, bling-bling lifestyles that would shame even the most glorified rapper, or Hollywood star. It's presented by people who appeal to Fear, more than Faith...by people who crave power, and everything that power brings. Like human beings, in the real world. Nothing spiritual here.

The face of Christianity is multi-faceted. You look at the Gospels, and have to wonder- what would Jesus think of what is represented and what is perpetrated in His name?

[AGThePoet]

I've met very, very, very few people who can be called true Christians...people who try to live as Christ did, who see the beauty in all people. People who would sit and break bread with the flotsam and jetsam in the world, as He did.The face of Christianity is multi-faceted. You look at the Gospels, and have to wonder- what would Jesus think of what is represented and what is perpetrated in His name?[/COLOR]
Very true indeed :)

[wendynpeter]

So because people like myself believe in dogma, we are evil?

Are people who support evil things evil themselves?

[wendynpeter]

You look at the Gospels, and have to wonder- what would Jesus think of what is represented and what is perpetrated in His name?[/COLOR]

Which Gospels? As they are, in some places, completely contradictory about even the most basic information.

"Jesus as pacifist" is an interesting concept.

Matthew 10:34-36

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (to quote a passage already quoted earlier.

At best, the Bible is full of contradictions. Yet this has never stopped people from believing it is the inerrant word of God.

Consider this example (which I must attribute to Sam Harris). The Bible is considered by billions of people to be the the best guide to morality ever written. Yet the Bible gets perhaps the easiest moral question wrong -- slavery. One would think that if the Bible were the direct or even the inspired word of a God who is morally perfect, there would be clear direction in it concerning the immorality of slavery, which at the time the Bible was written and for hundreds of years forward, slavery was widespread in its practice. This observation alone is enough to refute the claim that the Bible is the direct or the inspired word of God, as well as the the claim that it is the best guide to morality ever written.

[Mistress Aura]

Which Gospels? As they are, in some places, completely contradictory about even the most basic information.

Oh, thank you for saying that! Please tell me where you found those contradictions! I've heard people say this numerous times, and I have never been able to find them! (The Gospels being Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, btw.) If you'll provide me with the chapter and verses, I'll be able to finally see it for myself!

It's ineffective to take scriptures out of context, though. The one you quoted wasn't an arrogant threat of violence, it was a warning of division--and in a way, it's describing exactly what's happening here. The sword indicates the Word of God, and the division He's speaking of are those who love Him with all their hearts and spirits and will make the choice to turn from unbelievers, even if those unbelievers are family, and follow Him.

:twohugs:s,
Mistress Aura :justlips:

[wendynpeter]

I'll post a list later today or this evening.

The sword indicates the Word of God, and the division He's speaking of are those who love Him with all their hearts and spirits and will make the choice to turn from unbelievers, even if those unbelievers are family, and follow Him.


Now read this again and tell me that what I posted is out of context. Turn from your own family because they do not believe. How convenient. And how utterly immoral.

This is, of course, the same book that instructs a groom to murder his bride on her father's doorstep should he learn she's not a virgin.

[Mistress Aura]

I'll post a list later today or this evening.

Excellent--I thank you again, and I look forward to it. :twohugs:



Now read this again and tell me that what I posted is out of context. Turn from your own family because they do not believe. How convenient. And how utterly immoral.

Immoral? No, I must respectfully disagree. Jesus was providing a prophetic warning to those who would follow Him, and as hard as it can be to do, sometimes what He's talking about does happen. It's relating more to the persecution of those who follow Christ. He never said it would be easy, and it's not. But as I said, you kind of have to read the whole thing:

17"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!

26"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. "
_______________

That's what leads up to it and when you add it, it changes the face of the definition. And when one reads the whole chapter, it's not nearly as ugly-sounding, it's just instruction. But it really still boils down to what it's always been, which is just a choice: "This is what's going to happen to you. If you can handle it, great, but expect this--and if not, then expect this." I personally find that more moral than an ambush in the dark, but that's me.

Mistress Aura :justlips:

[GodlessTickler]

Alex;
I can actually respond to some of that I think. First off... the fact that some events in the bible are historically accurate doesn't mean anything. SOME events in James Cameron's film the Titanic were historically accurate (though I admit the bible is more so) that doesn't make it by it's nature not a work of fiction. The fact there was a boat doesn't prove Jack and Rose, the fact that there was a king David dosen't prove God. But let's look at some of the specific things you said...
Christianity can be proven (or at least give enough proof to deserve some thought) historically, through the events described in the bible. The Bible isn't just a book that describes God - it also follows the lives of a great many people, all of whom existed in history (according to the Bible). On that note, you could easily prove Christianity false, if proof was brought about that the Bible was inaccurate in it's record of history.
First of all, and I don't mean for this to sound rude... but I don't care about the bible as a history book, and I don't think many people do either. It is it's stance on god that is important. As far as history goes I'll use a classic... a lot of literal bible scholars estimate that the bible imagines the earth to be approximately 5,000 years old... a huge variety of scientific evidence points to about 4.5 billion years old I think, but a lot more than 5,000. There are people who don't know think Jesus even existed. Moses father in law has tree different forms in different parts of the book of exodus and the book of judges. The creation story is told twice, differently. In other words, the bible has quite a few inconsistencies even within itself. So if it is not fully accurate with itself, it can hardly be fully accurate at all. As far as further historical evidence I will leave that to someone like Redmage if he has time since he is a lot more in depth with his biblical scholarship. I don't doubt though, that a great deal of the bible IS accurate in it's historical record. There is no reason people would put a bunch of false facts in when they could avoid it... but the fact that it is historically based doesn't give any significant credence to its spiritual truth... someone could write a very accurate history book... and insert their beliefs about a magic gnome that created the universe, it would be the gnome that was of interest, but the accuracy of the history book wouldn't prove the gnome.
An especially interesting application of this line of thought is the prophecies that Christ fulfilled in his life. All of these prophecies were recorded hundreds or thousands of years before Christ (archeological evidence shows that), and scripture later shows how Jesus fulfilled them all. Granted, there are a few ways to prove it false:

1. Prove that Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies, as his life was described in the Bible (i.e., he wasn't born in Bethlehem.) This would prove a theological fault, and would disprove the faith. For a quick look at Old Testament prophecy (I just googled this), check here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html. Keep in mind that there are many of these that Jesus could not have possibly tried to fulfill himself (time and place of birth, etc).
Now prophecy is more interesting to me than just historical fact, because it shows something of a more supernatural nature if it is true. I am no expert but I actually very much enjoy the bible as far as it goes, and I am familiar with the prophecy so lets look at one or two...
The Messiah should be a descendant of David - Jesus is supposedly descended from David through Joseph... but if Jesus was born of a virgin then Joseph's genealogy isn't too relevant is it? (of course it seems like that whole virgin birth thing is a mistranslation anyway... but wait, then he doesn't fulfil the whole virgin part of the prophesy)
Also there are two sets of prophecies, the great warrior king group, ruler of all nations (clearly not) and the more rejected Messiah. Then of course there is the fact that a lot of the prophesies are somewhat ambiguous, and the people who put together the bible were TRYING to make it look like Jesus was the Messiah. Any prophesies that weren't fulfilled Christians tend to say will be fulfilled latter, and even some of the ones that were are questionable interpretations. The two Jewish kingdoms were not destroyed to my knowledge before Jesus grew up, and Bethlehem Ephratah referred to in Micah is not in reference to the town of Bethlehem, but the CLAN of Bethlehem, but I will leave the more technical part of the debate to the more accomplished Biblical scholars.
2. Prove that the prophecies were written about Jesus, after his life. This would be hard, considering all the manuscript evidence we already have to show when each part of the Bible was written, who it was written by, etc.
Without getting too technical I think it is less that, and more that the bible was constructed (as we know for example the Gospels were picked and chosen) to cast Jesus as the Messiah. I don't know that I believe that Jesus didn't exist but a great many do, so it is also possible that he was a completely fictional character created to fulfil the prophecies.
3. Assume that the prophocies were just someone putting down random guesses, hoping to make a religion out of it (no divine guidance). This is a pretty sad outlook. For starters, a fake prophet wouldn't put in things as specific as a time and place of birth, method of death, etc. Notice how vague Nostradamus' claims are. Secondly, if the prophets (there were several predicting the characteristics of the Messiah) had just made lucky guesses, how would you possibly explain that Jesus happened to fit every single one of them? This is beyond any logical assumptions.
No reason to assume that, just realize that the people who put together the bible wanted Jesus to be the Messiah, and it's easy to assume they helped chose the facts that matched. He didn't necessarily fulfill every prophecy, he didn't rule all nations (but that's going to come latter right... how convenient) Also just to put it mildly, the prophecies are a bit ambiguous and then the ways Jesus "fulfils" them are often questionable, even look at your own link, it doesn't seem that everything matches up if you don't give it a little imaginative help. Most importantly, the people who wrote the gospel and constructed the bible were FARMILIAR with Jewish prophecy, so of course they wanted it to match as best it could... then you look at an apologetics list of prophecies and fulfillment there going to match up. Lastly as far as speaking in parables and things like that... Jesus could fulfil the prophecy himself. And let's not act like ALL the prophecies are super specific... the Messiah will be denied... wow, there's a real bit of insight, someone who comes along and some people say he is the Messiah, some people won't believe them... I don't see that requiring divine inspiration, and ALOT of the prophecies are like that. Either so vague they can be applied to most anything, or so obvious to the climate of the times they could be guessed.
4. Prove that the authors of the Bible penned Jesus' life in a way to fulfill the prophecies (in short: they lied). This is open for anyone to explore. However, it is important to note that the 4 people who wrote the most about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) faced intense persecution for their beliefs. Eleven out of the twelve original disciples were all murdered. Would you preach a new religion you knew was false when you were beaten and imprisoned dozens of times for it? There are further logical arguments that follow that line of thinking if you would like to hear them, but for now I gotta get to bed
I don't necessarily think they lied (well about some things I do actually), I think they probably just saw what they wanted to see. People often give their lives in the name of religion, cults do it... they lie to support their leader, and then they give their lives. I don't doubt that the people who wrote the gospels might have believed they were true... for that matter I don't doubt that the people who fly planes into building BELIEVE they are doing the right thing. People do give their lives because they think they are right... and if they think they are right, and they suffer as much as the early Christians did, they will do most anything to lend validity to their claims... to just CHOSE to interpret the story of Christ in a favorable way, or possibly make some creative edits to make it more solid for the outside reader... I think that's well within the realm of possibility. But essentially what do I think is more possible... people lie... or people come back from the dead. People lie... or people walk on water. Well, I think we have some pretty solid evidence in favor of people lie, so if they are lying or making things up about one, or even just exaggerating (the way a child will tell you his dad can lift a whole engine out of a car... with one hand; or whatever) about some things... then the possibility that they were about others is pretty good. If this martyr argument worked... then every religion with a martyr should be proven true right, because they wouldn't give there life if it weren't true, that's just not possible.

Last point here, I know this post will get torn apart... I am not a biblical scholar just trying to throw out some things to think about. I admit that right off the bat. But perhaps the biggest thing is, your using the bible, to give the bible validity, but if the bible isn't valid, it can't give itself validity. There are MANY religions, that claim to have prophecies and prophecies fulfilled. It works, in part, because prophecies are ambiguous things, look at how Pat Robertson and his ilk jump at EVERYTHING as a fulfillment of this or that prophecy. It is not like a prophet came out and said "Ok people... December 31, 0ad... there's going to be a baby born, his names going to be Jesus. He's gonna do this and this...." (now that's just a goofy example to make a point) It's VERY open for interpretation. It also helps if you can take the ones that work, ignore the ones that don't and creatively interpret the ones in the middle. I am not saying the bible has no historical relevance. I am not even saying I think Jesus is a fictional character (though it's possible I don't know) what I am saying is that really very little if ANY of this, proves ANYTHING about the part of the bible that matters, the part about god, and his will, and divinity. That's the part that matters, even if the bible were much more accurate than it is, even if it didn't make the mistake of contradicting itself, even if it was more logically congruent... it wouldn't prove it's divine inspiration, and THAT is what Christianity is about. Now I will let the people who wish to find the flaws with my biblical knowledge, I am sure they are there, and I will for the most part retire back to the more logic based side of the debate.

[ticklingnemesis]

You won't force someone to believe. Will you let someone suffer and die a horrible death because of what you believe about God's will?
Why do you ask such a question? If someone comes in the middle of the night threatening to kill my entire family unless I forsake God and everything I believe, who's truly the evil one? No, I won't. Call me evil or immoral or whatever. I won't forsake what I believe and I won't apologize for that.

Let me try.

Fanatics are people who are shown where even their faith and religion contradicts their actions, such as forcing people to become one of them, or killing those who are not, but continue to remain murderers and tyrants.

Like you ticklingnemesis I believe the Church is the truth. The one Truth the Only Truth, BUT there is certain glimpses of that same truth in every religion. A doorway if you will a crawlspace where if one were to peak through their faith they'd see the Christian faith.

This is why we should not force people to convert, or kill those differently than us. And those who do are fanatics
Thank you, NavelTickler75. I appreciate your help in wording that better.

Which Gospels? As they are, in some places, completely contradictory about even the most basic information.

"Jesus as pacifist" is an interesting concept.

Matthew 10:34-36

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (to quote a passage already quoted earlier.

At best, the Bible is full of contradictions. Yet this has never stopped people from believing it is the inerrant word of God.

Consider this example (which I must attribute to Sam Harris). The Bible is considered by billions of people to be the the best guide to morality ever written. Yet the Bible gets perhaps the easiest moral question wrong -- slavery. One would think that if the Bible were the direct or even the inspired word of a God who is morally perfect, there would be clear direction in it concerning the immorality of slavery, which at the time the Bible was written and for hundreds of years forward, slavery was widespread in its practice. This observation alone is enough to refute the claim that the Bible is the direct or the inspired word of God, as well as the the claim that it is the best guide to morality ever written.
One thing you should remember about the Gospels is that each one was written by a different person. His account of Jesus' life, teachings, and death.

Now would you consider George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and many of our Founding Fathers immoral or the last people to look up to because they owned slaves?

God led His people through Moses out of Egypt and out of slavery. We are servants to God, servants to our fellow man. As the 12 disciples were servants to Jesus, so was he to them.

[MrMacphisto]

From Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code to James Cameron's The Lost Tomb of Jesus, it seems like Christianity is always taking a beating. Like everyone feels the need to prove it wrong or poke holes in its foundation. For example with the Lost Tomb of Jesus, Cameron basically wants to prove that Jesus never resurrected and never ascended into Heaven, which would destroy the very foundation of Christianity.

But how many people question Buddhism? Or Wicca? Compared to the great lengths people have questioned Christianity? Was Jesus real? Was Jesus married? Did Jesus resurrect?

Now every religion is not perfect. It's all based on faith. And as a Christian, I do not need these things proven in order to believe.

But in some ways this is good for Christians. It'll get us to read the Bible, to search our hearts and remember why we're Christians, to strengthen our faith.

Christianity is targeted because of its dominance throughout much of the world, and because Christians don't usually blow up buildings or burn cars when their faith is offended. I think we can both think of one particularly dominant religion that has many followers that do.

[wendynpeter]

One thing you should remember about the Gospels is that each one was written by a different person. His account of Jesus' life, teachings, and death.

And written not by men as mere mortals but with their hand guided by God. Is the Bible "the Truth" or is it not? Is it the inerrant word of God, or is it a book written by mere mortals who simply claimed divine inspiration as their authority?

Here is a good list of many self-contradictions of the Bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[kurchatovium]

The Bible is a work of man and as such has flaws. Also many books were left out of it. Some books even appear to be reedited like The Book Of Job. The Bible is an attempt by man to reach for the stars and to fall miserably short. However it is that attempt that makes it such a valuable text, for to me it means man can be so much more than he is if he tries.

[tickledgirl]

Is it the inerrant word of God, or is it a book written by mere mortals who simply claimed divine inspiration as their authority?


Take a look at the names of the books in the Christian bible. The Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, the First Epistle to the Corinthians (a letter written by a guy named Paul to the Corinthians.)

Even (or especially) the most devout Christian will tell you that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul were all mortal men.

[GodlessTickler]

The Bible is a work of man and as such has flaws. Also many books were left out of it. Some books even appear to be reedited like The Book Of Job. The Bible is an attempt by man to reach for the stars and to fall miserably short. However it is that attempt that makes it such a valuable text, for to me it means man can be so much more than he is if he tries.
Now that is a concept of the bible (and all the other holy books) that I could really get behind. TRYING to understand. That's all, just a lot of people doing there best. That means one would be no more valuable than another except in the way that you think it helps you, but no perfect truth, no infallibility, no dogma, just people trying to understand something. THAT is a very reasonable view of holly literature.

[Mastertank1]

There are nut jobs in every religion. Since there are an awful lot of Christians in America, there are also an awful lot of Christian nut cases. These people are usually very loud, and love to seek out attention... Attention that the American media is happy to provide to them.

You don't see a whole lot of media coverage about things like the Salvation Army providing food to the poor, but they'll jump right up to cover jerks like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. The media's constant coverage of the various asshats of Christianity has led many people to think that they represent the majority of Christians... Just like their constant coverage of al-Quaida and their ilk has led a similar segment of people to think that most Moslems are terrorists. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who will believe whatever they see on their television, particularly if it reinforces their own personal prejudices.
You're about the third to mention them as 'good' Christians who draw no media mention.
Okay, here's some other true facts about the Salvation Army that the media never plays up the way they should;

EVERY year for the past 30, the S.A. has been at or near the top of the list of ten worst, most abusive and neglectful landlords in NYC, and they are also one of the biggest owners of buildings, none of which they pay taxes on, which has seriously eroded the tax base for the support of schools in some areas of the city.

They are brought up on charges of employee abuse before the Labor Relations Board almost monthly, and have been for decades, for trying to cheat their employees in a vast number of ways.

Their excuse is always that the money they screw their tenants and workers out of is used for "The Lord's Work". Pious, Canting, Lying, Hypocritical F***s!

Not a good example to refer to.

I admit without hesitation that I personally have known many individual Christians who are good people and strive with all their ability to live up to the highest ideals and tenets of their faith on a daily basis.
But I have never encountered a Christian ORGANIZATION, lay or religious, which turned out NOT to be hypocritical, not one that was worth, as John Nance Garner said of the vice-presidency, a pitcher of warm spit.
(Now there's a mental image.)

[hivoltage]

Oh, thank you for saying that! Please tell me where you found those contradictions! I've heard people say this numerous times, and I have never been able to find them! (The Gospels being Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, btw.) If you'll provide me with the chapter and verses, I'll be able to finally see it for myself!

Here is a good sample list of biblical contradictions:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

How someone can look at such a list and still conclude that the Bible is "perfect" tells you a lot about human nature. We all want so badly to believe in what we have "known" since we were children.

It wouldn't be a big deal if such "prejudices" (on the part of people of all faiths) didn't cause so much antagonism.

[AGThePoet]

To Hivoltage: i just glanced over the first few dozen of the "contradictions" in that link... I've seen sites like these before. Check out atheist.org if you want more of the same. I could easily, off the top of my head, explain why 98% of those are either taken out of context, outright misquoted, or just not sensible. Obviously, I can't go through the, all. But if you would like to pick out a few, I'll go over what I can. I dont know everything, but even with my basic knowledge of the Bible I can help explain a lot of them.

[kurchatovium]

Now that is a concept of the bible (and all the other holy books) that I could really get behind. TRYING to understand. That's all, just a lot of people doing there best. That means one would be no more valuable than another except in the way that you think it helps you, but no perfect truth, no infallibility, no dogma, just people trying to understand something. THAT is a very reasonable view of holly literature.


Thanks GodlessTickler. :D :D I tend to have a very open view of these things, although I consider myself to be very religious.

I think the thing to note here is yes Christians do bad things. Sometimes very bad things. Of course non-Christians do a lot of really bad things too. We can argue till infinty over who did what to who like some sort Cosmic Score Card and try to tally it all up. Seems rather pointless to me. We are all flawed. None of us is perfect. We all make mistakes. Has really nothing to do with God perse. To me at the end of the day its more about what does your life mean to you. What do you want to do with it? Would you like to help someone or help the world somehow? Certainly you dont need to believe in God to do any of that but for me it is what gives me the inspiration to at least try my best. I know I fail often, but I pick myself up and try to be a bit more understanding, a bit more compassionate and hopefully a bit more helpful then I was before.

A friend once told me he asked his Rabbi why if God exists do bad things still happen, why does not he do something about it. The Rabbi calmly replied "He did do something, he sent you."

[NavelTickler75]

I think dogma is bad for society and bad for freedom, and bad for the pursuit of knowledge, but in my view it requires action behind it to become evil.

No I disagree, only if one blindly follows it, or tries to decipher it for themselves does it become bad. Is it bad for freedom? No, well that depends on your meaning of freedom. If by doing what you want, that’s not freedom, its license. Having the ability to do what one must do for the common good? For your good, then yes that is freedom.


Are people who support evil things evil themselves?

Not in and OF themselves no, not unless they realize it is immoral and continue to follow it. Now Dogma is evil? I am sorry, but I do not agree with that. It can be USED for evil purposes, just as someone can use the Constitution to do evil things if they so wanted. It depends on how you use this.

Thank you, NavelTickler75. I appreciate your help in wording that better.

You are very welcome dude.

Yes the Bible disagrees with itself, because like all writings, it was written by many people, each one who felt what they felt the tingle of divine inspiration. What matters is not the entire whole, but its meaning. The Bible is not a history book, though events from it are indeed historical. It is not scientific, though there are elements of scientific knowledge from it. What it is is a road map to heaven. Now anyone can study it? Yes, understand it? No. For one thing I think the King James Version of the Bible is Aweful. Do you know what I mean? A lot would get angry at this… cookies to know what I meant, AND where its meaning comes from, who used such language and terminology.

After his reformation/revolution, Martin Luther was once astounded as to the many people reading the bible, each coming up with their own views, and breaking the unity further apart. To this he wailed, “My God what have I done, now even Milk maids think they can interpret the Bible.”

So what does this mean? It means, one needs a roadmap, one needs a guide too from time to time. You know what I think is funny, is mainly those who roll their eyes at this, are the men, not the women. “Why can I not do it my way?” “Why do I need to ask for directions?” mainly I hear this from men. Even in religions such as Wicca and whatnot, I have heard men do this, where as the women have no problem seeking a person who has a higher knowledge of the subject. I wonder why that is? ^^

[AGThePoet]

Lol... okay, here goes a rather long reply to Godlesstickler... please keep in mind that i am trying to be respectiful here, and any disagreements i have with your statements doesnt mean im trying to attack you personally. Lets try and keep this friendly, I've seen too many debates turn nasty on the internet ;)

Alex;
I can actually respond to some of that I think. First off... the fact that some events in the bible are historically accurate doesn't mean anything. SOME events in James Cameron's film the Titanic were historically accurate (though I admit the bible is more so) that doesn't make it by it's nature not a work of fiction. The fact there was a boat doesn't prove Jack and Rose, the fact that there was a king David dosen't prove God. But let's look at some of the specific things you said...I'll agree to that, that proving certain parts of the Bible does not prove the entire thing. However, it goes both ways - if you cannot disprove any of it, then you can not logically say it isn't possible.

First of all, and I don't mean for this to sound rude... but I don't care about the bible as a history book, and I don't think many people do either. It is it's stance on god that is important. As far as history goes I'll use a classic... a lot of literal bible scholars estimate that the bible imagines the earth to be approximately 5,000 years old... a huge variety of scientific evidence points to about 4.5 billion years old I think, but a lot more than 5,000. There are people who don't know think Jesus even existed. Moses father in law has tree different forms in different parts of the book of exodus and the book of judges. The creation story is told twice, differently. In other words, the bible has quite a few inconsistencies even within itself. So if it is not fully accurate with itself, it can hardly be fully accurate at all. As far as further historical evidence I will leave that to someone like Redmage if he has time since he is a lot more in depth with his biblical scholarship. I don't doubt though, that a great deal of the bible IS accurate in it's historical record. There is no reason people would put a bunch of false facts in when they could avoid it... but the fact that it is historically based doesn't give any significant credence to its spiritual truth... someone could write a very accurate history book... and insert their beliefs about a magic gnome that created the universe, it would be the gnome that was of interest, but the accuracy of the history book wouldn't prove the gnome.
You're right when you say it's the theology that really matters to us in the present day - however, my point with the history ist hat the only way to disprove the Bible (besides intense theology, which I can't even begin to get into in detail) is by proving that it's historical accounts are wrong. In that method, the history is very important.

Most Biblical scholars and scientists in modern day actually predict the universe to be somewhere between 10 and 15 thousand years old. I've done some pretty intense discussions with physical evidence for this, and I can go into this if you would like, but if you don't want to go into that I won't spend the time to start in on it on this post :) Seriously though, if you want to discuss this, I'm all ears.

There are plenty of secular sources that document Jesus' existence, claims, and even his crucifixion. These include the census Joseph was travelling to when Jesus was born, and famous secular historian at the time (I haven't talked about this for a while, I forget his name - if you want I can look it up in whichever book I found it in). These sources note that he claimed to be the Messiah, had followers, etc. Does this prove his resurrection? No. But it does prove his existence. Besides, the 12 disciples started their preaching in Jerusulem where Jesus was said to be crucified - if the people knew that it was all lies, they would have stoned the disciples on the spot for heresy (Jews were pretty intense in that area).

I'm not exaclt familiar with Moses' lineage, I can look into it, but I know that some people say that Jesus' bloodline isn't consistent because it's different in two places. However, on the case of Jesus, one line listed (Matthew 1) is his father's side, and the other is his mothers. I'm relatively sure Moses' would have the same, but if you would like I'll look into it.

I would like to know more about what you said with the two different stories of Creation... obviously there is the Genesis account, but I'm not sure about the other one (maybe the references in Revelation?)

I do agree with you that historical proof doesn't neccesarily prove spiritual truth - however, if you magic gnome had historical sources showing htat it lived, and did everything the book claimed it would do, it would at least interest me into doing further research.

Now prophecy is more interesting to me than just historical fact, because it shows something of a more supernatural nature if it is true. I am no expert but I actually very much enjoy the bible as far as it goes, and I am familiar with the prophecy so lets look at one or two...
The Messiah should be a descendant of David - Jesus is supposedly descended from David through Joseph... but if Jesus was born of a virgin then Joseph's genealogy isn't too relevant is it? (of course it seems like that whole virgin birth thing is a mistranslation anyway... but wait, then he doesn't fulfil the whole virgin part of the prophesy)
Also there are two sets of prophecies, the great warrior king group, ruler of all nations (clearly not) and the more rejected Messiah. Then of course there is the fact that a lot of the prophesies are somewhat ambiguous, and the people who put together the bible were TRYING to make it look like Jesus was the Messiah. Any prophesies that weren't fulfilled Christians tend to say will be fulfilled latter, and even some of the ones that were are questionable interpretations. The two Jewish kingdoms were not destroyed to my knowledge before Jesus grew up, and Bethlehem Ephratah referred to in Micah is not in reference to the town of Bethlehem, but the CLAN of Bethlehem, but I will leave the more technical part of the debate to the more accomplished Biblical scholars.

If Jesus was born to a virgin, then you can't really say that the lack of a bloodline through Joseph disproves Christianity - since a virgin having a baby would automatically count as supernatural, and therefore actually prove it to be true (and prove Christianity specifically, since Jesus isn't exactly centerpoint in any other religion).

Jesus was "the warrior king", if you would like to state it like that. However, he is not the "ruler of nations" in a physical sense, as in controlling armies and the such. In fact, Jews thought the Messiah would be someone who would take over the world and slay all their enemies. However, Jesus came as a king in the spiritual sense - since he is more or less identical to God (the exact relationship can be very technical - long story short, Jesus has the same character of God, but still acts independately - it's more complicated, but thats a trule of thumb). He came to be he king of those that would accept God through himself. Sounds like an egomaniac, but if he was a perfect being, then it is not pride but completely deserved. He is the king of sould, not of the physical realm. Besides, what good would it have done to conquer the world? Once again, I can go deeper into this vein of thinking, just let me know.

As you said, debate of prophecy is more in line for a scholar. However, there are some interesting ones dealing with his crucifixion. For starters, his bones were not broken (it was Roman custom to break the legs of the crucified after a certain time to speed up the death - this was done to both of the criminals crucified next to Jesus, but not Jesus). When he died, the skies went completely black, as predicted. Could be a random solar/lunar eclipse, but the chances of that happening as a coincidence at the exact moment of his death would be too small to logically pursue. As he was hanging there, the soldiers gambled for his clothes - once again, something he had no control over. When he was betrayed by Judas, the priests paid Judas 30 pieces of silver, as was predicted. Something Jesus had nothing to do with. There's more, but I'm not that well versed in them and would likely do more harm than good if I continued. As you said, let's leave this up to scholars :)

As for the two Jewish kingdoms being destroyed, I'm not sure exactly what it's referencing, but it sounds like it's referring to Old Testament events... possibly the slavery in Egypt, etc? Not sure. I can look into it.

Without getting too technical I think it is less that, and more that the bible was constructed (as we know for example the Gospels were picked and chosen) to cast Jesus as the Messiah. I don't know that I believe that Jesus didn't exist but a great many do, so it is also possible that he was a completely fictional character created to fulfil the prophecies.
Well, it's true that there were books left out the Bible as we have it today (the Canon). These extra books are called "the Apocrophies" (I think I spelled that right...). These were left out for various reasons... mostly because they describe events that couldn't happen, or didn't fit the character of God in a way completely contrary to all the other books. You could look at this and say we are just pruning it to fit what we want, but it also stands to reason that 66 books written by dozens of seperate authors over thousands of years that all present one seamless image of God would make it relatively easy to pick out books written by heretics or people just seeking attention... anyone who was seeking to create flaws in Christianity could do so by writing false books and distributing it as real to Christians. There would also just be the rantings of the insane, the demon possesed, etc. Honestly, I'm not that versed with the Apocrophies, if you want to know more I can find more information for you on why certain books were named false.

No reason to assume that, just realize that the people who put together the bible wanted Jesus to be the Messiah, and it's easy to assume they helped chose the facts that matched. He didn't necessarily fulfill every prophecy, he didn't rule all nations (but that's going to come latter right... how convenient) Also just to put it mildly, the prophecies are a bit ambiguous and then the ways Jesus "fulfils" them are often questionable, even look at your own link, it doesn't seem that everything matches up if you don't give it a little imaginative help. Most importantly, the people who wrote the gospel and constructed the bible were FARMILIAR with Jewish prophecy, so of course they wanted it to match as best it could... then you look at an apologetics list of prophecies and fulfillment there going to match up. Lastly as far as speaking in parables and things like that... Jesus could fulfil the prophecy himself. And let's not act like ALL the prophecies are super specific... the Messiah will be denied... wow, there's a real bit of insight, someone who comes along and some people say he is the Messiah, some people won't believe them... I don't see that requiring divine inspiration, and ALOT of the prophecies are like that. Either so vague they can be applied to most anything, or so obvious to the climate of the times they could be guessed.
I'll admit that not all the prophecies are super specific - indeed, if there were only one or two I wouldn't put any stock in them at all. However, it's the combination of all of them together that fit. And he does fulfill all of them - "The ruler of nations" can be taken in more than one sense. Assuming for a moment the Christian God does exist, would you not refer to him as "the ruler of nations"? Therefore, since Jesus is one with the Father, he is also the ruler of nations. Yes, I know it's odd saying that Jesus is both God, and seperate form God. Just remember my rule of thumb above. I can get you some more material on the exact relationship if you wish.

I don't necessarily think they lied (well about some things I do actually), I think they probably just saw what they wanted to see. People often give their lives in the name of religion, cults do it... they lie to support their leader, and then they give their lives. I don't doubt that the people who wrote the gospels might have believed they were true... for that matter I don't doubt that the people who fly planes into building BELIEVE they are doing the right thing. People do give their lives because they think they are right... and if they think they are right, and they suffer as much as the early Christians did, they will do most anything to lend validity to their claims... to just CHOSE to interpret the story of Christ in a favorable way, or possibly make some creative edits to make it more solid for the outside reader... I think that's well within the realm of possibility. But essentially what do I think is more possible... people lie... or people come back from the dead. People lie... or people walk on water. Well, I think we have some pretty solid evidence in favor of people lie, so if they are lying or making things up about one, or even just exaggerating (the way a child will tell you his dad can lift a whole engine out of a car... with one hand; or whatever) about some things... then the possibility that they were about others is pretty good. If this martyr argument worked... then every religion with a martyr should be proven true right, because they wouldn't give there life if it weren't true, that's just not possible.In the first century alone, there were dozens of people claiming to be the Jewish Messiah. However, the difference here is that Jesus performed the power of God - theres a ton of examples of miracles he performed. Now, you could say the apostles made that up in the books - however, if someone tells me their the messiah, I'm not going to follow them unless they have some kind of proof. So the question becomes a simple choice: Were the disciples crazy, liars, or telling the truth? You can use your judgement on if they are crazy, but seeing how lucid and thought out their writing is, they sound like they have a sound mind. They could be outright liars, but it would seem odd considering they knew they would get beaten, jailed, and very possibly killed for preaching it. And yes, there are martyrs in, say, Islam, but none of these preesnt day martyrs were there at the founding of the religion in order to see if it was true or not.

Last point here, I know this post will get torn apart... I am not a biblical scholar just trying to throw out some things to think about. I admit that right off the bat. But perhaps the biggest thing is, your using the bible, to give the bible validity, but if the bible isn't valid, it can't give itself validity. There are MANY religions, that claim to have prophecies and prophecies fulfilled. It works, in part, because prophecies are ambiguous things, look at how Pat Robertson and his ilk jump at EVERYTHING as a fulfillment of this or that prophecy. It is not like a prophet came out and said "Ok people... December 31, 0ad... there's going to be a baby born, his names going to be Jesus. He's gonna do this and this...." (now that's just a goofy example to make a point) It's VERY open for interpretation. It also helps if you can take the ones that work, ignore the ones that don't and creatively interpret the ones in the middle. I am not saying the bible has no historical relevance. I am not even saying I think Jesus is a fictional character (though it's possible I don't know) what I am saying is that really very little if ANY of this, proves ANYTHING about the part of the bible that matters, the part about god, and his will, and divinity. That's the part that matters, even if the bible were much more accurate than it is, even if it didn't make the mistake of contradicting itself, even if it was more logically congruent... it wouldn't prove it's divine inspiration, and THAT is what Christianity is about. Now I will let the people who wish to find the flaws with my biblical knowledge, I am sure they are there, and I will for the most part retire back to the more logic based side of the debate.
One note with the date is that the Old Testament prophets is that they probably used a different time system than was in use in the first century. Beyond that is a concept of free will, which I'll do a quick touchup on.

Free will is a very odd concept with Christianity. I'll start with a very basic theology. To put it very simple, God's entire aim is to bring glory to Himself. That's it. Now, he can easily create a race of humans that worship him completly. But without a choice to not follow him, what glory is brought about by their mindless worship? Therefore, God needed us to be able to choose whether to worship him or not, which would therefore bring that worship to a much more meaningful level. To do this, he allowed sin into the world. All "sin" is - simple put - is doing or thinking anything that is not of God (as in anything that is not pure, beautiful, holy, etc as the verse goes). Now, in order to preserve free will,