I find it difficult to believe in any religion written down by man. It becomes an appeal to authority. This is a form of logical fallacy.
We see how 60,000+ denomination of Christianity in the U.S. alone exist and each of them is slightly different and believe they are correct. Extrapolate this back thousands of years.
(you don't have to do this just with Christianity, it is simply the one I grew up with and am most familiar with)
Now go back far enough in history and you'll encounter the Council of Nicea. They compiled what we know of today as the bible. They decided what stories/tales/histories should go into this book. They decided which should not. This can be viewed as editing, it can also be viewed as censorship. This is partially why the dead sea scrolls are a big deal. Christians of antiquity (and again this applies to other religions) were fond of destroying that which did not fit with their world view. Witness one of the worst losses of information in history, the burning of the Library of Alexandria. What little we know about Plato are from small collections of works that survived that disaster. In modern days that was like handing everyone a bible, destroying the libraries and the internet, and saying "this is all you need."
Yet at that time the Gutenberg Press had not been created so the common people largely had not read the bible. Many of them could not read. They had to trust what another man told them was the word and will of God. We have seen historically how wrong this can go (not just Christianity).
So let's talk Jesus... I think the Sermon on the Mount is pretty great stuff. I have some things that pop into my head when I think of Jesus.
I may make a post instead. I would like to illicit some responses and civil discussion, and I had nothing else I was planning to post today.
It wasn't so much editing as at the time the Council was formed all those books were known amongst the various Churches. Historically, the different Churches had various books that were used in worship. The Council attempted to find the common ground between all the Churches at the time, i.e. it was an attempt to determine what "mainstream" Christianity was based on how the Church had evolved over the course of 300 years.
Now, I'm not sure when the various dead sea scrolls, the gnostic gospels, etc. were lost in antiquity (and subsequently found), but I can assure you that with this 'editing' of various books out of the (New American) Bible (not the KJV, as Luther edited books that did not appeal to his particular world view), that the early Church was only attempting to find consensus amongst all the factions.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the decade after WW-II and dated by secular archeologists to a couple hundred years before Christ. There significance is they said the same thing as the Bible on your grandma's coffee table. No changes in over 2000 years!
So this puts to rest the idea that Scriptures must have been corrupted over time "because that's how humans always screw up". Clearly that didn't happen with the Bible.
Don't think of it as an appeal to authority, think of it as a large number of credible eyewitness wrote down what they witnessed over a long term association with Jesus. Those accounts have been valued and preserved for your consideration.
The Truth of Christianity is in those accounts in their original languages. The existence of many denominations merely means humans disagree on how to view them. Some are further off than others. I never object to any viewpoint that can be explained with an honest attempt to understand the original texts.
The Council of Nicea called together hundreds of Christian leaders from around the Mediterranean to compare notes about what they had been teaching for several generations. How else do you recommend sorting out what properly traces back to the apostles vs. what got inserted falsely after the fact? This process actually continued for 500 years before universal agreement was achieved. The criterion applied was: "Show us proof that this document is traceable back to an original apostle or one of his assistants." That's not censorship, that's due diligence.
Pointing out things like the burning of the library of Alexandria happened are irrelevant. Lots of bad things happened in history. This says nothing about the truth of any specific instance.
It is true that the Roman church suppressed availability of the Scriptures for 1000 years until the printing press and the Protestant Reformation went back to the original Bible as authoritative. There are 5600 manuscripts dating back to the first few generations and these all agree. So claims of corruption and bad behavior by others after that time are irrelevant. We know with a high degree of certainty what the original eyewitnesses wrote.
They have not been preserved though. The history is there showing they are edited, and even censored by men. It does not matter HOW MANY people you have that is still an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Does quantity of people dictate whether gravity is true or not? Any appeal to authority regardless of the source is a logical fallacy.
And have you gone back further? Have you for example studied the Hindu Krishna which predates Christianity? Have you studied the Egyptians and the life story of Horus?
If not... give it a look. I think you'll be surprised.
And PLEASE don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. That is all I have done. I have a lot of bibles, and not one of them is exactly the same. :) In this instance I am referring to Christian based bibles.
But yes everything you stated in the beginning still qualifies as an appeal to authority. "credible eyewitnesses". A common example of an appeal to authority is "I am a doctor, you can trust me."
You should never believe something simply because someone else tells you that you should. You can CHOOSE to believe them, but it should not because they told you to, or because they have been given some label like LEADER, WISEMAN, PRIEST, GENIUS, SCIENTIST, or CREDIBLE. :)
Actually, no. The oldest manuscripts have not been edited.
Here's the sequence I find sufficient for me:
Anyhow, that's what works for me. You may have a different process.
In this thread, all I'm saying is that God is NOT going to give you perfect proof for good and sufficient reasons. You'll just have to get over that if you want the shot of life-giving antibiotics He is offering you. Do you apply your same skepticism when your doctor says you need a shot? Will you refuse that shot because taking it would be an appeal to authority? Do you require the AMA to show up a brief you on all the evidence that the shot is necessary, safe and effective? If not, why not?
An Appeal to Authority does not mean you should not listen. It simply is NOT logical proof of anything. You cannot say because SO AND SO said this it must be true.
What someone says does not prove anything other than they said words and that they MAY believe what they said. People lie, so it can't even be proven that they meant it.
So an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY by no means is telling you the person is wrong. It simply means that because they said it does not make it TRUE.
You still have to use some common sense, quickly analyze probabilities (instinctively) based upon the knowledge you have an make a decision.
There is older scripture than that by the way. How far back have you gone?
EDIT: And I did up vote you. This is not intended as an attack of any kind. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I've actually had people tell me those exact things in verbal discussions with priests. Yes, I am friends with priests. Lutheran, Presbyterrian, Catholic. I was Director of IT at a Hospice and I'd sit and chat with those three priests daily at lunch. They were some of my closest friends there.
That's good to hear.
My point has been I'm not trying to prove anything.
In fact, God does not intend to offer proof to anyone except a few chosen witnesses.
Because he specifically wants to leave room for people to walk away.
If he wanted there to be proof he would move planets around to different orbits every day or give the Chicago Cubs a World Series or something else that violates the laws of physics like that.
Interesting perspective. I agree that it is tough to trust any religion written by men, but the fact is that is all we have. All of the major world religions have been passed down by the written word of men. I choose to focus more on what I feel like the intent of religion is for us all. And that is to LOVE one another. Love your enemies just as you love your family. Love all people and all of God's creations. Even if you don't believe, or are not sure you believe in God. If you walk through life with love in your heart, you will be following in Gods path.
If god wants us to love each other, why was he so cruel in the bible?
These are not mutually exclusive. He does not need to lead by example, as a father does not need to lead by example for his offspring to listen ( that actually is somewhere in the Bible).
I disagree. I think that Jesus did lead by example, and we should do our best to do the same.
Well, in my opinion this is where the "written by men" part comes into play. I don't think God is a vindictive God. The Old Testament is full of pretty awful sounding stuff. I believe that regardless of how the word of God has been twisted by men. It's true intention is best learned through the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus taught Love and Respect for all people and creatures.
I always look at the phrase "God is love" sideways because of verses like these. You either can say this God changed or we have to accept some disagreement between father and son and if you don't have direct ancestry with the ancient Isrealites then you'd best not count on him.
Given the miracles He performed and the documentation given by the inspired authors of the Gospels, I'm betting that any apparent discrepancies in ancestry are on the human side. :o)
It is all we have is no reason to take it in hook line and sinker. We can read things without having to believe them fully. You and I could debate for example and you may say something I hadn't thought of before. I will then incorporate what you taught me in the exchange into my own world view. That does not mean I took EVERYTHING you said and incorporated it. We must be willing to look at all information for potential value, but we should never take EVERYTHING without thinking about it and making our own informed decision. The path I walk very likely would not work for you as well as it does me, so why would I want you to follow my path? Your path might go further than mine.
Yeah that is kind of weird... look at those things like something you'd find in a fortune cookie.
We know a lot that those that came before us do not know. There is evidence we have also lost some knowledge. When it really starts to become questionable though is when you really spread out and research a lot of religions. You'll find pretty much every story (including all of those about Jesus) had a historical figure in other religions that did those same things, before his existence. Sometimes thousands of years. It is almost like each new version of religion building up would incorporate the stories from the past, change some names, and write it as though it was happening then. In particular study the Egyptian Religion (particularly that of Horus) and the Hindu religion (Krishna).
You will find startling similarities that predate Christ by very large amounts of time.
I am not saying there is no value. I am just saying we should not blindly believe everything we read just because we were told we had to.
I absolutely don't take everything printed in any book to be 100% true. And, I understand your view and would say we have a very similar view of the subject of religion. I question almost all of it. But though I question I still believe.
Nothing wrong with believing in something. We just must ALWAYS question ourselves and our own beliefs. If we don't we might miss the truth (even small ones) if they occur in front of us. :) I constantly question and change my mind too. I am sure I'd have some pretty heated arguments with the me from a decade ago.
Cool... that's part of the experiment... seeing if the audience is still mature enough to "resurrect" the religion tag... there were some really thought provoking posts and discussions a couple of weeks back.
I think that the term "relion" is far too broad. Many people say they are religious, but only mean they go to church, or have parents who are christians or catholic or other denominations. I believe in a personal relationship, and I guess while people consider that "religious" I like to separate from that tag. I'm excited to see where this goes as well as people weigh in.
I am up for debating ANYTHING as long as people are civil and respectful to each other. I have posted an initial response... it's going to take me a bit to talk about this. You are welcome to chime in on anything I said.
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/civil-response-inspired-by-gavvet-post-concerning-science-and-jesus-christ