Posted on 12/06/2001 6:32:57 AM PST by Weatherman123
And you know this because.....?
Your musings aren't worth the time it takes to read them more than once.
So sorry you feel this way, but obviously "my musings" generated discussion and isn't that the purpose of this forum? You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Your opinion has not added much to the discussion, other than becoming yet another attempt to make me feel bad about myself for thinking differently than you do. I'm happy to tell you that it won't work. If anything, I feel sorry for you that the most you can contribute is hit and run attacks on me personally.
BTW, do you have a reason for feeling this way? Something to back it up? Or are you just ranting?
To the rest of those on the thread:
I guess this is my ending statment on this whole thread. I'm not saying I won't respond to anything else posted, just that this is a wrap up of what I've been trying to accomplish with this thread and what I've gotten out of it in the last 24 hours.
It's not like I plucked the Documentary Hypothesis out of the air. I read Richard Friedman's book "Who Wrote the Bible" years ago in college (and am reading it again now) and I'm in my first year of a 4 year Catholic Biblical Study program. Yes, I'm a newbie at this, but I didn't make the theory up. I was interested in why others don't agree with it. Many folks have gave me some good links and books to read that will further my understanding of the Bible. Others on the thread gave me a lot of think about. (I like the idea that God is light, I think I'll keep that one close to my heart.) I read the Bible and study it with an open and prayerful heart. If I didn't have an open mind and heart, why would I have started this thread asking for other's opinions?
Some folks on this thread have convinced me that you can argue with a fundamentalist/literalist until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference in either your opinion or theirs. Kind of like liberals that way. But that's ok, they can read the Bible any way they want to. If that's what they believe, more power to them. I won't attack them, disparage them, or condemn them.
I believe the Bible is the inspired work of God, written by men. Being a history junkie, I'm intrigued by the idea that the Torah was written at different times and different people. As mentioned above, I've got some kind people sending me off in directions that might disprove that theory. I'll be interested in reading why the DH is no longer a valid theory in the minds of some. It may shake my foundations a bit, but life is a learning process. "That he not busy being born is busy dying."
I'll be reading and studying the Bible the rest of my life. I don't think there is one wrong way or right way to read it. I'm saddened that many who don't agree with the way I'm studying it now feel they have to attack me, call me names, suggest I'm on drugs, say I'm totally ignorant, call me a false Christian and tell me I'm going to hell because I don't agree with them. Yes, Christ said the path to him is narrow, but I believe that means keeping the two most important commandments. Many on this thread have broken the second one.
But I prayed on this last night. I can understand that different people approach God and his word in different ways. I've decided to ignore those who attack me and focus on those who have given me good information to continue my studies. That was the purpose of this thread, to learn.
That being said, thanks for joining in!
If they do they missed the point entirely.
Already been done. You assume that man can know nothing of the "complexity of life".
What's the matter - you can dish it out but can't take it?
Come on - let's put your beliefs to the test, shall we? What do you have to lose other than the argument?
Or, if you like, you can tell me your position on the Resurrection - specifically, what you believe REALLY happened. I will also respond to that. The burden of proof is on you since you doubt the historical accounts.
There is plenty of evidence that the Bible contains truth, not facts. Look for the higher truth, it will liberate you. Don't start with your faithful conclusions and work backward to your assumptions, but start with your assumptions based on faith and establish your conclusions.
As to your implication regarding my education it includes graduate degrees and contains an extensive history background along with bible studies. I am a retired school principal and currently head up our churches Sunday school programs.
...
I've decided to ignore those who attack me and focus on those who have given me good information to continue my studies.
Typical: Anyone who disagrees with you is a narrowminded bigot.
On the other hand, those that agree with you are intelligent, open minded people who can help you understand life, the universe, and yourself.
Ok, sorry to bother you.
I've probably studied biblical criticism at least as much as you have. I would be willing to guess that I've studied much more, and from all sources--including and especially those whose studies lead them to believe the Bible is a collection of tribal superstitions cobbled together by subtle and scheming men seeking to advance a local political agenda. The most recent such book I read advanced the thesis that Genesis is an obvious blending of two separate traditions melded together in almost perfect this-that-this-that fashion. I once bought into that "wisdom." I don't any more.
But I wouldn't dream of putting a provocative thread out there like this one--a bash at Christian conservatism disguised as an honest search for truth. You have instigated a food fight so that those who despise traditional Christian belief can sit back in smug blindness and say, "What a crock."
Of course I haven't added anything to the silly food fight. Why should I?
But you may have missed the most important lesson so keep praying. First, let me say I have studied the same materials you are currently studying and believe that the most likely explanation is of different authors.
However, you will miss and have completely discounted the possibility that scripture is ultimately one voice. As an analogy would be an orchestra performing. In that case the fundamentalists are correct as well as the various authors theory.
You started out saying you wanted a discussion and you consistently rejected any thoughts contrary to yours and then you wonder why the fundies are upset with you. Your studies will be far more fruitfull if you truly stop and listen to what others who study the bible are actually saying.
...
A lot of us treat you like like that because some come into this forum, ask similar questions without sincerity, and all they want to do is push buttons. Now that you've gone into some detail on where you're coming from, a lot of us can see you're sincere. I know we at least hope you are!
May God bless you in your search. Let us know what you find out.
Way too strong. You have already made it very clear she is content taking pot shots at others who base their beliefs on the witnesses of the bible and not engaging a dialogue. She has also made it clear she has no desire to be pinned down and let someone else play her game on her.
Just rememebr 123..it is a theory and read the "books" with the same skepticism with which you approach scripture..
Promised ya 300 hits didn't I ?? I have been haning around these religious threads tooooooo long :>)
May God bless your search for truth!
Some scientists try to prove that life came out a chemical reaction, yet they can never reproduce it. Explain what we believe to be true (science) is often a mistake.
We all know the speed of light is constant right? Wrong!
Yet we have all been "taught" that this is absolute!
Huh? Archeology firmly supports the FACTS in the bible - place names, rulers' names, events, etc. History consists of facts. Fact: Something true and accurate (Webster's).
My faith is based on facts and evidence; it is not a blind faith and I don't check my brain at the door when I go to church. Christianity is the ONLY faith that is supported by the evidence. When one speaks of evidence, one can only discuss judeo-Christianity.
Does some minor similarities between the mystery religions and Christianity somehow invalidate Christianity? How does that logic work? Elaborate. There are more differences than similarities. I can name several major ones.
Mohammed is still dead. There are no credible historical accounts that Krishna was the Son of God. The NT blows them all away in its credibility and accuracy. Two points: (1) The NT was written very early (not enough time for legend to develop)- the gospel creed in 1st Cor. 15 was written in 51 AD, and accounting for Paul's travels, the gospel creed is easily traced back to the mid 30s AD; (2) The eyewitness accounts are quite credibly written in a chronological eyewitness manner, (3) The disciples banked their lives on the fact of the bodily Resurrection and died for it believing it was true - the best explanation for this sudden change from coward to lion of faith is best explained by an encounter with the risen Christ - name a better one! (4) Simon Greenleaf (co-founder of Harvard Law School studied the accounts and concluded that the evidence would stand up in a court of law.
Perhaps...my strategy with skeptics and atheists is ALWAYS to find out what they believe and then dismantle it bit by bit. It is the BEST strategy, IMHO. No one is born an atheist - they become one as a result of their own presuppositions and worldview. First comes the worldview, then comes atheism, materialism, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.