Thread: A new Christianity

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

So? Because I bother some people I should change?[/b]

Yes, but you aren&#39;t a religion influenced by more than a billion people. If you want to reform your self then only you can allow yourself to do it. People don&#39;t vote about you if reform is needed within Christianity than I think it should be considered, you need to remember that the religion exhists for the people and needs to develop with the people.

Originally posted by The New Christianity+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The New Christianity)</div>

Spurred by the writings and public declarations of prominent Christian leaders such as Bishop John Shelby Spong, academics in the Jesus Seminar, and historical researchers who are questioning the authenticity of Christian historical accounts, many Christians find themselves spending more time defending the faith than in effectively building up their religion.[/b]

In my opinion that is wrong.

Why should Christians have to defend their faith? Actually why should anyone?

Religions are based on the faith the followers have in what is presented to them. Although I don&#39;t believe in God I would never be so arrogent to try to convince a Christian that they are wrong in what they believe.
I also have a hard time understanding just why it is that some people devote so much time and effort in trying to discredit Christianity and it&#39;s followers.

As for the validity of the bible, it may be the word of God but it was written by men. There were quite a lot of men who wrote what has become the bible. The people are different so of course the writing styles are different, I don&#39;t see how someone could look at that and think that it challenges the accuracy of the bible.



<!--QuoteBegin-The New Christianity
There is a serious question as to whether or not literal thinking and a dogmatic insistence on an inerrant Bible will serve this generation and those to come in an efficacious way. Is the biggest handicap that of the literal fundamentalists who seem to have an obstinate insistence on continuing to revere history at the cost of a diminished future – in effect attempting to drive forward while looking out the rear window?

This is something that I have had problems with in the past. It is claimed that the bible is the word of God - and I&#39;m not disagreeing with that - therefore if it is changed, or updated to "meet the needs of a younger generation" it seems to me that it loses it&#39;s impact.
History in this instance must be revered. Christianity and the bible are historical, Jesus is an historical figure. Christianity is based on history, and part of that history is Gods plan for the path that Christians must follow, to alter that would mean that Gods word is no longer being followed in the manner that he wanted it to be.
Christians serve God, not the other way around and generational change shouldn&#39;t change that.

Even though I don&#39;t believe in God, I do believe that Jesus was a real person.

I haven&#39;t read all the articles, but I do want to comment that I think the premise of the discussion is a little off. Fundamentalist Christianity is still a growing movement in America. It&#39;s the more traditional/rational denominations like Catholicism and the Episcopal Church that are losing members. Those are the faiths that believe that the Bible is not to be taken literally and that it does contain errors.

With a card-carrying member in the White House, I think it&#39;s safe to say that fundamentalist Christianity has never been more powerful. And they&#39;re not done yet.

People can change the bible all they want, but all you will be doing is changing the truth. It would seem to me that these people are trying to make Christianity more PC and you just can&#39;t do that. If the law says Speed Limit 35 MPH then that is how fast you are supposed to drive on that road. If change the law and increase the speed limit you end up hurting people and putting a lot of others in danger.

If someone wants to think the bible isn&#39;t the word of God that is there perogative. If they want to change it to make it something they can agree with then that is there perogative as well. However just because someone goes up to that Speed Limit sign and changes it, outside of the law makers, doesn&#39;t change the fact that the speed limit is still 35 on that road.

DK, why are you so certain the Bible is 100% correct?

Why are you so certain that it isn&#39;t??

What evidence do you have that the Bible is perfect in its current state? And what does perfect mean? For example, let&#39;s look at what Colours had posted earlier about the Gospel of John. There were later additions placed in that Gospel that the original evangelist didn&#39;t write.

You say "all you will be doing is changing the truth". So using Colours example, which is the truth, the version of the Gospel that contained the forgery or the original version that didn&#39;t? Do you see what happens when you start making categorical statements like that with no evidence? It gets sticky quickly.

Again how do you know what was said was accurate?

do you see the contradiction of your argument? If the vast majority of biblical scholars agree on something, odds are good they have good reason to believe it.

Your argument is basically this: You can&#39;t know anything for sure, therefore I know for sure that I&#39;m right.

Spike how do we even know then that history as it is recorded is accurate? Why trust anything then that is written down?

Exactly, why trust anything that is written down? The victors write history, everybody knows that. There were battles in the early church, and the writings that survived the battles were the ones that agreed with the victors... the Catholics in the Council of Nicaea. Do you want to place all of your faith, not in the hands of Jesus or even the 4 evangelists who wrote the gospel, but in a council of Catholic bishops who decided which books were good enough and which weren&#39;t?

And just because you can&#39;t know for sure what the truth is about Christ and Christianity doesn&#39;t mean you should just blindly follow a clearly compromised source just because your church tells you to.

If nothing can be certain...where does that leave religions that are based on ancient scriptures?

Maybe the answer is finding "God" on your own...without the help of scriptures. Isn&#39;t that a sure way to do it? Stuff written in the past is questionable, but what one experiences is known to them.