Do you teach your children that your faith is the only correct one?

[Jenny in Florida]

As for the Bible... it is on my shelf next to the Tao of Pooh, Tao Te Ching, The Prophet (Kahlil Gibran), and Socrates to Sartre (A History of Philosophy). I've found something worthwhile in all of them.

 

Oh, now I have to go check my shelf. Back in a minute . . .

 

Okey-dokey. I'm back. Here's a partial list:

 

3 Bibles

THe Jewish Book of Why

Choosing a Jewish Faith

The Way of Torah

The Jewish Manual

Selected Suras of the Qu'ran

The Idiot's Guide to the Koran

Bhagavad Gita

Barron's Guide to Buddhism

The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha

Hamilton's Greek Mythology

2 Books by Huston Smith

Several by F. Forrester Church

(And a few books on tarot, but I probably shouldn't mention those.)

 

So, it's not like I'm not doing my research.

[Hapax Legomena]

Evidence? He only showed himself to a tiny group of people. People see all sorts of things that they wish to be true. Do and say all sorts of things based on what they think is right or real. If Jesus was the only way, then why only express this to a tiny few? I will give his followers the nod though for having awesome PR. What would the faith be without Paul? You really have to wonder.

 

Actually, hundreds of people saw him. In fact, John says that all of Jerusalem came to the Jordan to see what was happening. The message of Jesus was communicated openly and broadly from the very start of His public ministry. It was not until the Jewish leaders rejected Him, that Jesus directed His attention more pointedly to the Apostles rather than to the broader public.

 

Paul says that Jesus died and was buried. The proof of death is burial. Second, he says that Jesus rose from the dead. The proof of being raised is that he was seen by a few people, then the Apostles, then more than 500 people. Then Paul says, many of them are alive today. The implication is that if you don't believe me, go and ask them.

 

Those are two accounts of solid eyewitness testimony. On what basis do you reject that testimony?

[Mekanamom]

Oh, now I have to go check my shelf. Back in a minute . . .

 

Okey-dokey. I'm back. Here's a partial list:

 

3 Bibles

THe Jewish Book of Why

Choosing a Jewish Faith

The Way of Torah

The Jewish Manual

Selected Suras of the Qu'ran

The Idiot's Guide to the Koran

Bhagavad Gita

Barron's Guide to Buddhism

The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha

Hamilton's Greek Mythology

2 Books by Huston Smith

Several by F. Forrester Church

(And a few books on tarot, but I probably shouldn't mention those.)

 

So, it's not like I'm not doing my research.

 

That's awesome! I haven't done much recent philosophical/religious reading... it's about time I did some more and brushed up on what I've already got, too. (Thanks for the booklist!! Please post more if you come across others!)

 

LOL... I do have a set of Medicine Cards on the same shelf... LOL. Oh, and I forgot to mention Religion and Science by Bertrand Russell. And the tons of Greek Mythology we have too... And then there's the Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell which I haven't studied since college... it's definitely time to dust all these off again. :)

 

My DD recently did a little comparative religion/philosophy reading in her world history text. The thoughts she shared with me on Confucionism were incredibly interesting! Of all the various religions and philosophies she was introduced to, that was what spoke to her the most.

 

Which brings me back to the original post. I definitely do encourage my kids to study various beliefs and to contemplate what meaning and/or guidance they may find for themselves within. I do not tell them what to believe as far as religious faith goes. (But I am observant and ready to protect them from scams and cults!) Mostly, I really enjoy asking them what they think about various beliefs, and listening to their answers.

[amsunshine]

Paul says that Jesus died and was buried. The proof of death is burial. Second, he says that Jesus rose from the dead. The proof of being raised is that he was seen by a few people, then the Apostles, then more than 500 people. Then Paul says, many of them are alive today. The implication is that if you don't believe me, go and ask them.

 

Those are two accounts of solid eyewitness testimony. On what basis do you reject that testimony?

Respectfully, from what I understand, Jesus wasn't actually buried. The women had taken his body to allegedly be prepared for burial and it was placed inside a cave of some sort for that process.

 

As for whether or not Jesus actually died and rose from the dead -- I fully understand that this is what Christians believe. However, there is another school of thought which I personally find more believeable, which is this: Jesus did not actually die, although he came quite close to it. The women were able to take his body prior to his death and nurse him back to health -- making it appear to some as if a miracle had occurred, complete with people seeing Jesus "raised from the dead" (wounds from the nails and all).

 

I bring this up not to argue, but only to point out that just because someone says it is so (especially a person thousands of years ago who was probably more easily duped than he/she would be today) -- doesn't actually provide evidence it is so. It just provides evidence that that person or those persons thought it was so.

[Spy Car]

Paul says that Jesus died and was buried. The proof of death is burial. Second, he says that Jesus rose from the dead. The proof of being raised is that he was seen by a few people, then the Apostles, then more than 500 people. Then Paul says, many of them are alive today. The implication is that if you don't believe me, go and ask them.

 

Those are two accounts of solid eyewitness testimony. On what basis do you reject that testimony?

 

Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) never met Jesus, so he's an eye-witness to nothing.

 

Bill

[WishboneDawn]

Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) never met Jesus, so he's an eye-witness to nothing.

 

Bill

 

Most biblical scholars would point out that John wouldn't have been an eyewitness either as they would maintain it was likely the last of the gospels written and probably written at least 60 years and several generations after Jesus' death.

[unsinkable]

Respectfully, from what I understand, Jesus wasn't actually buried. The women had taken his body to allegedly be prepared for burial and it was placed inside a cave of some sort for that process.

 

As for whether or not Jesus actually died and rose from the dead -- I fully understand that this is what Christians believe. However, there is another school of thought which I personally find more believeable, which is this: Jesus did not actually die, although he came quite close to it. The women were able to take his body prior to his death and nurse him back to health -- making it appear to some as if a miracle had occurred, complete with people seeing Jesus "raised from the dead" (wounds from the nails and all).

 

I bring this up not to argue, but only to point out that just because someone says it is so (especially a person thousands of years ago who was probably more easily duped than he/she would be today) -- doesn't actually provide evidence it is so. It just provides evidence that that person or those persons thought it was so.

 

Is this a modern theory or has it been around since the time of Jesus?

 

I've heard of the "Jesus went to France & married Mary Magdalen" theories but I thought those were modern theories to exxplain what MIGHT have happened.

[amsunshine]

Is this a modern theory or has it been around since the time of Jesus?

 

I've heard of the "Jesus went to France & married Mary Magdalen" theories but I thought those were modern theories to exxplain what MIGHT have happened.

 

I have no idea.

[Spy Car]

Most biblical scholars would point out that John wouldn't have been an eyewitness either as they would maintain it was likely the last of the gospels written and probably written at least 60 years and several generations after Jesus' death.

 

Correct. And before I was aware of this, I used to wonder how the authors of the books attributed to "John" and Paul/Saul seemed like they were so incompatible (to me) with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels.

 

They read like works by authors that never knew Jesus, and didn't seem to have the same message as that found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

I think I'm with Thomas Jefferson in regards to Paul.

 

Bill

Edited April 17, 2009 by Spy Car
can you unkill a cat?

[amsunshine]

The legal system deals with true and false testimony every day. The rules of evidence are designed in part to sort out the truth. The foremost scholar on evidence, the highest authority cited in the US courts during his day, examined the gospels in light of the rules of evidence and concluded that the testimony is trustworthy.

Who was this person you are talking about? I would love to know and learn more about this. I find it really fascinating.

 

On the other hand -- the fact that one legal scholar, however respected, finds something trustworthy doesn't mean it sets forth the truth. The rules of evidence are there to help a judge determine whether something is admissible in a court of law, and whether it has the tendency of proving a fact material to either the plaintiff or the defense. This is not a particularly high threshold. When a judge admits evidence based on these rules, he/she is not determining the truth or falsity of the evidence -- that is for the jury to decide. So, essentially, the rules of evidence would only govern whether biblical writings would hypothetically be admissible in a court of law -- not whether they are true or false.

Edited April 15, 2009 by amsunshine
To add "hypothetically" b/c biblical content is typically not admissible in court

[unsinkable]

I have no idea.

 

OK. I just thought since you used the term another school of thought you could point me in the direction of that school of thought's origin.

 

:)

[Julpost]

Respectfully, from what I understand, Jesus wasn't actually buried. The women had taken his body to allegedly be prepared for burial and it was placed inside a cave of some sort for that process.

 

As for whether or not Jesus actually died and rose from the dead -- I fully understand that this is what Christians believe. However, there is another school of thought which I personally find more believeable, which is this: Jesus did not actually die, although he came quite close to it. The women were able to take his body prior to his death and nurse him back to health -- making it appear to some as if a miracle had occurred, complete with people seeing Jesus "raised from the dead" (wounds from the nails and all).

 

I bring this up not to argue, but only to point out that just because someone says it is so (especially a person thousands of years ago who was probably more easily duped than he/she would be today) -- doesn't actually provide evidence it is so. It just provides evidence that that person or those persons thought it was so.

 

 

The account of Jesus walking through walls, ascending into the sky, angels appearing explaining what had happened....to me, those are so concrete, it either happened or it didn't. There's no making it appear to have happened or that someone thought it might be so.

[amsunshine]

The account of Jesus walking through walls, ascending into the sky, angels appearing explaining what had happened....to me, those are so concrete, it either happened or it didn't. There's no making it appear to have happened or that someone thought it might be so.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

I have a memory, though, of this particular ascension material first appearing in one of Paul's writings, a number of years after Jesus died, and then it later started appearing in one or more of the gospels (i.e., it was added to the gospels and wasn't part of the initial content). I don't know if this is accurate or not -- but perhaps someone, who is a better biblical scholar than I am, could clarify this.

Edited April 16, 2009 by amsunshine
grammatical error -- how annoying!

[Katiebug_1976]

Well I absolutely believe that there is only one God and that our salvation comes only through the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that's the way I live my life so they definitely see that. But I also teach them that it is extremely important to respect others' beliefs and ideas. And I want them to listen to and care about others, no matter their beliefs. They see me living that way too. More than anything, I want them to be Jesus to the world.

 

 

I would definitely be sad if my children turned their back on God. That's why I spend so much time on my knees now.

:iagree: I totally agree with this statement. It's as if the words came out of my mouth. My dh & I teach our children about the birth, death and resurection of Christ and how this is the only way to God. Part of living like a christian is also respecting others, regardless of how or what they believe. We teach our children that not all people have the same beliefs, and thats ok. That's where witnessing comes in. Not "shoving our beliefs down your throat," but true witnessing. Telling everyone we can about Jesus and what He has done for us. Then the rest is up to Him!

[Nakia]

Speaking only for myself of course . . . I know the Bible to be the work of human authors and editors, and do not have faith that it the inerrant word of God. There are parts of it that seem profoundly human to me, that expose human failings. I am tempted to give an example, but don't wish to make you feel like I am picking on your faith, so I'll skip that. The point I wanted to get to is that there are other parts which do display the good, the true, and the beautiful, and I think those parts of the Bible are worth noting, repeating, and possibly even basing one's life upon.

 

My own faith is that all religions are attempts to understand and touch the Divine, and so all faiths have something of value to teach us. Therefore the Bible has value to it, even if I don't think *every* word of it is the word of God. The sacred texts of other religions also have value to me, even if i don't take every word of them literally or believe that every word is accurate and true. The Bible is the sacred text with which I am most familiar, and as an adult I have also familiarized myself with the teachings of the Buddha, so these are the sources of wisdom I turn to the most. I find many shared truths between the two, actually, and my tendency is to focus on those areas of agreement. My p.o.v. is that the truth probably lies in those areas in which the world's religions have agreed, and the areas of disagreement are probably where human failings have seeped in. So that's why I can quote parts of the Bible and believe them to be true, without actually being a Christian.

 

Did that make ANY sense??? :D

 

That does make sense. I appreciate you taking the time to respond!!

[Nakia]

:iagree: I totally agree with this statement. It's as if the words came out of my mouth. My dh & I teach our children about the birth, death and resurection of Christ and how this is the only way to God. Part of living like a christian is also respecting others, regardless of how or what they believe. We teach our children that not all people have the same beliefs, and thats ok. That's where witnessing comes in. Not "shoving our beliefs down your throat," but true witnessing. Telling everyone we can about Jesus and what He has done for us. Then the rest is up to Him!

 

:hurray:

[Spy Car]

Laura - anything I've said on biblical matters pretty much comes from a four -year course I'm taking that's put out by the American Episcopal church and mentored by a friend who's an Anglican minister and attended by a bunch of people, most of whom are very committed Christians. Other sources I use are an Oxford NSRV bible and various texts and articles I've read on textual criticism. Nothing I've said is radical, anti-Christian or original and it comes mainly from Christian moderate or liberal Christian biblical scholars. Please don't assign me an intent I don't have.

 

Further, nobody said Paul, "made stuff up." The point was made that he wasn't an eyewitness, that's all. Spy Car pointed out nothing that isn't clear from a reading of Paul's epistles.

 

:iagree: What she said.

 

Paul/Saul never met Jesus, did he Laura?

 

I never said anything about "mass hallucinations", you are just making things up out of thin air.

 

Bill

[WishboneDawn]

Correct. And before I was aware of this, I used to wonder how the author's of the books attributed to "John" and Paul/Saul seemed like they were so incompatible (to me) with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels.

 

They read like works by authors that never knew Jesus, and didn't seem to have the same message as that found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

I think I'm with Thomas Jefferson in regards to Paul.

 

Bill

 

John almost seems gnostic, definitely different. I find it's almost as if an account of Jesus' life was beside the point - rather it's symbolism and such that's the point and not at all meant to be literal IMO.

 

I'm not familiar wit'h Thomas Jefferson's view of Paul...Could you point me to a source where I could learn a bit more?

[newbie]

I dont go on the secular board. I just noticed what was posted here, and from where I am sitting there was no bashing. I dont hit every discussion, to find out who said what to whom.

 

I try and walk the peaceful understanding line. I think all religions/faiths have their own truths. I have opened my mind to see there is but one *Truth*. Let all find their own paths. It is their journey.

[Mommy22alyns]

And then I'm guessing agnostics and athiests have different beliefs. Interesting.

 

 

Yes, there is a difference between atheist and agnostic. :)

 

In a nutshell, just from the word roots:

 

Atheist - without god - a/without, the/god(s)

 

Agnostic - without knowledge (i.e., I don't know, humans cannot know, etc.) a/without, gnos/knowledge

[WishboneDawn]

The Road to Damascus?

 

Technically that was a meeting with the divine Christ, not the human Jesus so Bill gets off on a technicality. :D

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Really? Then the secular community board wasn't poking fun at Jesus last night??? Mods had to remove the posts. It seems people want to appear pc but act totally different behind the scenes.

 

I am having a hard time figuring out why someone who is a Christian would be following the activity of a secular group so closely. What do you care if they bash Jesus? Why not just talk about Christian things within a Christian group rather than worrying about what someone totally unconnected to your beliefs thinks about Jesus?

 

I don't often wake up and decide, "I want to be offended today, so I'm going to find a fundamentalist Christian message board and read messages that personally offend me."

 

Of course, to each their own. I'm just having a hard time trying to understand this kind of lifestyle.

[Guest janainaz]

No. We learn about other faiths and beliefs and I ask questions - foundational questions. I let my son think about it on his own and we talk about his thoughts. I give him my perception, but it also changes over time. I do believe that anyone who genuinely knows love, has love, has the spirit of God inside them. In order to really love, you must also be willing to lay down your life and forgive and therefore.... true love must be connected with the heart of Christ. I think we will all be surprised at who we find in Heaven. The Bible says God is love and that is huge. That's how I approach it with my son.

 

God searches the heart and only He can determine the true heart of a man - even if they claim to hold another faith or belief. Sometimes people don't know what they are believing and why and there are those that think they are in touch with the truth, merely with words, but their hearts are far from love and from God. There are those that may claim to a be an x, y or z.... but are servants and quite possibly more in touch with truth than they know.

[amsunshine]

There sure is a lot of unsubstantiated mud-sling doing on :glare:

:iagree:

 

I hope this thread gets back to the discussion I know I was enjoying about our different ways of finding meaning in life, what we teach our children and why.

[Rosie_0801]

I know I was enjoying about our different ways of finding meaning in life, what we teach our children and why.

 

Of course religion is not the only direction to finding meaning in life, or a code of behaviour to follow. The promise I made as a brownie is still an important feature in my life...

 

Rosie

[amsunshine]

Of course religion is not the only direction to finding meaning in life, or a code of behaviour to follow. The promise I made as a brownie is still an important feature in my life...

 

Brownies? Oh, my! Now that's a whole 'nother can of worms!

 

:)

[WishboneDawn]

Brownies? Oh, my! Now that's a whole 'nother can of worms!

 

:)

 

Mmmmm...Brownies. Excuse me while I go raid my chocolate stash. :D

[Mandy in TN]

Are those of us who allow space for other possibilities really such a tiny minority? If you don't allow space for other possibilities (as in, you teach your kids that anyone who does not believe as you believe is simply wrong and misguided), can you explain why?

 

As I am culturally Christian, Dh is culturally Muslim, xh is athiest- it would be really difficult to say that my faith is the only correct faith.

:lol:Mandy

[TXMomof4]

Correct. And before I was aware of this, I used to wonder how the author's of the books attributed to "John" and Paul/Saul seemed like they were so incompatible (to me) with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels.

 

They read like works by authors that never knew Jesus, and didn't seem to have the same message as that found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

I think I'm with Thomas Jefferson in regards to Paul.

 

Bill

 

You don't think Paul has preaches the gospel of Jesus? How so?

[Rosie_0801]

Brownies? Oh, my! Now that's a whole 'nother can of worms!

 

:)

 

It is? I understand that the pursuit of confectionary can take on a "holy grail" type dimension, but that wasn't the type of brownie I meant. :drool5:

 

:)

Rosie

[Peek a Boo]

Correct. And before I was aware of this, I used to wonder how the author's of the books attributed to "John" and Paul/Saul seemed like they were so incompatible (to me) with the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels.

 

They read like works by authors that never knew Jesus, and didn't seem to have the same message as that found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

 

huh. I've discovered completely different sides of people that i've known for years, simply because someone w/ a different perspective pointed out other [seemingly incompatible] stuff about that person that I hadn't noticed before. But i guess that goes w/ the (to me) portion of your post ;)

 

 

So when *any* religious tradition (not picking on Christians!) claims that God is punative, wrathful, vengeful, violent, hateful, etc. I believe that they are in fact attributing human failings to God. Divinity is beyond these human failings.

-----------------------------

Is it necessary, by definition, for a Christian to accept the Bible as inerrant? Is it impossible for someone to believe in Jesus with all their heart, but also believe that the scriptures have been corrupted by human hands? I'm asking this sincerely. I do not know the answer.

 

I do believe that in order to be purely good [God] you need to reject things that are in any way evil. That is what God hates: only those things which are Evil. And for those portions which i struggle with, I place them in God's corner, knowing that sooner or later I'll be told the answer.

 

I do see the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Mostly because it makes sense to me to do so. However, my question of "Can a Christian still be a Christian and suffer from the sin of misunderstanding the Bible" leads me to believe that no, being a Christian is NOT dependent on how you view the Bible in its details. I do think you can find much peace in your walk w/ Christ if you study it as a Complete document w/ Christ at the Center and a God Knows More About Being Good than We Do attitude. :)

 

hope that helps- feel free to PM me if you wanna yak it up any further ;)

[lovinmomma]

I totally agree with this! I also want to say that I don't teach my children that other "religions" are incorrect. I teach them that not believeing that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life is incorrect. I don't care if you are Baptist, or non-denominational, etc. Religions are completely irrelevent to me in the matter. What I truly care about is that my children know that Jesus... that God loves them and that He is a good God, and that He is the only way. The rest is insignificant.

[lovinmomma]

SO GOOD! I agree!

 

Julie

 

...Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except through Him. Having studied other cultures and religions, like another poster said, they've learned to love others and understand why they think the way that they do. MFW ECC last year really opened their eyes and gave them that love for others...praying through Window on the World was a great tool for them! The answer is yes, I do teach them that, but the Bible simplifies that for me because it's not me making that up but God's very Word that teaches it. :001_smile:

 

Teresa

[lovinmomma]

I think I can understand the shock of that if taken from your POV. From my POV, God has proven Himself so often to me through my own prayers and His Word...honestly, from unbelievable, jaw-dropping miracles!! No one can take away my actual experience with Him in prayer and make me disbelieve my own practical experience of walking in the newness of life in Him and with Him. It's one of those things that someone could tell me the ocean water was bright orange today and I'd believe them more easily than ever disbelieving in Christ my Savior who is more real and more trustworthy than any human word or wisdom has or ever will be for me! He has given me new life. He has given me hope when I used to feel hopeless. He has RADICALLY changed my marriage, my mothering, my friendships, my thought-life, my view on the world I live in. He has given me peace at times when everything was absolute chaos and turmoil...unexplainable peace that no human or pill or drink or potion could even think of giving me!! He has done unexplainably beautiful things for me in unexplainable ways. Nothing can steal that from me. So if He has been that gracious, that loving, that amazing, that forgiving, that kind to me...how could I possibly tell my kids anything else? It would be me trying to be all politically correct in a situation that is so very, very far beyond political correctness. I'm not going to ever play games with them in such a way...I won't play games with God in such a way. His Word says for me to teach it to them when we are walking when we are at home, write it on my doorposts, etc. Love for Him drives me to do it...often it just comes bubbling up in such a way because I. AM. IN. AWE. OF. HIM!!!!!!!!

 

You asked. That is my heart-felt reply. It's from my experience and not me pointing a finger at anyone else for not doing it my way. I'm just saying.

 

Teresa

 

:iagree: and I could not have said it better. HE STILL WORKS TODAY!!!

[Hapax Legomena]

Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) never met Jesus, so he's an eye-witness to nothing.

 

Bill

 

Bill, you missed the point. Paul is indicating that there were more than 500 people alive in Paul's day who were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

 

Why should I accept the view of a handful of people 2000 years after the fact who did not witness anything? More than 500 of Jesus' contemporaries saw the resurrected Jesus.

 

By the way, do you also reject the rest of ancient history?

[Rosie_0801]

By the way, do you also reject the rest of ancient history?

 

I'm not Bill, but I do think ancient history needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Didn't someone earlier mention the story of the blind men and the elephant? That story applies to all history in my opinion. To most humanities subjects, I would say.

Of course the validity of historical sources is a subject for another thread.

 

Rosie- Holder of a BA in history which was fun but not very useful.

[KarenNC]

I totally agree with this! I also want to say that I don't teach my children that other "religions" are incorrect. I teach them that not believeing that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life is incorrect. I don't care if you are Baptist, or non-denominational, etc. Religions are completely irrelevent to me in the matter. What I truly care about is that my children know that Jesus... that God loves them and that He is a good God, and that He is the only way. The rest is insignificant.

 

Well, yes, then you do indeed teach them that other religions are incorrect. There is only one religion which believes that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life"----the religion of Christianity. Baptist, non-denominational, Catholic, LDS, JW etc are all parts (sects, denominations, etc) of the religion of Christianity because they all worship Jesus as God (to the best of my knowledge). The term "other religions" includes things like Wicca, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, etc.

 

I realize some will think I am overly picky on the terminology, but it really does make a difference to use it correctly. It makes a *big* difference, for instance, when one says one's homeschool support group is "inclusive of all religions" when they *actually* mean "inclusive of all sects of Christianity, but not really open to those who are not Christian". Not so much difference to the Catholic and the Baptist who may well be glad to have found a place that accepts both of them (and that can be hard enough to find), but believe me it makes a world of difference to the one who follows a Neopagan religion and walks in expecting to be welcomed.

Edited April 16, 2009 by KarenNC

[WishboneDawn]

Bill, you missed the point. Paul is indicating that there were more than 500 people alive in Paul's day who were witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

 

Why should I accept the view of a handful of people 2000 years after the fact who did not witness anything? More than 500 of Jesus' contemporaries saw the resurrected Jesus.

 

By the way, do you also reject the rest of ancient history?

 

 

You don't need to accept the scepticism of others. You've made a choice to believe and to read the Bible in a manner you feel called to. The point is simply being made that for people who either don't believe or aren't compelled by their church or faith to read the bible as literal history, such passages aren't convincing or satisfying in the same manner. We read, after all similar stories of miraculous and supernatural events in other religions and traditions. Do you accept all those as history? The standards applied to the Bible in terms of it's historicity are no different then those we apply to all historical documents.

 

Don't take this as an attempt to convince you to not believe. Take it as an insight into why others don't or why they don't believe in the same manner you do (this even includes fellow Christians). You have an extra tool to measure the Bible by, namely your belief in a Bible that's inerrant and infallible in a literal sense. Lacking that, and working with what tools we do have, it's not surprising that our conclusions might be different.

[hi_itsgwen]

Well, yes, then you do indeed teach them that other religions are incorrect. There is only one religion which believes that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life"----the religion of Christianity. Baptist, non-denominational, Catholic, LDS, JW etc are all parts (sects, denominations, etc) of the religion of Christianity because they all worship Jesus as God (to the best of my knowledge). The term "other religions" includes things like Wicca, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, etc.

 

I realize some will think I am overly picky on the terminology, but it really does make a difference to use it correctly. It makes a *big* difference, for instance, when one says one's homeschool support group is "inclusive of all religions" when they *actually* mean "inclusive of all sects of Christianity, but not really open to those who are not Christian". Not so much difference to the Catholic and the Baptist who may well be glad to have found a place that accepts both of them (and that can be hard enough to find), but believe me it makes a world of difference to the one who follows a Neopagan religion and walks in expecting to be welcomed.

 

Karen,

I'm sincerely sorry that you've been unwelcomed. I hate that for you. You can totally sit by me, and I won't beat you with my Bible, secretly sprinkle anything holy on you, or stick tracts under your windshield wiper when you're not looking. :tongue_smilie:

 

I have a strong tendancy, as a believer in Christ, to shy away from acquanitances who have different belief systems. It's just easier and 'safer' to buddy up to (nice) people who believe like me...common ground is so much more comfortable. I'm being really honest here. I don't understand where they are coming from, and think that asking them to explain where they are coming from would be rather cheeky and make them feel like I'm interrogating them. (I'm terribly curious.)

Especially if we've just met and are in a larger social gathering. I will try to stick to subjects that we might have in common, but then that list usually gets narrow pretty quickly. I am an artsy person and have a hard time finding kindred spirits anway...and faith touches and colors so many aspect of a persons life. But I do try. I have also found that people who 'feel' out of place are tougher to get to know (myself included). :bored:

 

I have found with friends who believe differently than I do (both Christian and otherwise), that the topic of beliefs can just be too touchy of a subject. With varying degrees of passion and education, each is convinced that we hold right beliefs, so each person gets the subtle (or not so subtle) idea that the other person thinks they are wrong, decieved, or need persuading. Ick. [shudder] But this largely depends on the personality of the person, and how secure they are in discussing their beliefs.

 

One of my dearest friends is particularly passionate about wanting to convert me to her way of seeing things. I just sit quietly and listen, and then I avoid her for a few days to let her get it out of her system. This is, for me, a completely ineffective way of converting me...as I am looking for the nearest exit the whole time. :)

 

I also will not enter into conversations with her children about our differences in belief when they are in my care, out of respect for her. I believe that she has a right to parent her kids according to her belief system. My kids can answers a direct question about how they believe or think if asked, but are not allowed to 'discuss' (argue) with their friends over any of the differences in belief. It's been a very good experience for our family to maintain this frienship, and we love them all very much.

 

So, while I do teach my kids our (dh and my) beliefs, and I sincerely and passionately hold to my faith in Christ. We certainly don't like or dislike people based on their belief system.

[Jenny in Florida]

Don't take this as an attempt to convince you to not believe. Take it as an insight into why others don't or why they don't believe in the same manner you do (this even includes fellow Christians). You have an extra tool to measure the Bible by, namely your belief in a Bible that's inerrant and infallible in a literal sense. Lacking that, and working with what tools we do have, it's not surprising that our conclusions might be different.

 

Oh, that was nicely written. Thank you.

[Greta]

I do believe that in order to be purely good [God] you need to reject things that are in any way evil. That is what God hates: only those things which are Evil. And for those portions which i struggle with, I place them in God's corner, knowing that sooner or later I'll be told the answer.

 

I do see the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Mostly because it makes sense to me to do so. However, my question of "Can a Christian still be a Christian and suffer from the sin of misunderstanding the Bible" leads me to believe that no, being a Christian is NOT dependent on how you view the Bible in its details. I do think you can find much peace in your walk w/ Christ if you study it as a Complete document w/ Christ at the Center and a God Knows More About Being Good than We Do attitude. :)

 

Thank you, Peek. I appreciate hearing your perspective on this very much. I will mull it over and PM you if any other questions pop up.

[melissel]

I want to thank everyone for this thoughtful and civil discussion (and Susan for carefully moderating it). I'm grateful to have a place where I can ask this kind of question and receive educated, passionate, thoughtful responses. I really appreciate everyone taking the time to explain their beliefs and helping me examine mine.

 

Melissa

[KarenNC]

Karen,

I'm sincerely sorry that you've been unwelcomed. I hate that for you. You can totally sit by me, and I won't beat you with my Bible, secretly sprinkle anything holy on you, or stick tracts under your windshield wiper when you're not looking. :tongue_smilie:

 

Thanks, actually we have a wonderful inclusive homeschool group we have called home for over 4 years which includes Christians (conservative and liberal), Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, Neopagans and "who knows" :001_smile:. I will say that because I have had experience with groups that mean "various forms of Christianity" when they say "different religions" or "inclusive", I was *very specific* when I first contacted the group about what "inclusive" meant to them. I wanted to know upfront whether it was a situation I was willing to take my then 4yo into. Thankfully, when I said, "I'm a politically moderate to liberal Neopagan Unitarian Universalist who doesn't proselytize---are you really inclusive enough to include me?" they said, "Come on in".:D

 

My point in posting about the terminology was not to criticize folks for wanting to associate with like-minded individuals at all. I understand that and do that to varying degrees myself. I actually *appreciate* groups that state upfront that they are Christian-specific (even if I sometimes envy the activities they have available which I cannot access). It was to remind folks that language does indeed matter and that, while it is not uncommon in some Christian circles to refer to differing denominations as differing religions, that is not what the term actually means. Everyone has a right of free association, but it helps to be precise in one's language to avoid "surprises" on either side.

 

I agree that it really does depend on the person in terms of whether they are willing to be or interested in being open to relationships of any kind that stretch their comfort zones and what those comfort zones are. Going into a situation "feeling out of place" does indeed make it difficult to connect with others and for them to connect with you. It took me a while to relax my defenses and make connections initially, but those connections have really helped me to grow and gain a better understanding of my own often unconscious ways of shutting others out.

 

It also doesn't mean that because you are open to stretching in some areas, you have to stretch in all. I had to work to be more comfortable around folks who unschool, for instance, as doing that is simply something that will never be in my comfort zone, but it was something I decided was worth it to me. I have decided that it really is outside my comfort zone and not worth it to me to go to any women's gathering that labels itself with any variant of the spelling of "woman/women" (wimmin, wombyn, etc) because in my experience those groups usually end up focusing more on what's wrong with men that what's right with women. I am not interested in that and prefer to spend my energies elsewhere.

 

I will also admit that I have a tendency to shy away from general gatherings of Neopagans because we are part of a minority religion even under the Neopagan umbrella (of course :001_rolleyes:) and many of the beliefs and practices that are common in the larger Neopagan community are vastly different from ours and outside of my comfort zone. In fact, I probably have more in common with many Christians than I do with most Neopagans on the topic of religion and religious practice:).

Edited April 16, 2009 by KarenNC

[HRAAB]

I do see the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Mostly because it makes sense to me to do so. However, my question of "Can a Christian still be a Christian and suffer from the sin of misunderstanding the Bible" leads me to believe that no, being a Christian is NOT dependent on how you view the Bible in its details. I do think you can find much peace in your walk w/ Christ if you study it as a Complete document w/ Christ at the Center and a God Knows More About Being Good than We Do attitude. :)

 

 

 

A couple of questions regarding the above. You believe it is a sin to misunderstand Scripture? And secondly, who has the authority to say whether you are misunderstanding Scripture or not?

 

Thanks,

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

A couple of questions regarding the above. You believe it is a sin to misunderstand Scripture? And secondly, who has the authority to say whether you are misunderstanding Scripture or not?

 

Thanks,

Janet

 

sure--

how many denominations teach that very specific differences in interpretation [communion, baptism, etc] can lead to a false faith or worshipping something other than The One True God? what if they are each misunderstanding something that God meant about those passages?

if we do something sinful in ignorance or flawed reasoning it's still a sin as far as God is concerned.

 

only God gets to judge, but if He's looking at you through the lens of Christ it won't matter. :D

[my3starsofthesea]

I do not teach my children that our faith is the only correct one. My grandmother was a Jew. I could never say she was wrong for what she believed, we were very close, and she is very special to me.

 

I have always taught my children about our faith and what others believe as well. I was raised RCC, but now I am Methodist. My mom's dad was Catholic, and my mom's mom was Jewish. My dad was raised Baptist. I think because I come from many different backgrounds, I believe it's important to teach my children what others' believe too, and that goes with speaking of Muslims, Buddhists, etc. I think it's important for them to know what others believe too, and that it's not up to us, but God to decide what we do is right or wrong. I hope by teaching them what others believe too, that it will help them defend their faith if need be, or help them understand why we practice our faith the way we do.

 

Growing up, I had never even been to any kind of church except for the RCC. It wasn't until I was an adult that I experienced something completely different by going to churches of other denominations. I have never had a problem with my children attending another church of another denomination either with their friends. I tell them God is everywhere. :)

[FlockOfSillies]

My "I agree with Erica in PA" sign is wearing out. I need to make a new one, LOL.

[Hapax Legomena]

Who was this person you are talking about? I would love to know and learn more about this. I find it really fascinating.

 

On the other hand -- the fact that one legal scholar, however respected, finds something trustworthy doesn't mean it sets forth the truth. The rules of evidence are there to help a judge determine whether something is admissible in a court of law, and whether it has the tendency of proving a fact material to either the plaintiff or the defense. This is not a particularly high threshold. When a judge admits evidence based on these rules, he/she is not determining the truth or falsity of the evidence -- that is for the jury to decide. So, essentially, the rules of evidence would only govern whether biblical writings would hypothetically be admissible in a court of law -- not whether they are true or false.

 

The lawyer’s name is Simon Greenleaf. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Fuller referred to him as “the highest authority on evidence cited in our courts.â€

 

Greenleaf wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists, a book setting forth the gospel accounts in parallel format. The 50 page introduction to that book presents Greenleaf’s examination of the gospel writers’ testimony. That introduction also appears in the appendix of John Warwick Montgomery’s book The Law Above the Law.

 

I agree with you that judges determine the admissibility of evidence. However, courts also have rules relating to the evidence once admitted. These include such matters as oral evidence, hearsay, the standard of proof for a proposition of fact, the credibility of witnesses, the burden of impeachment, etc. With these considerations in mind, Greenleaf concludes that the testimony of the evangelists is true.

 

You are correct that someone else may disagree. Some persist in claiming that these accounts are mere false, corrupted or mythological. However, Greenleaf’s examination standing in stark contrast to those opinions and is most compelling because of his preeminent expertise in evidentiary matters.

[Hapax Legomena]

I'm not Bill, but I do think ancient history needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Didn't someone earlier mention the story of the blind men and the elephant? That story applies to all history in my opinion. To most humanities subjects, I would say.

Of course the validity of historical sources is a subject for another thread.

 

Rosie- Holder of a BA in history which was fun but not very useful.

 

The tale of the elephant and the blind men points out the difficulty that may arise when analyzing historical data. However, we should be careful not to press that entertaining story so far that we make another erroneous conclusion: it is impossible to determine whether any statement about ancient history is true or false.

 

I agree that the larger topic of historiography is a key aspect of this thread.

[amsunshine]

I agree with you that judges determine the admissibility of evidence. However, courts also have rules relating to the evidence once admitted. These include such matters as oral evidence, hearsay, the standard of proof for a proposition of fact, the credibility of witnesses, the burden of impeachment, etc. With these considerations in mind, Greenleaf concludes that the testimony of the evangelists is true.

I would have to read the book you are talking about to really respond to what this guy says -- and I actually intend to. It will be on my "to read" list.:)

 

However, I just want to point out that your argument confuses me because you appear to be misunderstanding legal rules of evidence. I am bolding the part in your quote above just to clarify what I mean.

 

The rules governing hearsay, for example, are there to govern the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence, period. Nothing more than that. Not to determine truth, which is again within the domain of the jury. I'm not sure what you mean by "such matters as oral evidence" -- if you are talking about hearsay, again, this rule governs the admissibility of evidence.

 

There is not really a rule regarding the credibility of witnesses, other than those which direct the jurors regarding what things they may or may not use to determine the credibility of witnesses. There is nothing definitive as to what makes a witness credible or non-credible -- because again, in our jury system, this is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law.

 

The standard of proof for a proposition of a fact? This puzzles me, because again, the jurors are the triers of fact, and of course they have standards of proof to govern their findings. But only the jurors are entitled to make the ultimate determination of fact. This again, is not a question of law and is far from cut and dried.

 

And I'm not sure what you mean by the "burden of impeachment". There is no burden of impeachment. Of course, the opposing side will always want to impeach the other side's witnesses. But if you are talking about the rules governing impeachment, these are rules which talk, again, about what evidence may or may not be admissible in court to impeach a witness. Again, this is regarding admissibility in court, not a determination of truth.

 

So, I guess all I'm saying is -- I am very curious to learn more about your position here, but your argument leaves me very confused. I'll definitely try to read this book you talk about.

 

Cheers.

Edited April 17, 2009 by amsunshine
sorry -- I forgot one thing...about the "proposition of a fact"