I personally think some of the comments on this site can get pretty ridiculous at times, more importantly, they can utterly obliterate an otherwise important message. However, you know what is said about opinions and how they are like a particular body part (everybody’s got one, and they all stink). The thing I have seen that truly ruins credibility is when atheists/agnostics/whatever pontificate about the Bible, yet they don’t believe in it in the first place.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (193)
sorted by:
Lemmie see if I can make chocolate with it:
I am sure such a discussion indeed would be totally historical and probably intelligent, but I would presume you meant: an intelligent debate about the history?
it depends, of course, what you would consider foundational. It all hinges on assumptions. Going by what John wrote in his gospel, a person could be a christian without what you call, foundational documents. However, a gnostic Christian would probably expand on that, whereas an orthodox christian would feel quite unpleasant. Hence, the albigensian crusade.
As already indicated, the historics cannot be dismissed.
Hold you horses .... I can belief the bible while totally disagreeing with you, since, my understanding of it may depend on: 1. translation used, 2.understanding of the original languages in which it was written, 3. methods of interpretation, 4. suspicions of being left with only a portion of what should have been Christian writings, and 5. the most foundational question: why o why did the Old Testament not mention Gobleki Tepi.
So, when I go through your argument, the belief point is rather moot, isn't it. So, you either come across two types. Either, someone shares your belief regarding the "prophesies" (teachings) or not. And the wider position on the bible is actually moot, isn't it, as you would gladly resort to history.
So, can we then put this whole thing to bed and remain on the topic of history?