Hmm... good question. For me, the Bible holds in it much history. However, it's been changed through translations over thousands of years.

As far as truth, I feel that there is truth in it and there is a message in it and it came from one man, Jesus. I personally feel that Jesus is the most important part of this historical Bible. The truth were in his actions and the truth was spoken as he was crucified on the cross, "Forgive them for they know not what they do". That to me is one of the biggest statements every made throughout history and the meaning behind it is Love. So truth, yes I believe there is truth in the message of Jesus. It just may be that the second coming of Christ is going to be the resurrection of Christ within our own consciousness.

Good question. This thread could go on for years!

Keep in mind, what I'm about to say is my opinion, and my beliefs.

The Bible is not philosophy, it is not just some book cast amidst the endless array and piles of religious manuscripts. There are so many religions and beliefs out there, all of which claim that they alone are the one and only way to Heaven. For someone who is looking for which direction to proceed, who is to really know what religion is right? How does one define what Truth really is? How does one point another into the right direction........the right direction where the one and only true faith exists?

Christianity is the only religion where you cannot work your way to Heaven. It is the only faith where one cannot rely on his or her actions, but instead must believe and trust, but most importantly have faith. In my belief..........the Bible is TRUTH. It is the TRUTH. It is the only absolute TRUTH.....it is the answer, the divine understanding, the essence and design of everything. But even more, Jesus Christ is Truth: John 14:6, "Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one can come to the Father except through Me."

But now one could ask the question how can you believe that the Bible is Truth, and that Jesus is Truth? After all, the Bible is the one who tells you that and how can a book or manuscript justify itself? It must have a secondary source to prove its authenticity. In truth, I simply belive, you simply must have faith, you simply must trust God that His words are truth. I would rather spend a lifetime pursuing God, and inherting eternal life in the end, than rejecting God, and spending eternity in darkness.

I know that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be, He is Truth. He is the answer to everything.....and for everyone who is a skeptic and "christian" hater out there, everyone who hates people like me for what they believe........who do you think is giving you that passion to hate me? Your own self? Or Satan?

Welcome back Tmeeker! I do want to respond to this in depth but I have to step away for a bit.

I have however posted something in regards to Christianity in this Thread. First one must define what Christianity is... I mean, George Bush calls himself a Christian and so did this Christian leader (Rev. Ted Haggard). Are these Christians?

What is a Christian?

Im sure we all want the truth tmeeker. But who said anything about hate against christians? all faiths have been deemed satanic normaly by each other. Would you argue bush is a christian? maybe you should read another thread I wrote earlier: islam faith,truth, or mind control. During the crusades the same people charging there army towards saladins muslim army were "christians" and did it under the banner of god and thought it rightious! I do not deny jesus was who he said he was, or argue in favour for it. Im just saying we should question what we believe. Bible philosophy or truth or just blind faith will we ever get to the bottom of it?

Oh I completely agree with you. One must question another's faith and religion. For if one does not, who is to decide who is right and who is wrong? I'm sorry if I came off a little strong with people holding most of their views as "anti-christian", let's just say most of the people I've debated on the internet about christianity, have all really had that mindset. Anyway, I truly agree, questioning one's faith is needed, afterall you have to make sure your on the right path. But once again, I know that Christianity is the one and only way to Heaven. And although this may seem narrow-minded, I fully believe someone has to make a stand, and hold to their beliefs. In response to your question, I do believe President Bush is a Christian. He has repeatedly said it, and is a firm beliver in Jesus Christ. I am one of the few remaining Americans who still support him, and I am grateful for his faith.

Once again you are right, killing hundreds of muslims in the Crusades was not a "Christian" path to take. However, one has to ask the question: What if the so-called Christian believers who commited these murders of muslims, were not actually Christians at all? I mean look at the world today, there are hundreds of so-called Christian believers who are giving Christianity a really bad hypocritical name. And because of this, people are skeptical and bitter towards Christians. But don't automatically sterotype the entire faith of Christianity just because there are a few "false" and bad seeds within it.

If you look at history, there was many many who fought for a so called godly cause. Oliver cromwell of england is one that comes to mind, But I will argue one point, not once does jesus say preach the word of god through slaughter. Should christians think this no matter what situation there are in in ; what would jesus do? Im sure if many of them thought along the same line maybe they would act more in line with what the bible preaches. And maybe im wrong here but dosnt the bible speak about the people who like to stand and confess they are holy but inside they are like wolves or something like that. Im sure the bible speaks about actions being stronger than words too. And also those who like to do good works to be seen by others rather than to serve god.

Ive heard it said that bush claims to be a christian to get a large amount of votes and somehow make the war in Iraq a holy cause using biblical speech.

Please dont get me wrong here I back brittish and american troops 100% And ill tell you one thing about the brittish army, Its history in millitary victories is outstanding, and indeed no country on earth can claim what victories we have won against outstanding odds or have the centries of conflict for experience. My point is If we go to war please do not go under the banner of god. As Im sure the bible to, you the word of god is 100% against it? and if he is alive so would jesus be. As he said: you will know them by there fruits .

Just a brief post for now, CUT2THEPOINT, I agree with both your statments of what the bible says ,though, and you suggested it might be, your scriptures are a bit muddled. I understood what you ment, never the less. Also the British army is the bar and example that every other millitary in the world aspires to. But, Id have to disagree with tmeeker and anybody else about the 'Bush is a Christian' thing. No He is not! For a quick explanation, either refer to my post on 'What is a Christian' or alternativly, read your Bible:)

Well I did write maybe I'm wrong before I made any quote from the bible.I Wish you would read whats being said closley. Anyway would you say it is a philosophy pilgrimshost? As you say you used to believe in other threads or something along that line.

According to tmeeker and the holy bible you might be going to hell if you have lost your faith? are you worried?

I know you wrote that it maybe wrong , as I commented on it. We always hit stumbling blocks, why?

Ill keep it short. If its 100% truth then its beyond all things and outside 'mere' philosophy because it would be a part of a superior 'reality' rather than our created one. But if it is false then I wonder how it being a philosophy fits the gap. Am I right in saying that a philosophy is 'a way of thinking' as such, then it would not be a philosophy (just of the top of my head, not saying its stone cold fact) because Christianity relies 100% on the Crusifiction and Reserection of Christ, nothing less!

But on the otherhand (a glimpse into why I stopped believing), the Greeks philosophised, didnt they? and Paul (Saul) spent alot of time discussing with them, didnt he?..hint,hint

We are ALL voyaging to the Truth, including George Bush. The Dalai Lama was asked by a Christian once if he was saying she should "convert to Buddhism". He replied, "No. Become a better Christian."

Jesus Jesus Jesus. I do not know what REALLY happened at that particular time, and so am required by this very fact to derive the TRUTH for myself.

I prefer the Gnostic/Mystical approach myself. Seems much more illuminating than conversations in the dark. The Mysteries can thus be revealed and struggle ceases.

Ill keep it short. If its 100% truth then its beyond all things and outside 'mere' philosophy because it would be a part of a superior 'reality' rather than our created one. But if it is false then I wonder how it being a philosophy fits the gap. Am I right in saying that a philosophy is 'a way of thinking' as such, then it would not be a philosophy (just of the top of my head, not saying its stone cold fact) because Christianity relies 100% on the Crusifiction and Reserection of Christ, nothing less!

But on the otherhand (a glimpse into why I stopped believing), the Greeks philosophised, didnt they? and Paul (Saul) spent alot of time discussing with them, didnt he?..hint,hint[/quote]

Certainly it is not philosophy in the traditional sense as it does not appeal to reason.I personally have had dialogue with believers who are in denial of this,at one moment they would take offense at it being refered to as irrational,while a moment later tell you it requires a leap of faith------a leap of faith is not a rational process.I beleive Christianity appeals to emotion.I have noticed over a fairly long period a Christian friend in rejecting a whole host of pressing realities mainly political,that he tends not to believe if it is an unpleasant truth---he will be the probverbal last holdout.

The bible too is inconsistent,how could it be otherwise,how many authors really,how many times have the powers that be edited,censored and I suppose tried for some consistency.I wonder if you have heard of Jung's personality types? I wonder what would be the findings if believers and non-believers were compared.I suspect it would hold true that those whom tend to believe are the ones who in general make their decisions on an emotion bases.If this is true,it truely is futile to attempt a rational dialogue with someone whom functions on this level,if they admitted the reality of this possiablity their whole world would unravel.Someone whom makes their decisions on a rational bases,thus the unbeliever, is just as unmoveable in his/her method of preference. PS:It was my understanding that Paul got laughed out of Athens.

This leaves so much unanswered, if it is to be taken as the case.

Yes I agree that the approach to the 'thinking' in the Bible from a Christians point of view is actually from a supernatural standpoint. It reverses the worlds understanding of everything. For example; not 'life to death', but 'death to life'. Or,not 'the strongest and most influential are called to serve God', but 'the lowliest and most worthless of all the tribes'. Its not 'seeing is believing', but 'beliving is seeing'. Even the understanding of ourselves has to be altered at the most basic level. We no longer strive to succeed by ourselves according to what we want to achieve, but in Gods strength, and according to his will.

I do not believe there is any inconsistencies in the bible, having studied it for many years myself. Though I do maintain that it is questionable that the Bible is the very word of God due to some significant statements related to what we know outside the Bible and the nature of its collection and canonization from the original sources long ago.

Ive often wondered of the issue weather only certain types of people who follow emotions are drawn exclusivly to this type of thing. But I have found that overall the 'followers' of Christ tend to be by choice,yes, but are very much varied in their personalities and approaches to things that 'drive' them. So No this is not a factor that I can see. I do however say that the single most striking element to an 'active' member of the church (someone who is more than a Sunday Christian, and prays more than just the Lords prayer)is the obvious sense of 'fulfillment' they have-for whatever reason, but it is not obvious in other commited activities that people follow, in the same manner anyway. After all, when I was training to be an Evangelist, I was told by my paster always that ''we don't go by feelings, because feelings come and go, we go by faith''.

And of course what of the historical element- what if its true? Then why would only certain types of people approach it then? As far as I can remember having particularly acute emotional drives wasn't the criteria required for salvation!

Pilgrimshost,

This transformation of the psyche which the novice must go through tips the scales to the emotional aspect of the psyche.In order to become a Christian one must leave reason behind,take a leap of faith and thus forgo the rational process.Many of the aspects you point out occur after the fact and are built upon a foundation of key irrational beliefs.If one subtracts reason what might be left but the emotions to govern.

The bible is inconsistent even in the two natures of God which are expressed,a the God of love and a God of war.God instructs that the promised land to be taken,necessary of course because its already occuppied.No one is to be spared even the stock animals of the vanquished are to be slaughtered----this is instruction in genocide.

I agree nailing down just what characteristics lend themselves to this kind of transformation is difficult if not impossiable.I recall a friend mentioning to me of knowing fiercely rational people whom yet here the call and become believers,it was her opinion that these people separate their conflicting tendencies,they compartmentalize or isolate these categories.If this method was not sucessful we would be talking mental illness.

The truely foolish aspect of the bible,is the believer taking the bible as a historic text book.A literal interpretation of the bible puts it in the same category as mothergoose.What if it is true you ask,say what's the probablity my friend? "Acute emotional drives isn't the criteria required for salvation",perhaps mindless acceptence is.

Sorry I dont quote.

God isn't a schizophrenic, wheres the evidence for that? The bible very definitely can be taken in a historical context, wheres the evidence contrary to it being otherwise?

What really is rationality, and (what you said) is that really the case, expert are you?

Pilgrimshost,

Perhaps you could give me the historical location of the garden of eden,I suspect it was in east texas.No I am not an expert and neither are you.I don't think either of us entered this dialogue with such expectations.I take it your interpretation of the bible is a literal interpretation? I don't believe there is any other reason to take offense.

"The bible very definitely can be taken in a historical context, wheres the evidence contrary to it being otherwise?" The otherwise being reality?

No by all means dont assume I'm taking offence, I dont mean to come across like that, I'm a bit tired and my posts can be a bit heavy handed at times, sorry.

The Garden of Eden is located in the mountain region around Armenia, check it out, do some research and you'll be surprised. Ancient texts are a good place to start. Or another way, is to get a Hebrew copy of the Torah, learn Hebrew and translate what it says about the location and compare it with a modern map- that's what I did. Its all right there!

Pilgrimshost,

I am glad you are not offended,I know I lack tact sometimes and come across as hostile.I am begining to believe there is a skill envolved in these dialogues,to argue ones point without being precieved as hostile and/or tiggering it in others.

Actually your reference material, I can appreciate you believe it but being its source is of the same nature,basically the mother source of the biblical tradition, it doesn't hold much weight for me.Do you have any mystical understanding of the bible perhaps in the tradition of Gnostic texts.Mystics like Meister Eckhart.Conflict is unavoidable I think in discussing a dogma as if it where philosophical.For it is true is it not,that believers in a literal interpretation are not really open to debate.

Personally I would not care at all what anyone else believes if it ultimately was not their politics as well.In this age I think it is blatently obvious how religious poltics is a source of the division of humanity.

"Literalism kills" Joseph Campbell

Well as long as you and I understand each other, its a good start.

I'm not talking about reference material, like a stupid encyclopedia or readers digest! I'm talking about actual, Hebrew and Semitic manuscripts that have laid dormant since before the exile of Hebrews by the Babylonians thousands of years ago. I have, and so do others, old books that transcribe even older books:rolleyes: . Direct from the original source.

You are not familiar with what I'm talking about, I understand, it would be pointless for me to list these books, which are classed as the most important texts from bronze age man. Don't get technical about the use of paper and storing things into books etc, its not worth it.

Noah's Ark, the lost cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the lost cities of the Hebrews while in Egypt, the Red sea crossing, mount Sinai, the ARK of the Covenant. These have all categorically been found (or located), unmistakeably. And whats more it is the directions and details given in the Bible that helped find them. I know what your going to say, ''well you can find anything if you believe hard enough!'' Really?

Pilgrimshost,

I do not think we do quite understand one another,all the more reason for the dialogue I would think.

You really didn't answer much in the way of my questions.I understand the middle east is still in the same place.I asked you if you had any mystical understanding of the bible,example, can you read the symbology of the stories of the bible.Have you read Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart.In the story of the garden of eden,what symbolically might the apple mean? Certainly in this reading of the symbology of the bible, I am not really good at it myself,but then, I am not a Christian.

I would perhaps be the last person to get technical about religious texts.Christianity I think of necessity in this day and age is a very defensive position.A Christian friend of mine stated one day that he had knowledge of the truth for what he spoke.I simply said to him,if you had knowledge,you would have no need of faith.

"I know what your going to say, ''well you can find anything if you believe hard enough!'' Really?[/quote]

You are starting to play both sides of the dialogue,you're getting ahead of yourself imagineing my responses.Sometimes even I don't imagine what's coming next!!

If you are one of those people who do interpret the bible literally then chances are you do not read the symbology,or read of the mystical understandings of your own tradition.I realize it is a sensitive area,perhaps you might agree with me now that the Christian doctrine,Christian dogma is not of its nature philosophical.Much of what is posted here by believers is simply religious spam.