Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

African Bluebird - I agree with your assertion that this country (as a whole) is not anti-Christian but I would add the proviso: “not yet”. I would say that the majority of people in this country are apathetic towards Christianity rather than anti, but remember Jesus himself said that those who followed him would be hated in the world (John 15:18 and 19). Sadly I think the “church” (by which I think most people automatically mean the Church of England btw) is becoming known for what it is against rather than what it is for. Hence like one notable poster on this forum when they talk about Christianity I think they have their own fixed stereotype of Christian in mind, which makes me wonder if they have ever actually met a true Christian? Such folk may be in a minority as not everyone who attends a church is a Christian!

My “church” now is a house group – a small collection of folk from many different backgrounds who meet in a home, in many ways akin to what the early church was. We have no minister or hierarchy, just an ordinary bunch of people who are followers of Jesus and try to live as he would have us live.

(John 13, verses 34 & 35): “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Moreover we have a strong emphasis on turning our faith into actions, based on James 2:14-18: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds”

This is what I believe the church should be. I remember someone once asked the question – would Jesus recognise his church if he came back today? It is split into so many denominations now with so many man-made traditions and customs that I'm pretty sure he would not recognise it!

Becoming a Christian has changed my life completely and has taken me into so many places and situations that I would never have considered before. I am not perfect, on the contrary like all true Christians I recognise that I am clearly not and couldn't hold a proverbial candle to Jesus, but thankfully he accepts me as I am!

You are quoting stuff from the bible that Jesus said ?

Given that a lot of the Bible was written after this person died how do you know he said it?

Not being a Christian has taken me to many places and has led me to meet many people

Some good , some bad

Why do you have to be a follower of Jesus to experience enlightenment ?

2000 years ago medicine was in its infancy

Today things are done very differently

But Christians still follow the teachings of Jesus and refer to the bible

If a medical student at university told everyone on his course that heart disease should be treated by physicians who wrote books 2000 years ago they would think he was a bit odd

[Gofer Blue]

You are quoting stuff from the bible that Jesus said ?

Given that a lot of the Bible was written after this person died how do you know he said it?

Not being a Christian has taken me to many places and has led me to meet many people

Some good , some bad

Why do you have to be a follower of Jesus to experience enlightenment ?

2000 years ago medicine was in its infancy

Today things are done very differently

But Christians still follow the teachings of Jesus and refer to the bible

If a medical student at university told everyone on his course that heart disease should be treated by physicians who wrote books 2000 years ago they would think he was a bit odd

It is generally accepted amongst scholars that the book of John was written between 90 and 100AD, so 60 – 70 years after the death of Jesus. Why would that make the contents unreliable? Compare this to say the recollections of surviving WW2 veterans, for example D-Day survivors who are still alive over 70 years after the event and who share their memories with us so they can be recorded for posterity – would you say their recollections are unreliable? I guess you could argue that the latter can be
corroborated by newsreel footage from the time but even that would not corroborate the recollections of individual soldiers unless in the highly unlikely event that a news cameraman was right alongside each one of them at the time and captured their every word/action on film. Unfortunately we do not have the benefit of newsreels from 33AD.

I suspect you would argue that in any case the events recorded in John are completely fictitious anyway so effectively ending any further discussion. My response to that would be what would be the motive for anyone to concoct such a narrative knowing that it was not true? It was hardly likely to become a best-selling kiss and tell story which might be the case in today's society nor was it likely to lead to the subjugation of the masses to church authority at that time which is another popular theory – that was already happily being undertaken by the Jewish authorities. (I do not deny that the Christian church became all powerful much later on but that was a perversion of the gospels and the reverse of everything that Jesus stood for). The reverse in fact – Christianity would have been seen as a potential threat to the stability of the ruling religious elite hence the mass persecution of the emerging church. It would have been a risky business to be a follower of Christ in those days, with many being put to death to try to eradicate the cause. Yet it flourished and grew!

Finally even if you are convinced that the whole thing is a complete cock and bull story, what is so wrong with the underlying sentiments of Jesus as recorded in the books of John and James, like love one another as I have loved you, love your neighbour as yourself, faith without works is dead etc? No-one can argue surely that these traits are desperately needed in the world today? I don't recall Jesus required his followers to put to death anyone who does not accept the faith for example.

You ask why it was necessary for me to become a Christian to meet people and go to places where I would never have gone. Obviously you don't know me as you didn't before I became a Christian so let me enlighten you. I grew up effectively as an only child (I have one sibling who she is almost 13 years younger than me) hence I was an essential selfish person, an attitude which persevered well into adulthood. I was never an evil person but looking after No.1 was my mantra. After becoming a Christian in my late 30's all that changed and most of my life since has been a compassionate concern for other people which is what Jesus would expect from each of us. Maybe for you that came naturally but not for me. I will not go into any more details here otherwise it could be interpreted as a “look at me aren't I a great person” narcissistic diatribe.

Look after yourself and try to keep an open mind. At the end of the day it isn't down to me to evangelise or judge you, it's your choice!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

It is generally accepted amongst scholars that the book of John was written between 90 and 100AD, so 60 – 70 years after the death of Jesus. Why would that make the contents unreliable? Compare this to say the recollections of surviving WW2 veterans, for example D-Day survivors who are still alive over 70 years after the event and who share their memories with us so they can be recorded for posterity – would you say their recollections are unreliable? I guess you could argue that the latter can be
corroborated by newsreel footage from the time but even that would not corroborate the recollections of individual soldiers unless in the highly unlikely event that a news cameraman was right alongside each one of them at the time and captured their every word/action on film. Unfortunately we do not have the benefit of newsreels from 33AD.

I suspect you would argue that in any case the events recorded in John are completely fictitious anyway so effectively ending any further discussion. My response to that would be what would be the motive for anyone to concoct such a narrative knowing that it was not true? It was hardly likely to become a best-selling kiss and tell story which might be the case in today's society nor was it likely to lead to the subjugation of the masses to church authority at that time which is another popular theory – that was already happily being undertaken by the Jewish authorities. (I do not deny that the Christian church became all powerful much later on but that was a perversion of the gospels and the reverse of everything that Jesus stood for). The reverse in fact – Christianity would have been seen as a potential threat to the stability of the ruling religious elite hence the mass persecution of the emerging church. It would have been a risky business to be a follower of Christ in those days, with many being put to death to try to eradicate the cause. Yet it flourished and grew!

Finally even if you are convinced that the whole thing is a complete cock and bull story, what is so wrong with the underlying sentiments of Jesus as recorded in the books of John and James, like love one another as I have loved you, love your neighbour as yourself, faith without works is dead etc? No-one can argue surely that these traits are desperately needed in the world today? I don't recall Jesus required his followers to put to death anyone who does not accept the faith for example.

You ask why it was necessary for me to become a Christian to meet people and go to places where I would never have gone. Obviously you don't know me as you didn't before I became a Christian so let me enlighten you. I grew up effectively as an only child (I have one sibling who she is almost 13 years younger than me) hence I was an essential selfish person, an attitude which persevered well into adulthood. I was never an evil person but looking after No.1 was my mantra. After becoming a Christian in my late 30's all that changed and most of my life since has been a compassionate concern for other people which is what Jesus would expect from each of us. Maybe for you that came naturally but not for me. I will not go into any more details here otherwise it could be interpreted as a “look at me aren't I a great person” narcissistic diatribe.

Look after yourself and try to keep an open mind. At the end of the day it isn't down to me to evangelise or judge you, it's your choice!

The facts are that:

1. The first five books of the Bible and which represent the Torah were supposedly written by Moses.
2. There is no evidence that Moses existed
3. There is no evidence that if he existed that he spoke to 'God'
4. There is no evidence of such dialogue being recorded.

The whole concept of Abrahamist religions are based on the supposed works of one mythical person and there is nothing resembling an audit trail of any description. However, catch people when they are young, indoctrinate them and they swallow it whole. And most believers have little idea how so-called Holy Books have been compiled, sifted, edited and changed through the centuries. And that's precisely why religions are subject to endless and deep schisms even under the Abrahamist umbrella.

[lisvaneblue]

The facts are that:

1. The first five books of the Bible and which represent the Torah were supposedly written by Moses.
2. There is no evidence that Moses existed
3. There is no evidence that if he existed that he spoke to 'God'
4. There is no evidence of such dialogue being recorded.

The whole concept of Abrahamist religions are based on the supposed works of one mythical person and there is nothing resembling an audit trail of any description. However, catch people when they are young, indoctrinate them and they swallow it whole. And most believers have little idea how so-called Holy Books have been compiled, sifted, edited and changed through the centuries. And that's precisely why religions are subject to endless and deep schisms even under the Abrahamist umbrella.

Golfer Blue's comments related to the book of John, in the New Testament. Your reply relates to Moses and I do not see the connection other than an implication that the Torah may be false so the rest of the bible is the same.

Thomas had the same problem as you 2000 years ago.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Golfer Blue's comments related to the book of John, in the New Testament. Your reply relates to Moses and I do not see the connection other than an implication that the Torah may be false so the rest of the bible is the same.

Thomas had the same problem as you 2000 years ago.

I had asked a question about Moses several times in this thread and it went unanswered. As Moses is one of the most important pillars of the story in Abrahamist religions it is perfectly logical to seriously analyse things assigned to him and which adherents believe in. It seems to be the case of a possibly mythical person supposedly carrying God's word to the masses so I think the subject deserves more respect than referring to another possibly mythical person mentioned in the same tome.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I had asked a question about Moses several times in this thread and it went unanswered. As Moses is one of the most important pillars of the story in Abrahamist religions it is perfectly logical to seriously analyse things assigned to him and which adherents believe in. It seems to be the case of a possibly mythical person supposedly carrying God's word to the masses so I think the subject deserves more respect than referring to another possibly mythical person mentioned in the same tome.

Looks like no-one is going to provide any evidence of God's words passed onto Moses, including the book of Genesis and the talking snake.
Surely, the veracity of what are meant to be God's words represents the basis of all that followed in various Abrahamist holy books.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Looks like no-one is going to provide any evidence of God's words passed onto Moses, including the book of Genesis and the talking snake.
Surely, the veracity of what are meant to be God's words represents the basis of all that followed in various Abrahamist holy books.

Still no takers on the Moses front.....

[Gofer Blue]

Golfer Blue's comments related to the book of John, in the New Testament. Your reply relates to Moses and I do not see the connection other than an implication that the Torah may be false so the rest of the bible is the same.

Thomas had the same problem as you 2000 years ago.

There is no point in any further discussion with those who believe (note: I use the word believe with a touch of irony here) that the Bible is a complete book of fiction because they cannot/will not accept it as a reference source. My faith is based on Jesus not on Moses and there is evidence other than that in the Bible that he existed. The standard response to that is ok, there may have been an historical Jesus but he was just a bloke, he didn't say most, if not all, the things he is supposed to have said, did not perform any miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead. Oh, and that I must have been brain washed as a child.

In reality by my late teens I had rejected Christianity because I believed science had all the answers (I studied the three sciences at A level and then a science degree). I became a Christian about 20 years later when I guess I finally realised that science does not have all the answers after all!

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

There is no point in any further discussion with those who believe (note: I use the word believe with a touch of irony here) that the Bible is a complete book of fiction because they cannot/will not accept it as a reference source. My faith is based on Jesus not on Moses and there is evidence other than that in the Bible that he existed. The standard response to that is ok, there may have been an historical Jesus but he was just a bloke, he didn't say most, if not all, the things he is supposed to have said, did not perform any miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead. Oh, and that I must have been brain washed as a child.

In reality by my late teens I had rejected Christianity because I believed science had all the answers (I studied the three sciences at A level and then a science degree). I became a Christian about 20 years later when I guess I finally realised that science does not have all the answers after all!

Perhaps science doesn't have all the answers but it might, given time, and if it doesn't find them that might be down to our limitations as a species.

Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe the miracles are true? To be honest, this is the stuff that confounds me. I can understand the notion of God because it's an answer to the big questions but the Jesus story seems (to me) to be marketing for said notion.

In an earlier post you asked why would John (of gospel fame) fictionalise anything - people like fiction and fancy narratives, don't they? Put a bit of water walking and defeating death in and you've got yourself a best seller.

[truthpaste]

Perhaps science doesn't have all the answers but it might, given time, and if it doesn't find them that might be down to our limitations as a species.

Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Do you believe the miracles are true? To be honest, this is the stuff that confounds me. I can understand the notion of God because it's an answer to the big questions but the Jesus story seems (to me) to be marketing for said notion.

In an earlier post you asked why would John (of gospel fame) fictionalise anything - people like fiction and fancy narratives, don't they? Put a bit of water walking and defeating death in and you've got yourself a best seller.

Have you seriously looked into the evidence OUTSIDE the Bible re the bodily Resurrection of Christ?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

There is no point in any further discussion with those who believe (note: I use the word believe with a touch of irony here) that the Bible is a complete book of fiction because they cannot/will not accept it as a reference source. My faith is based on Jesus not on Moses and there is evidence other than that in the Bible that he existed. The standard response to that is ok, there may have been an historical Jesus but he was just a bloke, he didn't say most, if not all, the things he is supposed to have said, did not perform any miracles and certainly did not rise from the dead. Oh, and that I must have been brain washed as a child.

In reality by my late teens I had rejected Christianity because I believed science had all the answers (I studied the three sciences at A level and then a science degree). I became a Christian about 20 years later when I guess I finally after all!

Regarding your last sentence: science means knowledge. No-one in their right mind thinks that we yet have perfect knowledge of all things. Our knowledge is built on trial and error along with evidence. On the other hand, ancient religions that have little or no evidence may explain the creation of the universe whereas people at the time didn't understand electricity, microbes or a million other things that we have subsequently learned about.

[Baloo]

Finally even if you are convinced that the whole thing is a complete cock and bull story, what is so wrong with the underlying sentiments of Jesus as recorded in the books of John and James, like love one another as I have loved you, love your neighbour as yourself, faith without works is dead etc? No-one can argue surely that these traits are desperately needed in the world today?

Yes, but many of these ideas were imported from the classical ethical tradition preceding Christianity. So it’s possible to try and live a good life following them without any real need to also include the supernatural.