How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I cant remember a decade where we weren't in "the end days"

The last days covers the time that Christ ascended into heaven until the rapture. But we are certainly close to the rapture.

How close? This is part of the problem with belief in God, religion, and other cults in general; they start with non-falsifiable premises.

To the point, are we fifty days from the rapture? Fifty weeks? Fifty years? More?

I hope the "or other" wasn't an intentional smear. "Cult" is a pretty specific and ugly description. And doesn't apply to most religions or faiths I know.

The bible speaks of being in the "End Times" which I've always understood to be more of a (obviously long) period of time.

There are tons of people way more knowledgeable than I am on the subject so I won't pretend to think I have much to offer there. For putting an actual date on the Rapture. I don't think anyone can do that.

This is the dictionary.com definition of cult: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult
Here's Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

If we throw out the first definition of MW, given that it's basically "popular religions aren't cults, non-popular religions are cults", all forms of religion fit pretty well into most of the rest of those definitions.

If one is using a more pop culture definition, such as this from Wikipedia: "Cults are social groups which have unusual, and often extreme, religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals.", again I'd say that most forms of religion fit right in that definition.

Most religions try to convince people to believe things that cannot be proven (or, conveniently, disproven) based on pure faith. That's absolutely cult-like behavior. Most religions solicit monetary donations from their members. Also cult-like behavior.

This is how I mostly see the word used with the bolded.

Cult | Meaning, Definition, Religion, & Psychology | Britannica

A cult is usually small group devoted to a person, idea, or philosophy. The term cult is often applied to a religious movement that exists in some degree of tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society.

www.britannica.com

cult, usually small group devoted to a person, idea, or philosophy. The term cult is often applied to a religious movement that exists in some degree of tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society. In recent years the word cult has been most commonly used as a pejorative term for a religious group that falls outside the mainstream and, by implication, engages in questionable activities. Many new religions are controversially labeled as cults.

Often, with the little passive-aggressive "or other". All good.

A common distinction and nuance I see is the ability to question or leave the group. Of course, there will be societal and family culture dynamics in play. When someone truly believes something is vitally important, it's understandable they'd want the same for loved ones. But Free Will should always be paramount. If it's not, that's a serious concern.

I'm less apt to use the size of the organization as a defining trait. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour regardless of the size of the group.

Most religions try to convince people to believe things that cannot be proven (or, conveniently, disproven) based on pure faith. That's absolutely cult-like behavior. Most religions solicit monetary donations from their members. Also cult-like behavior.

If we want to be consistent and apply those standards of asking people to have faith in things that can't be proven or receiving money from it's members, the list of organizations that qualify as cults is going to be large. From Pittsburgh Steelers fans hoping for a 2nd round playoff game to NPR listeners.

And apologies for sidetracking the thread. I've no interest in furthering this line. I just thought it was informative to see the post.

 

[Mister CIA]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

 

[Zow]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

 

[Zow]

I cant remember a decade where we weren't in "the end days"

The last days covers the time that Christ ascended into heaven until the rapture. But we are certainly close to the rapture.

What makes you say the bold? Do you believe there are physical, environmental issues going on with the Earth that humanity will end soon that makes you so certain?

 

[Joe Bryant]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

For the 25 years we've had it, I've never sensed the demographic on this board was remotely heavily Christian.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

Do you have a link for that so I can better understand where you're coming from?

 

[Mister CIA]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

For the 25 years we've had it, I've never sensed the demographic on this board was remotely heavily Christian.

It's been pounded into my head that we are a nation built on the bedrock of Christian-Judeo values. The poll results are a contradiction.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

Do you have a link for that so I can better understand where you're coming from?

You aren't asking me, but I'd rephrase Woz's comment to "Christian-based backgrounds".

 

[RCon]

If we want to be consistent and apply those standards of asking people to have faith in things that can't be proven or receiving money from it's members, the list of organizations that qualify as cults is going to be large. From Pittsburgh Steelers fans hoping for a 2nd round playoff game to NPR listeners.

I would disagree wholeheartedly here. Pittsburgh Steelers fans will absolutely discover that their team either did or did not qualify for or win a given 2nd playoff game. Not only will this happen, we know exactly when it will happen. That is, the statement "The Steelers will reach the divisional round in 2026" is provable/falsifiable. Even the statement "The Steelers will win the Super Bowl someday" is provable. More importantly, the converse "The Steelers will never win the Super Bowl" is falsifiable. That is, we know exactly what would need to occur for the statement to be proven wrong.

The statement "The rapture is close" is not falsifiable unless the person making the statement specifies how close. Similarly, the statement "God exists" is not falsifiable.

 

[dgreen]

Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

Unfortunately, that's the way many Western Christian churches preach Christianity. The OP is a good example of how it can seem like Christianity and the story of the Bible is all about how you as an individual can fly off to Heaven after you die. The earliest writings and history of those who followed Jesus was more collective than individual. And that's not surprising given the culture in which it arose. Jews, to this day, will talk about how God rescued them from slavery in Egypt. They see themselves, individually and collectively, as part of a collective group of people who were saved for a purpose thousands of years ago.

 

[Zow]

That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

Do you have a link for that so I can better understand where you're coming from?

No, just years of academic study in the areas of political science and theology.

 

[dgreen]

That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

Do you have a link for that so I can better understand where you're coming from?

No, just years of academic study in the areas of political science and theology.

But we're also an educated group and I've heard education is inversely correlated with religious beliefs.

 

[Zow]

Here are some Pew research data. Looks like in recent years more educated, upper class white men have turned atheist. I suppose that does match my anecdotal experience.

24. Age, race, education and other demographic traits of U.S. religious groups

Read about U.S. religious groups’ demographics – such as race/ethnicity, age, immigrant status, gender and sexual orientation – and their trends since 2007. Religious Landscape Study by Pew Research Center.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

Unfortunately, that's the way many Western Christian churches preach Christianity. The OP is a good example of how it can seem like Christianity and the story of the Bible is all about how you as an individual can fly off to Heaven after you die. The earliest writings and history of those who followed Jesus was more collective than individual. And that's not surprising given the culture in which it arose. Jews, to this day, will talk about how God rescued them from slavery in Egypt. They see themselves, individually and collectively, as part of a collective group of people who were saved for a purpose thousands of years ago.

Thank you. I should have phrased my post as a general question to the group and not just sparky.

I would like to think about Christianity as more of a collective than simply an individual and their relationship with God. Where doing altruistic work is the right thing to do and not just a way to "go through the motions" your way to heaven as in the end all you really need to do is have an individual belief in Jesus.

Can someone with those same values, who can't simply just have faith, but volunteers, lives a good life, cares for others get into heaven, or as the OP states salvation is only for those that have an individual belief in Jesus? I've heard it time and time again that we're all sinners and the only hope is accepting Jesus as your savior. This is the notion that turns me off. I don't feel like a bad or unworthy person because i can't accept certain aspects of a religion, but at the same time can believe that you do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because you're trying to impress an intelligent creator. I struggle that a healthy dose of skepticism overrides a life well lived.

 

[RCon]

I would like to think about Christianity as more of a collective than simply an individual and their relationship with God. Where doing altruistic work is the right thing to do and not just a way to "go through the motions" your way to heaven as in the end all you really need to do is have an individual belief in Jesus.
Can someone with those same values, who can't simply just have faith, but volunteers, lives a good life, cares for others get into heaven, or as the OP states salvation is only for those that have an individual belief in Jesus? I've heard it time and time again that we're all sinners and the only hope is accepting Jesus as your savior. This is the notion that turns me off. I don't feel like a bad or unworthy person because i can't accept certain aspects of a religion, but at the same time can believe that you do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because you're trying to impress an intelligent creator. I struggle that a healthy dose of skepticism overrides a life well lived.

Well said. To bring it around to my other posts, the bolded in particular strikes me as cult-like in the pejorative way.

 

[-fish-]

Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

Unfortunately, that's the way many Western Christian churches preach Christianity. The OP is a good example of how it can seem like Christianity and the story of the Bible is all about how you as an individual can fly off to Heaven after you die. The earliest writings and history of those who followed Jesus was more collective than individual. And that's not surprising given the culture in which it arose. Jews, to this day, will talk about how God rescued them from slavery in Egypt. They see themselves, individually and collectively, as part of a collective group of people who were saved for a purpose thousands of years ago.

Thank you. I should have phrased my post as a general question to the group and not just sparky.

I would like to think about Christianity as more of a collective than simply an individual and their relationship with God. Where doing altruistic work is the right thing to do and not just a way to "go through the motions" your way to heaven as in the end all you really need to do is have an individual belief in Jesus.

Can someone with those same values, who can't simply just have faith, but volunteers, lives a good life, cares for others get into heaven, or as the OP states salvation is only for those that have an individual belief in Jesus? I've heard it time and time again that we're all sinners and the only hope is accepting Jesus as your savior. This is the notion that turns me off. I don't feel like a bad or unworthy person because i can't accept certain aspects of a religion, but at the same time can believe that you do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because you're trying to impress an intelligent creator. I struggle that a healthy dose of skepticism overrides a life well lived.

Well, no. Looking at it inversely, hell isn't just for bad people. It's the default position for all of humanity since everyone is tainted by original sin. Jesus announcing the kingdom of god is at hand is a new deal...if you believe, you change your default state to going to heaven.

This is where a lot of people cannot accept the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being create mankind with free will just to punish all of them to eternal torment, even though they may be personally innocent of the sin for which they are being punished? Seems arbitrary and downright cruel, really. But there it is. Jesus changes the gameboard, and gives humans (at least those that hear about him) a way out.

The thing is, that faith should come with evidence of it. It should be outwardly obvious in living a life devoted to loving others and caring for those in need. Standing on a street corner shouting at people to repent or go to hell is not consistent with the faith described in the new testament. In reality, it accomplishes the opposite since it turns people away. Same with spamming a message board with condescending and insulting posts. This is my objection to this entire thread. The point of Christianity, in my mind, should not be to seek a reward, like being especially good after Thanksgiving so Santa brings you gifts. The point is to live a life that uplifts others, particularly those in need.

 

[Zow]

Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

Unfortunately, that's the way many Western Christian churches preach Christianity. The OP is a good example of how it can seem like Christianity and the story of the Bible is all about how you as an individual can fly off to Heaven after you die. The earliest writings and history of those who followed Jesus was more collective than individual. And that's not surprising given the culture in which it arose. Jews, to this day, will talk about how God rescued them from slavery in Egypt. They see themselves, individually and collectively, as part of a collective group of people who were saved for a purpose thousands of years ago.

Thank you. I should have phrased my post as a general question to the group and not just sparky.

I would like to think about Christianity as more of a collective than simply an individual and their relationship with God. Where doing altruistic work is the right thing to do and not just a way to "go through the motions" your way to heaven as in the end all you really need to do is have an individual belief in Jesus.

Can someone with those same values, who can't simply just have faith, but volunteers, lives a good life, cares for others get into heaven, or as the OP states salvation is only for those that have an individual belief in Jesus? I've heard it time and time again that we're all sinners and the only hope is accepting Jesus as your savior. This is the notion that turns me off. I don't feel like a bad or unworthy person because i can't accept certain aspects of a religion, but at the same time can believe that you do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because you're trying to impress an intelligent creator. I struggle that a healthy dose of skepticism overrides a life well lived.

Well, no. Looking at it inversely, hell isn't just for bad people. It's the default position for all of humanity since everyone is tainted by original sin. Jesus announcing the kingdom of god is at hand is a new deal...if you believe, you change your default state to going to heaven.

This is where a lot of people cannot accept the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being create mankind with free will just to punish all of them to eternal torment, even though they may be personally innocent of the sin for which they are being punished? Seems arbitrary and downright cruel, really. But there it is. Jesus changes the gameboard, and gives humans (at least those that hear about him) a way out.

The thing is, that faith should come with evidence of it. It should be outwardly obvious in living a life devoted to loving others and caring for those in need. Standing on a street corner shouting at people to repent or go to hell is not consistent with the faith described in the new testament. In reality, it accomplishes the opposite since it turns people away. Same with spamming a message board with condescending and insulting posts. This is my objection to this entire thread. The point of Christianity, in my mind, should not be to seek a reward, like being especially good after Thanksgiving so Santa brings you gifts. The point is to live a life that uplifts others, particularly those in need.

I still am flabbergasted at those that believe the bold is fair. It's about as cruel as it gets.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Not a Christian, but am spiritual. Some of the posters here give great content on what being Christian means to them and why it's one of the world's most popular religions, unfortunately the overriding theme here isn't one of them. As a former practitioner, now outside observer to the Christian religion this thread seems to exclude those that want to have a real and honest discussion on the philosophical merits of Christianity or any of the other just as valid religions of the world (that is if it's meant to be the primary religious thread. If it's meant to troll or demean those with differing viewpoints by all means carry on).

Living and dying is truth, what happens after is opinion and should be kept in mind when having conversations with people that hold differing viewpoints.

I throw my hat in the ring for this discussion. These kinds of things are discussed all the time around here even the threads the OP starts. It's just that the OP is usually not part of any of those discussions. So I say, fire away on questions, comments, thoughts and I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that always gets us sidetracked from these kinds of discussions. Though, I make no promises!!

You're one of the posters I meant in the first part of my comment and even though my post is critical of the overall tone of the thread there's a few that in their rebuttals give excellent food for thought.

I'm not Christian in practice as i stated, but can respect it as a philosophy just like i can respect any number of other religions the same way. I was raised Catholic, but began to question what i was taught as my horizons expanded and i was exposed to other ideas. Agnosticism just makes more sense to me. I can't and won't say any one religion is wrong or better than another because imo it's unknowable while we live and breathe.

There's no right or wrong answer as far as I'm concerned, but in a world with so many possibilities what's the biggest factor in deciding on Christianity? Have you looked at other religions and found them lacking somehow? It's a personal question, but Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

So my dad told me about how he took a few years to look at, read and study several other religions and he's always encouraged me to do the same. I have gotten through a few, but not as many as he has. If we're being honest, a lot of the major religions are very similar. Christianity is the only one though that operates on the concept of grace. At least that I have run across. Salvation is a gift. That's what keeps me coming back to it. I keep wanting to find the "fine print" of what appears to be "too good to be true".

 

[Joe Bryant]

Here are some Pew research data. Looks like in recent years more educated, upper class white men have turned atheist. I suppose that does match my anecdotal experience.

24. Age, race, education and other demographic traits of U.S. religious groups

Read about U.S. religious groups’ demographics – such as race/ethnicity, age, immigrant status, gender and sexual orientation – and their trends since 2007. Religious Landscape Study by Pew Research Center.

www.pewresearch.org

Thanks. Always interested in the actual data and links like this.

 

[Joe Bryant]

If we want to be consistent and apply those standards of asking people to have faith in things that can't be proven or receiving money from it's members, the list of organizations that qualify as cults is going to be large. From Pittsburgh Steelers fans hoping for a 2nd round playoff game to NPR listeners.

I would disagree wholeheartedly here. Pittsburgh Steelers fans will absolutely discover that their team either did or did not qualify for or win a given 2nd playoff game. Not only will this happen, we know exactly when it will happen. That is, the statement "The Steelers will reach the divisional round in 2026" is provable/falsifiable. Even the statement "The Steelers will win the Super Bowl someday" is provable. More importantly, the converse "The Steelers will never win the Super Bowl" is falsifiable. That is, we know exactly what would need to occur for the statement to be proven wrong.

The statement "The rapture is close" is not falsifiable unless the person making the statement specifies how close. Similarly, the statement "God exists" is not falsifiable.

I think it absolutely does require faith for a Steelers fan today to believe they'll move past the 1st round of the playoffs. Some would argue an irrational faith.

Regardless though, to my bigger point, I don't assign cult status to organizations who ask the members to have faith in something they can't prove. No worries. We'll disagree.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

For the 25 years we've had it, I've never sensed the demographic on this board was remotely heavily Christian.

It's been pounded into my head that we are a nation built on the bedrock of Christian-Judeo values. The poll results are a contradiction.

Thanks. You've been here a long time though. Has it ever seemed to you like the Free For All was heavily Christian?

 

[dkp993]

This is where a lot of people cannot accept the idea of the Judeo-Christian God. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent being create mankind with free will just to punish all of them to eternal torment, even though they may be personally innocent of the sin for which they are being punished?

This. Along with the fact that the rules to gain salvation, for that sin of even being born at all, is in a book that is overly complicated, ambiguous and written in only one ancient language that must be translated (thus creating even more ambiguity and confusion). Oh and written not by God himself but by people later on, because we all know how accurate witness testimony is, to be interpreted 1000’s and 1000’s of year after the fact.

This seems pretty strange to do for an all knowing all loving God who wants nothing but to save our souls from eternal damnation and torture (of which he put upon everyone ever because same guy ate an apple).

 

[Joe Bryant]

Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

Unfortunately, that's the way many Western Christian churches preach Christianity. The OP is a good example of how it can seem like Christianity and the story of the Bible is all about how you as an individual can fly off to Heaven after you die. The earliest writings and history of those who followed Jesus was more collective than individual. And that's not surprising given the culture in which it arose. Jews, to this day, will talk about how God rescued them from slavery in Egypt. They see themselves, individually and collectively, as part of a collective group of people who were saved for a purpose thousands of years ago.

To follow on this - one thing I've become more and more interested in is Community.

We as Americans are (I think) somewhat uniquely obsessed with "Radical Individualism". And yes, the Christian faith teaches we eventually will be judged individually. But the writings of Jesus and other scripture talk a ton about the collective community.

I'm listening to a podcast series from a writer/pastor I like, John Mark Comer and recently listened to this one. Clip here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJUdLgWswYD/?igsh=eW12ZHo5NmNncDQ2

Here's the full podcast and they talk about Radical Individualiasm at about the 10:30 mark. I THINK I have it cued to the right spot here. https://youtu.be/J1uwm0C041I?si=1dw6_1iwG0YC8ccp&t=633

 

[Joe Bryant]

The big picture from the episode I was able to see was emphasizing how we as Americans lean toward individualism more than other countries. I've never lived outside the US so I'm not sure how accurate that is.

And his point was that's not the way Jesus and early church organized themselves. They were much more entrenched in Community. Not just a church service, but in their every day lives and being closely connected to others. And he talks about the costs of that. Privacy, simplicity, and such. But also about the positives.

 

[Mister CIA]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

For the 25 years we've had it, I've never sensed the demographic on this board was remotely heavily Christian.

It's been pounded into my head that we are a nation built on the bedrock of Christian-Judeo values. The poll results are a contradiction.

Thanks. You've been here a long time though. Has it ever seemed to you like the Free For All was heavily Christian?

Yes, I assume a solid majority of readership here is Christian. The very first search hit on Google (not authoritative I know, but it's probably in the ballpark) indicates 62% of Americans identify as Christian - and I'd expect the demographic here to come in at a higher number.

But to your point, I think the more persuasive posters tend here to lean a bit non-Christian, so there's that, but this too is flilled with assumptions,

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

Yes.

Since the start 25 years ago, I've never had the sense that the forum was even remotely heavily Christian.

 

[Scoresman]

I don't think the board is heavily Christian, but I do believe it has a higher population of Christian folk than most other boards, especially the more "modern" communities like Reddit.

 

[-fish-]

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

Yes.

Since the start 25 years ago, I've never had the sense that the forum was even remotely heavily Christian.

Assuming this has changed over time. You had to be pretty into fantasy football before it was mainstream popular to be on cheatsheets. Lots of degenerate gamblers in the early days.

Now that fantasy football has gone into the mainstream, I'd imagine that the demographic is more closely aligned with the general public.

 

[ex-ghost]

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

Yes.

Since the start 25 years ago, I've never had the sense that the forum was even remotely heavily Christian.

Well, only 27 people responded to the poll. My guess is a lot of people would never open this thread.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

Yes.

Since the start 25 years ago, I've never had the sense that the forum was even remotely heavily Christian.

Assuming this has changed over time. You had to be pretty into fantasy football before it was mainstream popular to be on cheatsheets. Lots of degenerate gamblers in the early days.

Now that fantasy football has gone into the mainstream, I'd imagine that the demographic is more closely aligned with the general public.

Thanks. I don't really know if it's changed. The demographics on the board "feel" about the same to me. We've always had some folks into gambling, but it was never the focus.

The vibe of the board has in my opinion, always been about what you see here in this thread. Definitely not heavily Christian. There's also a pretty wide difference between what folks might answer on a public survey or poll (why I always ask for a source on those) than one would get on an anonymous forum where people would tend (I assume) be more honest.

 

[dgreen]

The big picture from the episode I was able to see was emphasizing how we as Americans lean toward individualism more than other countries. I've never lived outside the US so I'm not sure how accurate that is.

And his point was that's not the way Jesus and early church organized themselves. They were much more entrenched in Community. Not just a church service, but in their every day lives and being closely connected to others. And he talks about the costs of that. Privacy, simplicity, and such. But also about the positives.

Yeah, it's an example of how we project our culture onto the culture of the Bible, read their ancient literature through our lens, and then require Jesus and his first followers to meet our standards. In previous threads, I repeatedly tried to make the point that much of the discussion around here is arguing against a false narrative. We think poking holes in, say, 19th century Western Christian theology (and how that theology continues to be preached in some churches and in this thread) is the same as poking holes in the Bible or the Christianity of Jesus' first followers.

If people are actually interested in what Christianity should be and how to interpret the Bible, I'd encourage them to seek out content from actual Biblical scholars or from people who do.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Not a Christian, but am spiritual. Some of the posters here give great content on what being Christian means to them and why it's one of the world's most popular religions, unfortunately the overriding theme here isn't one of them. As a former practitioner, now outside observer to the Christian religion this thread seems to exclude those that want to have a real and honest discussion on the philosophical merits of Christianity or any of the other just as valid religions of the world (that is if it's meant to be the primary religious thread. If it's meant to troll or demean those with differing viewpoints by all means carry on).

Living and dying is truth, what happens after is opinion and should be kept in mind when having conversations with people that hold differing viewpoints.

I throw my hat in the ring for this discussion. These kinds of things are discussed all the time around here even the threads the OP starts. It's just that the OP is usually not part of any of those discussions. So I say, fire away on questions, comments, thoughts and I'll do my best to ignore the nonsense that always gets us sidetracked from these kinds of discussions. Though, I make no promises!!

You're one of the posters I meant in the first part of my comment and even though my post is critical of the overall tone of the thread there's a few that in their rebuttals give excellent food for thought.

I'm not Christian in practice as i stated, but can respect it as a philosophy just like i can respect any number of other religions the same way. I was raised Catholic, but began to question what i was taught as my horizons expanded and i was exposed to other ideas. Agnosticism just makes more sense to me. I can't and won't say any one religion is wrong or better than another because imo it's unknowable while we live and breathe.

There's no right or wrong answer as far as I'm concerned, but in a world with so many possibilities what's the biggest factor in deciding on Christianity? Have you looked at other religions and found them lacking somehow? It's a personal question, but Christianity is more about individualism than collectivism if I'm not mistaken. Ofcourse there's elements of collectivism, but ultimately on the Christian judgment day it's about the individuals life that gets them into heaven?

So my dad told me about how he took a few years to look at, read and study several other religions and he's always encouraged me to do the same. I have gotten through a few, but not as many as he has. If we're being honest, a lot of the major religions are very similar. Christianity is the only one though that operates on the concept of grace. At least that I have run across. Salvation is a gift. That's what keeps me coming back to it. I keep wanting to find the "fine print" of what appears to be "too good to be true".

This is a great attitude imo. If you want to have all your faith in a single religion i don't see how that's possible without looking at other religions. It's silly to think someone will stop and look at them all and probably impossible, but a few major religions atleast.

Abrahamic religions have their roots in the beliefs that came before as do most other religions, so it makes sense to find overlap, but even within that umbrella there's enough difference people still find the need to commit violence over them. Most religions have good and evil, deities, important dates. What separates a Pagan from a Buddhist from a Christian? Not a much as some people probably think.

Grace and salvation as a concept isn't necessarily exclusive to Christianity, but they do have a unique twist with salvation through Christ. And that's the fine print imo. If salvation first requires belief in Jesus then that's really all that matters and good works are just a nice gesture, but not required. So when you struggle to accept limited evidence, but are willing to perform the good deeds simply because right is right it would appear to me you're on the outside looking in with no chance of salvation.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

For the 25 years we've had it, I've never sensed the demographic on this board was remotely heavily Christian.

It's been pounded into my head that we are a nation built on the bedrock of Christian-Judeo values. The poll results are a contradiction.

Thanks. You've been here a long time though. Has it ever seemed to you like the Free For All was heavily Christian?

Yes, I assume a solid majority of readership here is Christian. The very first search hit on Google (not authoritative I know, but it's probably in the ballpark) indicates 62% of Americans identify as Christian - and I'd expect the demographic here to come in at a higher number.

But to your point, I think the more persuasive posters tend here to lean a bit non-Christian, so there's that, but this too is flilled with assumptions,

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

been here since Y2K, my sense is that this forum is generally less religious than the population at large. Maybe its just a matter of posters/lurkers, but that´s always been my feel.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

read their ancient literature through our lens, and then require Jesus and his first followers to meet our standards.

I'm not sure how else i should take the Bible. Gods word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. If the message from 2000 years ago has changed or is unclear in modern times then what do I make of that? And if it's not literal or ambiguous or doesn't apply to the world we live in then the expectation that my salvation rides on old ideas that no longer apply or shouldn't be taken literal seem even more cruel and unfair.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

The leap of faith. It's that requirement that's my sticking point.

Truth is i would love to be able to do that. I could fake it and say all the right things, I'm sure many of the 62% that identify as Christian do exactly that. If I'm being honest though, it's a hard hurdle to get over.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

The leap of faith. It's that requirement that's my sticking point.

Truth is i would love to be able to do that. I could fake it and say all the right things, I'm sure many of the 62% that identify as Christian do exactly that. If I'm being honest though, it's a hard hurdle to get over.

Here's my BELIEF on this. If one simply starts poking around and asking questions and seeking to learn about it, that's all that has to happen. There has never been presented to me this notion that a huge gesture required. Do some churches, organizations sell it this way? Yep. Do they have these big events? Yep. I can't relate to any of it honestly. My journey? Mine started with me sitting in my bedroom and simply saying "I feel something is missing in my life. I want/need more". I didn't even know who/what I was really saying it to. That's how my journey started.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The big picture from the episode I was able to see was emphasizing how we as Americans lean toward individualism more than other countries. I've never lived outside the US so I'm not sure how accurate that is.

And his point was that's not the way Jesus and early church organized themselves. They were much more entrenched in Community. Not just a church service, but in their every day lives and being closely connected to others. And he talks about the costs of that. Privacy, simplicity, and such. But also about the positives.

Yeah, it's an example of how we project our culture onto the culture of the Bible, read their ancient literature through our lens, and then require Jesus and his first followers to meet our standards. In previous threads, I repeatedly tried to make the point that much of the discussion around here is arguing against a false narrative. We think poking holes in, say, 19th century Western Christian theology (and how that theology continues to be preached in some churches and in this thread) is the same as poking holes in the Bible or the Christianity of Jesus' first followers.

If people are actually interested in what Christianity should be and how to interpret the Bible, I'd encourage them to seek out content from actual Biblical scholars or from people who do.

I was going to go down this path, but didn't have the energy or time to do it today. I can't count how many times I hear/see the "Well, if God is who he says he is, then X,Y,Z is the way to show me or prove it to me" construct. Heck, I have even said that myself. In hindsight, every time I've said it in the passed it's during a time where I didn't want to be told what I was being told. That personal humility and humbleness is tough to learn. Like really hard to learn. Still a big struggle for me today.

 

[dkp993]

If people are actually interested in what Christianity should be and how to interpret the Bible, I'd encourage them to seek out content from actual Biblical scholars or from people who do.

This though is EXACTLY my issue with it. It’s not at all digestible for the average person. Biblical scholars are needed. That then speaks of it being a man made construct.

And to be clear, I don’t have one issue with anybody believing in that or wanting to. It’s not my place to tell people what to believe. And I certainly don’t have problems with anybody choosing to have a belief system that makes them a better person. I just personally haven’t found any organized religion that makes sense to me. And yes, I understand that’s where faith comes in. But I have a hard time with faith of man-made constructs.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

The leap of faith. It's that requirement that's my sticking point.

Truth is i would love to be able to do that. I could fake it and say all the right things, I'm sure many of the 62% that identify as Christian do exactly that. If I'm being honest though, it's a hard hurdle to get over.

Here's my BELIEF on this. If one simply starts poking around and asking questions and seeking to learn about it, that's all that has to happen. There has never been presented to me this notion that a huge gesture required. Do some churches, organizations sell it this way? Yep. Do they have these big events? Yep. I can't relate to any of it honestly. My journey? Mine started with me sitting in my bedroom and simply saying "I feel something is missing in my life. I want/need more". I didn't even know who/what I was really saying it to. That's how my journey started.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain. People that find their calling and a set of beliefs to go with it are fortunate and i respect that for what it's worth.

I hope i don't come across as critical of anyone's beliefs. It's not my intention, just offering a perspective.

Good talk for today, now where's the thread on those yoga pants that was promised?

I kid

 

[dgreen]

read their ancient literature through our lens, and then require Jesus and his first followers to meet our standards.

I'm not sure how else i should take the Bible. Gods word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. If the message from 2000 years ago has changed or is unclear in modern times then what do I make of that? And if it's not literal or ambiguous or doesn't apply to the world we live in then the expectation that my salvation rides on old ideas that no longer apply or shouldn't be taken literal seem even more cruel and unfair.

Yeah, I get it. These are good questions. It's a complete paradigm shift that I've done, but it's been so helpful for me to rethink my presuppositions of what the Bible is.

For example, let's consider the creation story and how that relates to your comment "God's word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago." The message being delivered in Genesis 1 to ancient Israelites is a message that is relevant to us today. However, that doesn't mean the message would be delivered in the same type of story if written today. In their culture, messages about how the world was ordered and how things got their function was told through creation stories. Creation stories were about gods bringing order out of chaos. They didn't tell those stories to answer modern scientific questions. As one scholar puts it, they told home stories instead of house stories. They didn't necessarily care about where the materials came from and how the structure was created (a house story). They cared about what made it functional and useful (a home story). In essence, something only existed in their minds when it had a purpose. They cared about their purpose in the world and how they were to relate to the gods. Genesis 1 provides a message from the perspective of the God of Israel. The message is delivered to them through their familiar literary genre of creation stories (I'm even fine with the word "myth"). We don't have that genre today so that same message would be delivered differently. It's God's word regardless of when it is told, but that doesn't mean it would be told the same way.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

The leap of faith. It's that requirement that's my sticking point.

Truth is i would love to be able to do that. I could fake it and say all the right things, I'm sure many of the 62% that identify as Christian do exactly that. If I'm being honest though, it's a hard hurdle to get over.

Here's my BELIEF on this. If one simply starts poking around and asking questions and seeking to learn about it, that's all that has to happen. There has never been presented to me this notion that a huge gesture required. Do some churches, organizations sell it this way? Yep. Do they have these big events? Yep. I can't relate to any of it honestly. My journey? Mine started with me sitting in my bedroom and simply saying "I feel something is missing in my life. I want/need more". I didn't even know who/what I was really saying it to. That's how my journey started.

Now this I'm interested in. How did you land on Christianity to fill your void? Was there an internal debate, or was it kind of baked in as a default setting? Did you explore other religious beliefs or philosophical outlooks? And most importantly to my inquiring mind, was it the promise of eternal salvation that ultimately swayed you?... Sorry if you've answered these in the past.

 

[dgreen]

If people are actually interested in what Christianity should be and how to interpret the Bible, I'd encourage them to seek out content from actual Biblical scholars or from people who do.

This though is EXACTLY my issue with it. It’s not at all digestible for the average person. Biblical scholars are needed. That then speaks of it being a man made construct.

And to be clear, I don’t have one issue with anybody believing in that or wanting to. It’s not my place to tell people what to believe. And I certainly don’t have problems with anybody choosing to have a belief system that makes them a better person. I just personally haven’t found any organized religion that makes sense to me. And yes, I understand that’s where faith comes in. But I have a hard time with faith of man-made constructs.

Personally, I no longer try to decide if it is divine or human. I see it as both. And, conveniently, Christianity has another example of something that is both divine and human. This is known as the incarnational theory of inspiration.

"Divine revelation is analogous to human communication"

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

The leap of faith. It's that requirement that's my sticking point.

Truth is i would love to be able to do that. I could fake it and say all the right things, I'm sure many of the 62% that identify as Christian do exactly that. If I'm being honest though, it's a hard hurdle to get over.

Here's my BELIEF on this. If one simply starts poking around and asking questions and seeking to learn about it, that's all that has to happen. There has never been presented to me this notion that a huge gesture required. Do some churches, organizations sell it this way? Yep. Do they have these big events? Yep. I can't relate to any of it honestly. My journey? Mine started with me sitting in my bedroom and simply saying "I feel something is missing in my life. I want/need more". I didn't even know who/what I was really saying it to. That's how my journey started.

Now this I'm interested in. How did you land on Christianity to fill your void? Was there an internal debate, or was it kind of baked in as a default setting? Did you explore other religious beliefs or philosophical outlooks? And most importantly to my inquiring mind, was it the promise of eternal salvation that ultimately swayed you?... Sorry if you've answered these in the past.

I have, but no big deal. I knew virtually nothing about Christianity. When I talk about my "dad" here, he is technically my foster parent who eventually adopted me into his family. Prior to that (age 10) I had no concept of religion at all. My dad and his family are Christians but they never forced it on me. I didn't have to go to church with them, but was always encouraged to go. I resisted for 6 or 7 years and then I had that convo with myself I mentioned above. My whole life to that point I wanted nothing more than a family. That's what was going to fill this deep void that I was feeling. I was convinced. Well, I got that family. I couldn't have asked for a better situation honestly. Bumpy at first, but that's to be expected. I was loving life, but much to my surprise, I still felt that void and I remember sitting on my bed baffled by how I could possibly still be feeling that way. I thought I had everything I needed.

So, I decided to start going to church at probably 16-17 years old with the family. More importantly, I engaged in the mission trips that were offered. That's where I learned the most. As I grew and asked questions it all started making sense. Then, in college, my dad told me of his experiences after he graduated and looking at other religions. So, while in college I've decided to do similar and it's spawned some great convos between us. Taoism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and just started looking at Islam in the last few years.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

If people are actually interested in what Christianity should be and how to interpret the Bible, I'd encourage them to seek out content from actual Biblical scholars or from people who do.

This though is EXACTLY my issue with it. It’s not at all digestible for the average person. Biblical scholars are needed. That then speaks of it being a man made construct.

And to be clear, I don’t have one issue with anybody believing in that or wanting to. It’s not my place to tell people what to believe. And I certainly don’t have problems with anybody choosing to have a belief system that makes them a better person. I just personally haven’t found any organized religion that makes sense to me. And yes, I understand that’s where faith comes in. But I have a hard time with faith of man-made constructs.

Personally, I consider myself pretty average to mediocre. This isn't a faith designed to be done alone. That's a feature not a bug IMO. And this gets back to what dgreen was talking about before that I agreed with.

 

[dgreen]

I'll throw a finer point on all this that I see made all too often which is, within the Christian religion, its a way of life. It's a constant search. Its molded in the way of a strong relationship one might have with another person. It's a constant "seeking truth" sort of thing and a constant "testing what I see to be real". We often times will talk about it as if the Bible is an answer book and salvation is a checkbox on a list. So if the evidence appears to be "limited" or "confusing" or "incomplete" that's by design IMO. It's a feature, not a bug. That too is a big difference between Christianity and other belief systems.

The leap of faith. It's that requirement that's my sticking point.

Truth is i would love to be able to do that. I could fake it and say all the right things, I'm sure many of the 62% that identify as Christian do exactly that. If I'm being honest though, it's a hard hurdle to get over.

Here's my BELIEF on this. If one simply starts poking around and asking questions and seeking to learn about it, that's all that has to happen. There has never been presented to me this notion that a huge gesture required. Do some churches, organizations sell it this way? Yep. Do they have these big events? Yep. I can't relate to any of it honestly. My journey? Mine started with me sitting in my bedroom and simply saying "I feel something is missing in my life. I want/need more". I didn't even know who/what I was really saying it to. That's how my journey started.

Now this I'm interested in. How did you land on Christianity to fill your void? Was there an internal debate, or was it kind of baked in as a default setting? Did you explore other religious beliefs or philosophical outlooks? And most importantly to my inquiring mind, was it the promise of eternal salvation that ultimately swayed you?... Sorry if you've answered these in the past.

I have, but no big deal. I knew virtually nothing about Christianity. When I talk about my "dad" here, he is technically my foster parent who eventually adopted me into his family. Prior to that (age 10) I had no concept of religion at all. My dad and his family are Christians but they never forced it on me. I didn't have to go to church with them, but was always encouraged to go. I resisted for 6 or 7 years and then I had that convo with myself I mentioned above. My whole life to that point I wanted nothing more than a family. That's what was going to fill this deep void that I was feeling. I was convinced. Well, I got that family. I couldn't have asked for a better situation honestly. Bumpy at first, but that's to be expected. I was loving life, but much to my surprise, I still felt that void and I remember sitting on my bed baffled by how I could possibly still be feeling that way. I thought I had everything I needed.

So, I decided to start going to church at probably 16-17 years old with the family. More importantly, I engaged in the mission trips that were offered. That's where I learned the most. As I grew and asked questions it all started making sense. Then, in college, my dad told me of his experiences after he graduated and looking at other religions. So, while in college I've decided to do similar and it's spawned some great convos between us. Taoism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and just started looking at Islam in the last few years.

A healthy foster/adoption situation is such a great metaphor for God. Here’s how Sandra Richter described the cultural context of the “redemption” in her book The Epic of Eden:

In Israel’s tribal society redemption was the act of a patriarch who put his own resources on the line to ransom a family member who had been driven to the margins of society by poverty, who had been seized by an enemy against whom he had no defense, who found themselves enslaved by the consequences of a faithless life. Redemption was the means by which a lost family member was restored to a place of security within the kinship circle. This was a patriarch’s responsibility, this was the safety net of Israel’s society, and this is the backdrop for the epic of Eden in which we New Testament believers find ourselves. Can you hear the metaphor of Scripture? Yahweh is presenting himself as the patriarch of the clan who has announced his intent to redeem his lost family members. Not only has he agreed to pay whatever ransom is required, but he has sent the most cherished member of his household to accomplish his intent—his firstborn son. And not only is the firstborn coming to seek and save the lost, but he is coming to share his inheritance with these who have squandered everything they have been given. His goal? To restore the lost family members to the bêt ʾāb so that where he is, they may be also. This is why we speak of each other as brother and sister, why we know God as Father, why we call ourselves the household of faith. God is beyond human gender and our relationship to him beyond blood, but the tale of redemptive history comes to us in the language of a patriarchal society. Father God is buying back his lost children by sending his eldest son, his heir, to “give His life as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28), so that we the alienated might be “adopted as sons” and share forever in the inheritance of this “firstborn of all creation.”

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

read their ancient literature through our lens, and then require Jesus and his first followers to meet our standards.

I'm not sure how else i should take the Bible. Gods word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. If the message from 2000 years ago has changed or is unclear in modern times then what do I make of that? And if it's not literal or ambiguous or doesn't apply to the world we live in then the expectation that my salvation rides on old ideas that no longer apply or shouldn't be taken literal seem even more cruel and unfair.

Yeah, I get it. These are good questions. It's a complete paradigm shift that I've done, but it's been so helpful for me to rethink my presuppositions of what the Bible is.

For example, let's consider the creation story and how that relates to your comment "God's word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago." The message being delivered in Genesis 1 to ancient Israelites is a message that is relevant to us today. However, that doesn't mean the message would be delivered in the same type of story if written today. In their culture, messages about how the world was ordered and how things got their function was told through creation stories. Creation stories were about gods bringing order out of chaos. They didn't tell those stories to answer modern scientific questions. As one scholar puts it, they told home stories instead of house stories. They didn't necessarily care about where the materials came from and how the structure was created (a house story). They cared about what made it functional and useful (a home story). In essence, something only existed in their minds when it had a purpose. They cared about their purpose in the world and how they were to relate to the gods. Genesis 1 provides a message from the perspective of the God of Israel. The message is delivered to them through their familiar literary genre of creation stories (I'm even fine with the word "myth"). We don't have that genre today so that same message would be delivered differently. It's God's word regardless of when it is told, but that doesn't mean it would be told the same way.

This concept sort of confuses my take on the Bible, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding. My upbringing preached the Bible as the truth and that included the works on Jesus's life and the more fantastic stories like God creating the earth in 6 days, as literal and not metaphorical. I guess i didn't consider that an option within Christianity.

 

[dgreen]

read their ancient literature through our lens, and then require Jesus and his first followers to meet our standards.

I'm not sure how else i should take the Bible. Gods word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago. If the message from 2000 years ago has changed or is unclear in modern times then what do I make of that? And if it's not literal or ambiguous or doesn't apply to the world we live in then the expectation that my salvation rides on old ideas that no longer apply or shouldn't be taken literal seem even more cruel and unfair.

Yeah, I get it. These are good questions. It's a complete paradigm shift that I've done, but it's been so helpful for me to rethink my presuppositions of what the Bible is.

For example, let's consider the creation story and how that relates to your comment "God's word is God's word whether he said it 2000 years ago or 5 minutes ago." The message being delivered in Genesis 1 to ancient Israelites is a message that is relevant to us today. However, that doesn't mean the message would be delivered in the same type of story if written today. In their culture, messages about how the world was ordered and how things got their function was told through creation stories. Creation stories were about gods bringing order out of chaos. They didn't tell those stories to answer modern scientific questions. As one scholar puts it, they told home stories instead of house stories. They didn't necessarily care about where the materials came from and how the structure was created (a house story). They cared about what made it functional and useful (a home story). In essence, something only existed in their minds when it had a purpose. They cared about their purpose in the world and how they were to relate to the gods. Genesis 1 provides a message from the perspective of the God of Israel. The message is delivered to them through their familiar literary genre of creation stories (I'm even fine with the word "myth"). We don't have that genre today so that same message would be delivered differently. It's God's word regardless of when it is told, but that doesn't mean it would be told the same way.

This concept sort of confuses my take on the Bible, so correct me if I'm misunderstanding. My upbringing preached the Bible as the truth and that included the works on Jesus's life and the more fantastic stories like God creating the earth in 6 days, as literal and not metaphorical. I guess i didn't consider that an option within Christianity.

That’s a version of Christianity called Fundamentalism. It’s probably what many of us were raised with but it isn’t the predominant way of reading the Bible throughout history and around the world. Since it is the only thing most of us have been exposed to, we assume it is standard.

We live in a culture that values literalism. We think it is important to have all the facts accurate when telling a story. Therefore, we assume God would value the same thing and would write his story in a way that satisfies our desire for literalism. But, what if the cultures that actually wrote the Bible didn’t value literalism? Does God inspire them to write in a way that is foreign to them because a later culture would come along and have the “right” way to write literature? What would that mean for the value of the text to them if it was crafted to primarily speak to us?

 

[Zow]

The poll results are eye opening. I suppose middle-aged white dudes trend atheist/agnostic.

The results are surprising to you?

How so?

This board tends to trend towards white, middle-aged, upper middle class male. That demographic generally tends to be heavily Christian.

For the 25 years we've had it, I've never sensed the demographic on this board was remotely heavily Christian.

It's been pounded into my head that we are a nation built on the bedrock of Christian-Judeo values. The poll results are a contradiction.

Thanks. You've been here a long time though. Has it ever seemed to you like the Free For All was heavily Christian?

Yes, I assume a solid majority of readership here is Christian. The very first search hit on Google (not authoritative I know, but it's probably in the ballpark) indicates 62% of Americans identify as Christian - and I'd expect the demographic here to come in at a higher number.

But to your point, I think the more persuasive posters tend here to lean a bit non-Christian, so there's that, but this too is flilled with assumptions,

Do you think the poll results accuratly reflect readership views?

been here since Y2K, my sense is that this forum is generally less religious than the population at large. Maybe its just a matter of posters/lurkers, but that´s always been my feel.

Well, generally people with typical desk jobs that require advanced degrees have the ability to be on a forum more than those that don't. And, typically, I believe the more advanced degree the less likely the person is to be religious.

So, that could explain it.