You missed the tone of my last post, Kang. But Thom didn't. I'm LMAO.

Absolutely true, Dottore. You can most certainly hold informed views in any area in which you are not an expert. We all do just that. The only thing that irks me concerning non-Christinas in this regard is when they present ill-informed, missunderstood positions and statements as "fact". When they purport to know more about Christianity than Christians. I think we all find this true in any area in which we have a keen interest, and pursue more than a passing level of training and knowledge in that area. I think the missinformed, self proclaimed "experts" can get under our skin no matter the topic. That they seldom listen to those with somewhat more background on the topic simply adds to the frustration.

I don't remember even hinting that Christianity was "superior". I don't remember claiming my book was "better". It is as if you are interjecting a preconceived notion that all Christians feel that way, so you read something into my statement that simply was not there. This is an all too common perception of Christians - that we feel "superior" to everyone else. Again, this points to your lack of knowledge of Christianity. Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be further from the truth. This simple truth has been stated several times in this very thread, by knowledgeable Christians. Yet you defer to your dearly held missunderstanding instead.

Quote:

I know many Christians and I know many non-Christians. I cannot objectively say that the former live more meaningful or better lives than the latter - even though of course most of the former are convinced that they do.

And yet again your personal missunderstanding of Christians and Christianity comes shining through. At least to us Christians; your fellow non-believers are probably all nodding in agreement. No one turns to Christianity for a "better life". If they have, they will soon be sorely dissapointed. It's just not there.

Who are you to determine how "meaningful" some one else's life is or is not? The kind of comfort that faith engenders is not on the outside for you to see. It sounds like you are confusing an outwardly "good" or "meaningful" life with the comfort and reassurance that comes through faith. What is outwardly good or meaningful in this life means less than nothing in one's spiritual life. Christians understand that. Their critics do not.

Quote:

Kang had a post here a while back (about faith meeting needs) that summed up my views pretty well so I won't bore you with this. I took issue only with what I referred to as the 'deliberate ignorance' of people who looked for absolute answers to a subject as genetically, psychologically, sexually, and socially nuanced as homosexuality. That's it. That's where I lose respect. I hope that clarifies my position.

I don't think the label "deliberate ignorance" is enlightened or fair in the least. You apparently do not understand why or how a Christian arrives at their moral values, their moral compass. It is different than how you arrive at yours. Is that what makes it "ignorant"? Because you cannot understand it? Because you dissagree with it? Why do non-Christians, when engaged in a discussion about Christianity, always insist on playing the "ignorance" card? Claiming explicitly (or implicitly) that anyone who believes that nonsense must be stupid? It is different than what you believe, but the fact remains, some very intelligent people (living and dead) believe it absolutely. They took an intelligent, informed, educated look around and decided that it is the only explanation for the way things are. And guys like you summarily dismiss all of us as being somehow less intelligent. So just who really has that superiority complex?

I both read and understood it. You said:

"By the time I reached my twenties and was out on my own, I had come to the belief that there was no God. It was the worst, most unsettling period of my life."

It sounds to me like you struggled to envision a world without a deity. Or, as a minimum, a world without a deity caused you a lot of consternation. Something was missing in your life that you later found with your belief?

I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but that was my interpretation. I'm glad you found what you were looking for.

Mike

first soild date is
''The use of gospel (or its Greek equivalent evangelion) to denote a particular genre of writing dates to the 2nd century. It is unclear what was used when Justin Martyr (c. 155) is the first to mention The Memoirs of the Apostles called the Gospels (1 Apology 66) and more ambiguously so earlier in Ignatius of Antioch (c. 117)''

before that no real dates

''The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

* Mark: c. 68–73
* Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.''

conservative scholars date a little earlyer

''Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

* Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
* John: c. 85 to near 100, ''

NOBODY with 40's dates at all

Nota - It's not clear what you're arguing. I got the fact that you disagree by a decade at the earlier side, but the rest of the date ranges that you give seem fairly consistent with what Superman said.

Alas, you didn't include a conclusion to what you put foreward.

Jeff - with all due respect, how do you know that *your* interpretation of Christianity is correct? You speak often that non-Christians misunderstand Christianity, but how is your understanding any better than anyone else's?

There are lots of different sects and branches of Christianity and not all Christians see things your way. Christians themselves disagree with each other. Who is right?

Mike

JC was a nice guy with good ideas
romans killed him
and a bunch of other people [saul/paul , luke, mark ]
who never knew him
later came along [40 to 70 years] and made up a religion
that split in to other religions
in fact several different religions
Sabellianism
Docetism:
Monophysitism
Nestorianism:
Apollinarianism
Arianism
Socianism:
Donatism
Pelagianism:
Gnosticism
Manicheanism
The Bulgarian Heresy [Cathars]
roman cathloic and greek orthodox won wars to suppress
the other cults and or kill the other belivers
intill the protestant who won their wars or at least didnot lose big time and get wiped out like the others

Good questions, Mike. Yes, different Christian sects dissagree on Biblical interpretation and doctrine. They tend to dissagree on the finer points, however, and not the "big picture". For instance, the different roles of the Old Testament and its law vs. the New Testament Gospel is pretty universally accepted in all denominations.

How is my understanding any better? That's pretty tough to answer without sounding all pompous and self-serving, but I'll try. I have spent my life as a Christian, albeit having quit being very active in my late teens to early 20's. I never lost my faith in those years; I simply did not study or attend any church of any kind. I kind of "returned" to Christianity when I started dating my wife. I have since studied extensively and have been very active in my church. I have more than a passive, casual interest in it. And yes, some of my training is formal, if that matters.

I guess you could ask a similar question of any professional. I'm an engineer. That's what I do; I live and breath it at work every day. My wife is a nurse. Same thing; it keeps her busy, immersed, all day. I guess some one who putters around the garage, and is pretty handy that way, could ask me what makes me think I know more about engineering than he does. Hell, he taught himself in his garage, at home in his spare time. Or how about some one like my father-in-law, growing up on a farm in the middle of bum fukc nowhere, South Dakota. No medical care within any reasonable distance, so they had to learn to patch each other up. Certainly he knows more about nursing than his daughter...

Anyway, what I'm getting at is the level of effort put into learning. I see a lot of non-Christians commenting on the Bible that have not read it. Ever. I think my understanding of it may be assumed to be better than theirs. Then there are the ones who have read parts of it, but never all. Of course there are some who have read it in its entirety. Maybe once. Would their understanding be reasonably expected to be equal to some one who has made a constant study of it? How about the non-Christians whose only exposure to scripture has been through their non-Christian friends? I know there are non-Christians out there with a great deal of training, time, and effort put into their understanding of scripture. They just don't believe it, that's all; not that they do not understand it. That's fine. I can respect that. I also feel that I can very easliy recognize those who do not understand; just like discussing my profession with some one who does not. It is very similar, and just as obvious.

Although it wasn't aimed at me, can I put in my $0.02? As far as interpretation of Christianity (or any religion for that matter), it ultimately comes down to an internal decision. It can't be inflicted from outside a person. Being a Christian is a voluntary thing -- by definition. So I chose to be Christian with others who chose likewise. Sure, we often tend to cluster around certain "flavors" of Christianity which we resonate with us. Do I have hidden knowledge that for example Luther was right and the Pope was wrong??? No (That would be a form of Gnosticism). I have read and heard much of what Luther publicly wrote and taught, and also from the Catholic Church, the Jewish faith, JW's and others. To me, most of what Luther wrote and taught seems to align with what the Bible says (having read that too), and strikes me as some very wise teachings. (I've had other wise teachers from time to time also in Math, Science and other stuff). Ultimately, it is up to me to chose what seems to be the best way forward - we're all responsible for our own actions during our life. I go to church with others who seem to have come to similar conclusions and we try to help each other out, help each other learn more about our faith when a person choses to, and live our lives as we believe the Bible tells us so.

I have many friends and family who are Catholic, Jewish, Budhist, Athiests and Agnostic. Do I believe that it is up to me to correct their lives? Absolutely not. That's silly -- it's their lives, not mine. Jesus warned that it's not up to us to "remove the spec from our brother's eye when we have a beam in our own eye". I try to be the best friend/family member to them that I can. The same applies to new people that I meet. That's my role in life.

Does that mean that we never talk religion? Absolutely not. I often ask questions about others' interpretation and understanding of religion so that I can get to know them better. If they ask me, I respond truthfully and passionately with my beliefs and understanding. If we disagree, we have fun exploring the undiscovered ground between our beliefs. That's part of the fun of threads like this. At the end of the day, we're still all stuck on this planet until our time is up, so we might as well make the best of it.

That being said, I do get frustrated (I am only human) when people (especially non-Christians) erroniously insist on telling me the way that they believe Christian's operate. Being a Christian I can honestly disagree (and I will continue to do so) with them when they make sweeping generalizations and narrowminded stereotyping remarks about Christians. I try to do the same when people make similar remarks about Blacks, Irish, women or any other group.

If an Athiest, Hindu, Muslim, Agnostic or any other wishes to tell me about themselves or their group -- I'm all ears. I'd like to learn. But if they insist on preaching to me about my beliefs, and what I am, please forgive me for not believing them.

Excellent, John. Very, very well said. In PPOT vernacular, "+1"!.

Well, I appreciate both of your responses. I have always struggled with the "how can everyone be right" concept.

The strange thing is that - deep down - I feel that we are far more similar than we are are different, believe it or not. We are only separated by one little detail...

Mike