Christianity - license to make stuff up.

[Gawen]

For me, the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of this. 

The Q passages in Luke and Matthew are likely very ancient, as well, and are probably authentic statements of Jesus, for the most part. 

I think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.

This is a preponderance of available evidence??? And Paul, who never saw Jesus before he allegedly died is evidence at all?

[Tristan Jay]

There is one and only one living and true God.  He created all things.  He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ.  Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.  By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world.  Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ.  Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.

Ok, it took me some time to read through this topic, and I think there's some good things going on here.  Thank you, bandit4god, for providing us with a text to reference.  I'm familiar with this line up of core beliefs, my own personal experience indicates that this set is fairly ubiquitous.

Just a clarifying point for Stevil and b4g, are we examining Christianity as a general thing, or are we using orthodox Christianity as a starting point from which to branch out and explore the whole "Christianity as a license to make up stuff" thing?  This probably seems like an obvious question, but maybe it will be productive to pin it down?  I get the impression that Stevil is referring to Christianity as a general thing, and so we need to clarify Christianity's common belief's from a general standpoint, i.e. what is common core beliefs held by orthodox Christians and the generalized Christianity that includes all Christians.

If Stevil is gravitating toward general Christianity, then perhaps b4g can give a new sampling of what he feels is a set of common beliefs for all branches of Christianity?  In the spirit of having a Theist as part of this questioning process, taking the "orthodox" adjective out of the equation.

From a personal point of view, though, it does seem to me that all the different branchings do indicate that human minds, applied to something open to interpretation, will come to different conclusions.  Those different conclusions are coming from a human mind, yet it seems to me like it would be an easy temptation to legitimizing it by rationalizing that "Oh, that must have been God guiding me to the inspired truth" for the sake of themselves and the people who they present their idea to.  Furthermore, when I was trying to hash out the inconsistencies with a Christian friend, on the premise that God is capable of everything, then logically some very important points should be clear.  He speculated that different types of humans need the different flavors of Christianity, so God is providing for different needs, for the varieties of human perspective.  A bit disappointing, I felt. 

[Too Few Lions]

I think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.

This is a preponderance of available evidence??? And Paul, who never saw Jesus before he allegedly died is evidence at all?

Spot on Gawen. Bruce, talking of interpreting the Bible literally or allegorically, I interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus allegorically. Early Christianity was very similar to other mystery religions from the Graeco-Roman world. Initiates  underwent a symbolic death and resurrection / rebirth into their new religion, which also represented the life after death they all believed they would receive as believers. Could you see how the death and resurrection story of Jesus might be allegorical for this? It seems far more plausible to me than an actual physical resurrection.The letters of Paul suggest he also saw this allegorical dimension to the story (eg Romans 6.3-9, Philippians 3.10-11)

'Do you not know that when we were baptised into union with Christ Jesus we were baptised into his death? By baptism we were buried with him, and lay dead, so that as Christ was raised from the dead in the splendour of the father, so also we may walk on a new path of life. Since we have become united with him in a death like his, we shall also be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with Christ, for the destruction of the sinful self, so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. For when we die, we are set free of sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also come to life with him.'

[bandit4god]

The difficulty with what you have stated as the must believes is "He has revealed Himself through ... the written testimony of a few". This difficulty with this is that if you believe this to be true then you would also deem the written testimonies of those few to be true. So which few is that? Is this all books that made it into the Bible? And none of the books that didn't?

At one point you shared your perplexity around dissonance in Christendom about topics that, if wrongly believed, would consign the mistaken believer to hell.  I chose my words "...the written testimony of a few..." carefully because writing something more specific (e.g., "...the written testimony of the 40 authors of the protestant Bible...") would be errantly ascribing saving/redemptive attributes to this belief.

The Catholic bible and Protestant bible differ in that the former includes additional books (the Apocrypha).  Reading and believing what is in these additional books (or not doing so) do not constitute "deal breakers" because they don't contravert core beliefs.

You'd be justified in pressing me by asking, "Fine... the testimony of which minimum few?", and here I would have to say the gospel writers (e.g., Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even others not included in the canon whose account does not contravert core beliefs).

Edited to add:  It's worth noting that divergent views that, frankly, do border on orthodoxy goes to the heart of your question about the books being "true".  My belief (again, not orthodoxy), is that the books are completely true on the points that relate to the core beliefs with saving/redemptive quality.  On topics of historicity (e.g., those crucified to the left and right of Jesus reported in one book as hurling insults at Jesus, and in another as a split between one insulting him, one defending him), there are inconsistencies that must be acknolwedged.

[bandit4god]

There is one and only one living and true God.  He created all things.  He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ.  Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.  By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world.  Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ.  Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.

Ok, it took me some time to read through this topic, and I think there's some good things going on here.  Thank you, bandit4god, for providing us with a text to reference.  I'm familiar with this line up of core beliefs, my own personal experience indicates that this set is fairly ubiquitous.

Just a clarifying point for Stevil and b4g, are we examining Christianity as a general thing, or are we using orthodox Christianity as a starting point from which to branch out and explore the whole "Christianity as a license to make up stuff" thing?  This probably seems like an obvious question, but maybe it will be productive to pin it down?  I get the impression that Stevil is referring to Christianity as a general thing, and so we need to clarify Christianity's common belief's from a general standpoint, i.e. what is common core beliefs held by orthodox Christians and the generalized Christianity that includes all Christians.

If Stevil is gravitating toward general Christianity, then perhaps b4g can give a new sampling of what he feels is a set of common beliefs for all branches of Christianity?  In the spirit of having a Theist as part of this questioning process, taking the "orthodox" adjective out of the equation.

From a personal point of view, though, it does seem to me that all the different branchings do indicate that human minds, applied to something open to interpretation, will come to different conclusions.  Those different conclusions are coming from a human mind, yet it seems to me like it would be an easy temptation to legitimizing it by rationalizing that "Oh, that must have been God guiding me to the inspired truth" for the sake of themselves and the people who they present their idea to.  Furthermore, when I was trying to hash out the inconsistencies with a Christian friend, on the premise that God is capable of everything, then logically some very important points should be clear.  He speculated that different types of humans need the different flavors of Christianity, so God is providing for different needs, for the varieties of human perspective.  A bit disappointing, I felt.  

Thanks for this, Tristan--your even-handed, articulate post is yet more reassurance that this forum has improved dramatically!

To your first point, I'm not exactly sure how to provide what you're describing.  Stevil was justifiably asking why there was so much dissonance between believers, and lethargy about getting unified, on topics surrounding Christian doctrine.  My answer was that Christians are "tethered" in a sense to a set of core, anchor beliefs that have saving/redemptive power.  While tethered, their beliefs concerning non-core topics drift across any number of spectra.

To your last paragraph, this is essentially the Problem of Hiddenness.  If God exists, why would He allow an epistemic grayscale that leaves some correct in their beliefs, some partially correct, and some wholly incorrect?  Is this your question?

[Stevil]

Stevil was justifiably asking why there was so much dissonance between believers, and lethargy about getting unified, on topics surrounding Christian doctrine.  My answer was that Christians are "tethered" in a sense to a set of core, anchor beliefs that have saving/redemptive power.  While tethered, their beliefs concerning non-core topics drift across any number of spectra.

Yes, but one of my biggest points is with regards to why do they feel that they can make stuff up?
This lies within the non core topic domain. For that stuff, the followers seem to be able to just make stuff up based on something (what makes them feel good?)
If they are really describing something that exists, then they wouldn't have the luxury to make stuff up.
There are a lot of Christians whom don't refer to scripture or church teachings on some aspects. They simply look inside themselves, and they state their own desires as descriptions of their god.
What makes them feel that they can make stuff up?

[bandit4god]

Stevil was justifiably asking why there was so much dissonance between believers, and lethargy about getting unified, on topics surrounding Christian doctrine.  My answer was that Christians are "tethered" in a sense to a set of core, anchor beliefs that have saving/redemptive power.  While tethered, their beliefs concerning non-core topics drift across any number of spectra.

Yes, but one of my biggest points is with regards to why do they feel that they can make stuff up?
This lies within the non core topic domain. For that stuff, the followers seem to be able to just make stuff up based on something (what makes them feel good?)
If they are really describing something that exists, then they wouldn't have the luxury to make stuff up.
There are a lot of Christians whom don't refer to scripture or church teachings on some aspects. They simply look inside themselves, and they state their own desires as descriptions of their god.
What makes them feel that they can make stuff up?

Earlier in this thread, you were asking because you were mystified that they were making stuff up when their eternal soul was on the line.  In the above post, despite acknowledging the matters in question are non-core, you're still mystified.  Doesn't it stand to reason that if the reprecussions of error are nil, non-core matters of doctrine will be all over the map?

[Stevil]

Earlier in this thread, you were asking because you were mystified that they were making stuff up when their eternal soul was on the line.  In the above post, despite acknowledging the matters in question are non-core, you're still mystified.  Doesn't it stand to reason that if the reprecussions of error are nil, non-core matters of doctrine will be all over the map?

We have a saying in NZ "Yeah, nah, yeah"
Don't ask me what it means, but it seems appropriate here.

Yes, it must be scary to make stuff up when eternity is on the line.
But I also don't understand how someone can just make up stuff about something they consider to be real.

If it is real, then describe it, with regards to what you know about it, if there are unknowns then admit you don't know, don't just make stuff up.