Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[No-name]

Obviously, if you look at the kind of beating Jesus recieved that day- blood loss would be a significant problem. The rest of the incident- and I always had the impression that it was a very public spectacle-and why the vinegar, the breaking of the legs, and taking him down from the cross- is all given context in the Gospels.

 

[03cobra]

There are many of us who are Christians and have dedicated our lives to serving God and who accept the authority of the scriptures without expecting them to be error-free.

The doctrine of inerrancy is man-made -- the Bible does not claim that for itself. And it is possible to read the Bible to learn about God without worrying about minor errors just as it is possible to read a newspaper to learn without expecting perfection.

As Mars Man mentioned earlier, the policy of some conservative Christians to interchange the terms "Bible" and "Word of God" is unfortunate. The appropriateness of doing this is not at all clear from the Bible itself; to me it appears completely inappropriate. The writers of the Bible, unless they were quoting prophets directly who were channels for God, did not claim to be providing the "Word of God." They did often claim to be giving their own opinions and the results of their own investigations.

So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with a book of writings that has been vetted by the early church and in which all the important things are clear -- that God cares for people but communion with God requires a sacrifice for our sins. That sacrifice was the death of Jesus Christ, the sinless one God sent. And his resurrection, witnessed by 500 people (according to Luke's investigation), is proof. The free gift of salvation, made possible through Jesus Christ, is there for us to accept. Accepting that gift comes with an obligation to turn from sin and live a life for God.

 

[Maciamo]

Sorry for joining in the discussion so late.

Hi Mike: It was Saturday 22nd October at 18:00.

My mind cannot help asking if that was GMT. If that was then it would already have been the 23rd in the Far East (e.g. Japan). :relief:

If that dates 6,000 years ago indicates the beginning of the Jewish tradition, i.e. the beginning of civilisation in the region of Palestine, I find it strange that it starts so late, as the city of Jericho was settled already 11,000 years ago. Does that mean that it took them 5,000 years to come up with the very first scriptures of the OT ?

 

[Maciamo]

So can you share with us or email me privately and say what it was that hurt you or discouraged you from the body of faith? Did you ever have a born-again experience? Or was it simply a practice you fell into and then fell out of? I'd like to know more about your upbringing because it seems like something in your life went terribly awry. Do you still believe in God?

Speaking of my experience, it seems that many true Atheists (like me) have had a very religious upbringing. In fact, philosophically motivated Atheism usually happens in reaction to the conflicts between religious teachings and the reality or rational logics. It may be that some people do not have the "right mind" to intuitively perceive the irrationality of religions (in this case Christianity), while others do.

There are three main reasons (subcategorised) for which I cannot accept any form of Judeo-Christian religion (or other religions) :

1) a) There are too many different versions of the Holy Bible, each contradicting each other at varying degrees.
1) b) There are two many different dogmas according to one's "branch" of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelist, Unitarian, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.). If the scriptures are divinely inspired, then why is it so difficult for humans to agree on their intepretations, the various rites and validity of the "original" texts ?
1) c) There are dozens of major religions worldwide, and each of them contradict each others. Some (like Christianity and Islam) typically claim that they have the sole and exclusive truth. Forcedly, if that is true, all religions are wrong except one. If not the religion that claims exclusive faith becomes self-invalidated.

2) Exclusive (=intolerant) religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam have caused many conflicts and wars ever since they were created (it is for a reason that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and persecuted the Christians).
Exclusive faiths end up by fighting each others. It has started with the Jews denouncing Jesus to get rid of him, then with the Christians unwillingness to recognise Roman Emperors as their sovereign (although later and until today, Christians don't mind paying taxes and obey someone else than god !), then the Islamic Jihad, then the crusades and schism between Catholic and Orthodox churches, then the wars between Catholics and Protestants, etc.

3) Logic and sciences (two very different things) cannot accept many of the so-called "divinely inspired" truths of the Bible, such as the Genesis (Creation, Adam & Eve, Human-like god, Earth=center of the universe, etc.). With the Genesis disproved, the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith collapse. It would be too easy to just say "oh, but you know, this was wrong, but the rest was really divinely inspired".

Relativism, intercultural studies and psychological analysis also show how human-made the values of the Bible are. In fact, many things are very contradictory, like the vengeful and angry god of the OT vs the compassionate and kind loving of the NT (visibly coming from the mind of different "prophets").

Going further than that (these are just things I had discovered before turning 15 years old - most even before 12), we could discuss metaphysics and why it is logically absurd to have an beginning and an end to the Universe, if the Universe includes all existence. How can one (e.g. God) want terminate all existence without erasing itself as well ? (or part of itself if you suppose that god is not part of this Universe-existence, as he would have to delete his knowledge of it to actually stop it existing). What is more, god could logically not be "outside" "everything that exist" (= the Universe). If so, god does not exist by definition. If God is within the Universe (or all the universe as the Pantheists believe), the it could not have created it without creating itself. There can be no beginning (no Creation) and no end (no Apocalypse).

I could also explain why the very concept of "soul" is now scientifically invalid, or unnecessary to explain human emotions, reasonings, memory and "sense of self". It requires a good grasp of neuropsychology though (not something given to anyone).

I have already written about some related topics here :

Soul, life after death, universe

Hell/Heaven, concept of good/evil

 

[Maciamo]

So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with a book of writings that has been vetted by the early church and in which all the important things are clear -- that God cares for people but communion with God requires a sacrifice for our sins.

If you believe in such a thing as "sins". Highly subjective term ! I cannot agree with some of the Bible's definitions of sin in today's society. Too old-fashioned, against all logic and thus obsolete.

That sacrifice was the death of Jesus Christ, the sinless one God sent. And his resurrection, witnessed by 500 people (according to Luke's investigation), is proof.

Is that a proof to you. If I tell you that I witnessed the resurrection of a man in my hometown 15 years ago, and 500 people also witnessed it. does it prove it as a fact to you ? Don't be so naive. Clever people have used people's naiveness since the dawn of civilisations to control them. Religion is in fact one of the most primitive political tools. Nowadays we have biased mass-media, deceiftful "democratically-elected" politicians, and so-called experts paid to support opportunits' claims. Those who cannot use the power of their reason (by laziness or lack of capacities) to discern the truth from the lies, the subjective from the objective, the proven from the urban legend, will end up being fooled.

Because the world is full of intellectually lazy of incapable people, it is full of fools !

 

[Maciamo]

Are you aware of Occam's razor? I go along with that principle. It is unnecessary to invoke a 'miracle' as an explanation when there are perfectly satisfactory prosaic explanations available. Yes, it is hard to believe that someone could survive crucifixion, but a hell of a lot easier to believe than someone coming back from the dead!

First of all, we (people living in the 21st century after Christ) do not know for sure that this Jesus ever existed, or if he was a total fabrication of opportunists. Secondly, had he historically existed, we cannot yet be sure of the exact events. It could be that the Gospels exaggerated or mistook (noone's memory or senses are perfect, especially 2000 years ago when the diet was less varied and life expectancy was about 28 years old !). Even if the NT was written as authentically as possible by the Gospels, there are still various sources, and they could have been modified by other people than the Gospels after their death. This leaves us with very little probability that the events described in the NT are actually what happened.

For those who would still firmly believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, as Tsuyoiko said, it is very possible to survive crucifiction. In fact, some fanatic Christian (notably in the Philippines) have decided to be crucified the exact same way as described in the Bible and survived. Once we know how tough the living conditions were 2000 years ago in the Near East, and that a good portion of the population were slaves, it is not surprising that people were much tougher than in today's society (even in the Philippines ).

Jesus could also have plunged into a coma from the pain or blood loss. As people at that time were not very good at medicine and even the experts probably didn't know what a coma was, the ordinary people that laid him to his tomb may have done so without knowing that he wasn't dead. I sincerely doubt that they were able to understand that someone in a coma was still alive.

Thanks for your other explanations (analogy...), Tsuyoiko. I totally approve !

Tsuyoiko, that's why it's called a "m i r a c l e"! And your explanation is what is called the "swoon theory"...I would suggest you watch Mel Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ and then tell me how someone could not die! The Roman soldiers were well versed on killing people! But you saying such a thing doesn't surprise me either, because although you claim you want evidence, you simply wouldn't believe even if you were there at the tomb that day!

Oh, were you there that day ! It must be a miracle that you survived to this day. Now you have convinced me that miracle do exist after all ! As you seem to have lived through history, have you had the chance to meet Mohammed too ?

I read another old story that said that if a prince charming (by whose standard ?) kissed a frog, it would turn into a princess. They say in the book that it is not just a legend but that it really happened and that we must believe it. Would you qualify this as "miracle" too. Maybe you don't know, as you were not there where and when that happened this time !

 

[03cobra]

It is worth noting that the writers of books of the Bible from the first century did not have clear motives to mislead. Their dedication to Jesus was not likely to lead to riches or power. Instead, it more often lead to persecution. Had they lied, there would have been many to identify the lies.

In 2 Corinthians 11, a letter Paul wrote to a church he established at Corinth, he described some of the events that had occurred in his service to God: Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked. And, besides other things, I am under daily pressure because of my anxiety for all the churches.

Later, he was executed by the state. So "earthly" motives for fabricating a religion are not present.

 

[Maciamo]

It is worth noting that the writers of books of the Bible from the first century did not have clear motives to mislead. Their dedication to Jesus was not likely to lead to riches or power. Instead, it more often lead to persecution. Had they lied, there would have been many to identify the lies.

But who really cared enough ? It was a time when people believed freely in any god they wanted. What's more, what solid "proof" would outsiders have had decades after the events happened ? There was no photography or videos at that time. The very concept of legal proof was not what it is now. If the early Christians were persecuted, it is because they insulted the pagan gods (e.g. in Ephesus), incited people to follow their faith and refuse allegiance to the Roman Empire. If you defy the Empire, don't be surprised if it strikes back.

 

[Maciamo]

Being raised a Roman Catholic and attending Catholic schools in my most vulnerable years, it was drilled into me that the Bible is the word of God and is not to be questioned. As a child I was told that to eat meat on a Friday was a MORTAL SIN and would land one in hell. The same if the holy communion wafer touched your teeth. It was strictly forbidden as this was the body of Christ and was tantamount to eating Christ! Failure to confess ones sins every week would also land you in hell if you died and didn't confess and receive the holy sacrament of Extreme Unction or last rites. All this led me, a young child, to live in terrible fear of spending eternity in HELL, for any breach of the 10 commandments along with many other things, a few of which I mentioned above.

Then a funny thing happened in the 60's during the Eccumenical Council of Pope John XXIII. Everything suddenly changed.
....
This is when I think I first started questioning religion and the bible.

I was already raised in a Catholic family and schools, and can very well understand what you are saying. I started questioning these teachings about at the age of 6, when I was force to go to catechism lessons.

In my opinion, the OT, as we know it today, after its numerous edits, is based on the ancient Summerian tablets discovered over 100 years ago in what is today Iraq and ancient Babylonia where civilization first flourished over 100,000 years ago.

I have been a serious student of one Zecharia Sitchin (Book: The 12th Planet) who is perhaps the leading translator of these most ancient tablets.
....
Do I believe in a God? Damn right I do. After all, someone had to set all of this vast, beautiful universe in motion. But I do not believe in the god as depicted in the bible as they were only aliens whose decendents are still fighting among themselves today in the Middle East where it all began.

I am quite disappointed that someone like you should believe in this. It is just all too easy to disprove. First of all, it takes millions of years for planets to form, or reform after a collision. It has been scientifically proven that the Earth started forming about 5 billions years ago, and that we humans have evolved from apes from 3 to 1 million years ago. 100,000 years ago, date when you claimed the Sumerian tablets date from, there were no modern humans. We are genetically closer to the Cro Magnon, who appeared 35,000 years ago, and lived for a gew thousands years along with the Neanderthal (not related to us) who disappeared 29,000 years ago.

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago, prompting the rise of ancient civilisations where the climate, vegetation and animals allowed it (in this regard, I recommend the book Guns, Germs & Steel, which explains well that cereals, vegetables and domesticable animals where only to be found in some very specific areas of the globe at that time - for example, pigs, abricots, oranges and rice only existed in China, while goats, sheep, wheat and barley were found in the Middle East, horses were found around the Black Sea, cows/buffaloes from Europe to SE Asia, etc.). That is why the first civilisations did not spring up in North America, Scandinavia, Indonesia or Australia, but in China, the Indus Valley and the Middle East (later also Mexico and the Andes, that had other resources, such as squash, corn or potatoes).

In other words, there is a good explanation for the birth and developement of the Earth, animals, humans and civilisations. The Sumerian tablets have been estimated to be about 4000 years old, and the most archaic Sumerian civilisation only began around 3100 BCE. There is enough archeological evidence.

I have read the link about Zecharia Sitchin, and it is also very easy to disclaim his ideas. The BBC has a short (and quite obvious) explanation about why ancient civilisations added a 10th, 11th or 12th planet to the solar system. I don't know if you are a fan of astronomy, but many planets can be seen with bare eyes, and even some satelites of Saturn or Jupiter. In fact, Saturn has at least 49 satelites, and Jupiter 18. Some are bigger than our Moon or Pluto, (have a look at the image). Therefore, these satelites can be seen more easily than more distant planets like Uranus, Neptune and especially the tiny Pluto. It would be more interesting to investigate whether some of these satelites could not support life - as has been suggested for Europa with its huge ocean (frozen in the surface but not under the crust).

As for the Temple Comet, my supposition is that it is a remnant of the formations of the solar system planets. If those chemicals associated with living organisms can still be found after 100,000 or 5 billion years, why not even longer. Anyway it is not so surprising as actual life organism (not just chemicals) have been found on Mars, next to which Temple orbits.

 

[Maciamo]

Beliefs can be a bit sticky, as one will get a little upset when something one believes in is called into question.

How can you expect distinguishing the facts from the myths, what is real from what is made up, if you are not ready to question your very own existence (and all the values inculcated to you since you were born, plus those you developed yourself based on that). Someone who has never been really upset about their metaphysic beliefs, and gone through a lot of intense questioning, yet without losing their intellectual abilities to reason, will probably not come close to understanding their own thoughts - even less being able to judge the veracity of religious beliefs.

 

[Revenant]

How can you expect distinguishing the facts from the myths, what is real from what is made up, if you are not ready to question your very own existence (and all the values inculcated to you since you were born, plus those you developed yourself based on that). Someone who has never been really upset about their metaphysic beliefs, and gone through a lot of intense questioning, yet without losing their intellectual abilities to reason, will probably not come close to understanding their own thoughts - even less being able to judge the veracity of religious beliefs.

I can agree, and I went through a time wherein I debated anyone on the faith I had been brought up in, that being Christianity. I always winced when someone brought up an objection, but not wishing to put my name on anything that I couldn't reason, I forged ahead, till I really started thinking that a compassionate God couldn't play favorites (the Jews were His chosen people). I also got introduced to Buddhism through some studies on happiness, and Buddhism seemed to agree with a lot of the conclusions I had come to (I'm not Buddhist). Buddhism just made so much more sense, as it was a more logical and less guilt-ridden approach to a higher spirituality (simply the development of empathy, and the realization of what is truely important in life).

Anyhow, not all people are prepared to question their beliefs, and I can in part understand. It's never easy watching that which you believed in come tumbling down, and it's not easy trying to find the right beliefs to replace those lost. Those brought up in fairly religious families, and especially the fundamentalist ones, probably have it the worst.

 

[03cobra]

Maciamo, actually I think the concept of legal proof has not changed much in the past 2000 years. The system of the Romans is not very different from what we had.

People did care. Before the Apostle Paul became a Christian, he had a commission to find Christians and imprison them. The dramatic change in his role came after he was struck blind (for a time) and confronted by the risen Jesus Christ.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Anyhow, not all people are prepared to question their beliefs, and I can in part understand. It's never easy watching that which you believed in come tumbling down, and it's not easy trying to find the right beliefs to replace those lost. Those brought up in fairly religious families, and especially the fundamentalist ones, probably have it the worst.

This is so true. Imagine you have a friend that you trust completely. Your whole life you have respected and admired him/her. Then suddenly you realize that this friend is actually not at all the person you thought s/he was, but some kind of con-artist. The disappointment would be intense. Some people would find it hard to trust anyone again. Truly traumatic.
Religion is like this. You're taught from a young age to trust and respect some teachings, and you become comfortable with them. To start questioning them is like questioning your best friend about his/her integrity. And if you should come to the conclusion that a major part of your world concept is indeed false, that would be so disappointing, and you probably would feel betrayed somehow by your family, parish, community... Not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable.
People like to think that there's something else higher out there, that we're not alone, so to speak. It's what we are taught almost from birth, and it's a comforting thought. I think it makes a lot of people feel more secure about themselves. So I think that religion should not be discounted outright. Nor is questioning one's religion necessarily the right thing for every person on the planet to do.
I don't know if this adds to the argument in any way, but that's my opinion.

 

[studyonline]

People like to think that there's something else higher out there, that we're not alone, so to speak. It's what we are taught almost from birth, and it's a comforting thought. I think it makes a lot of people feel more secure about themselves. So I think that religion should not be discounted outright.

I agree. People who think they do not believe any religion actually have faith, too. It can be their education, books they read, friends they trust, etc.

We always believe something to live, and based on the way they value things, they protect their faith. Some obviously believe God.

It is impossible to convince someone just because whatever you say "sound" logic or even when 100% logic in every aspect. Those who don't believe God may not realize that they have a kind of faith to argue or protect whatever they think right. Sometimes we need to respect whatever other people believe whethear it means for a good purpose or not.

 

[Maciamo]

Not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable.
People like to think that there's something else higher out there, that we're not alone, so to speak. It's what we are taught almost from birth, and it's a comforting thought. I think it makes a lot of people feel more secure about themselves. So I think that religion should not be discounted outright. Nor is questioning one's religion necessarily the right thing for every person on the planet to do.

That's a good point. I have always been very independent-minded, unconformist and individualistic since as long as I can remember. So it has never really been a problem for me to go against what people told/taught me when I was a child/teenager.

But not everybody is like me, and I should accept that, and realise that there is a real risk for some people to question their whole existence, without ending up committing suicide once they realise their mistakes.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

If that dates 6,000 years ago indicates the beginning of the Jewish tradition, i.e. the beginning of civilisation in the region of Palestine, I find it strange that it starts so late, as the city of Jericho was settled already 11,000 years ago. Does that mean that it took them 5,000 years to come up with the very first scriptures of the OT ?

Actually, the story of how Reverend Ussher came up with the date is interesting. It seems laughable to us now, but when he came up with it in 1650, he was using perfectly respectable scientific methods, given the era.

 

[Void]

Religion is like this. You're taught from a young age to trust and respect some teachings, and you become comfortable with them. To start questioning them is like questioning your best friend about his/her integrity. And if you should come to the conclusion that a major part of your world concept is indeed false, that would be so disappointing, and you probably
would feel betrayed somehow by your family, parish, community... Not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable. People like to think that there's something else higher out there, that we're not alone, so to speak. It's what we are taught almost from birth, and it's a comforting thought. I think it makes a lot of people feel more secure about themselves. So I think that religion should not be discounted outright. Nor is questioning one's religion necessarily the right thing for every person on the planet to do.
I don't know if this adds to the argument in any way, but that's my opinion.

For seventy years we`ve been raised to be atheists (if not to consider beleive in ideal communist future to come as a religion of some sort). State`s ideology took place of the religion. We were taght to question to doubt to ivestigate (for except ideology, it claimed to be inerrant). Then everything ended. It indeed was like questening an integrity, integrity of the state, integrity of leaders? of the world and of oneself. What many people believed in turned out to be a fake. Quite fast religion took the place of ideology
Yes, majority of the people is not strong enough to find reasons and support within. But i can`t say, that they all started truly to believe in God all at once. The idea of divine being and its perfectness justt filled the gap which appeared in minds and hearts. There is something to follow. It seems like this

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

For seventy years we`ve been raised to be atheists (if not to consider beleive in ideal communist future to come as a religion of some sort). State`s ideology took place of the religion. We were taght to question to doubt to ivestigate (for except ideology, it claimed to be inerrant). Then everything ended. It indeed was like questening an integrity, integrity of the state, integrity of leaders? of the world and of oneself. What many people believed in turned out to be a fake. Quite fast religion took the place of ideology
Yes, majority of the people is not strong enough to find reasons and support within. But i can`t say, that they all started truly to believe in God all at once. The idea of divine being and its perfectness justt filled the gap which appeared in minds and hearts. There is something to follow. It seems like this

Now this is very interesting. I would love to hear any further thoughts you have on this, Void! :wave:

 

[Mars Man]

Well, I had mentioned to Tsuyoiko that I wouldn't altogether abandon this thread, and I'm ususally pretty good at keeping my word, even though there may often be time lapses.

Thank you 03cobra for taking that subject over here rather than on the 'biblical texts' page; I appreciate it. No problem what so ever, as far as I'm concerned, Maciamo, for jumping in when you did--always nice to hear from you too! And it was good to hear the mildness and warmth of the voice of you too, Mikawa Ossan.

Firstly to address sabro's post 141, pg. 6, and that of Pararousia's #136, pg 6. I wonder, how is it that you can claim to know just what kind of a beating Joshua got on the day that he was killed?

Then, in thinking outloud on 03cobra's #142 post, pg.6, perhaps you have had no problem in seeing some historical error in the writings of those early Christian and Jewish religious leaders, but I would like to know just what specific errors, exhaustively, you have come to see--and maybe that should be on the 'biblical texts' thread. At the same time, here, not there, I would wonder what schematic you may use for determining what is representative of actual reality, and what isn't. Luke's investigation may not be so reliable, afterall, you see. (and neither that of Paul)

Mikawa Ossan, I really felt the warmth and mildness soothing through and without the words you had penned in your #153 post--nice job!! It is indeed something to think about carefully, and I am still doing that, basically. At the moment, I feel (please notice, I usually choose my words carefully; so feel, maybe think, but not quite reason) that there is a least one element missing, and that is that there is nothing else to set in place of that which is found to be unreal. It seems to lack the concept that the search must go on. Also, it seems to lack the notion that yes, your best friend, your family, parish, community could be wrong, could be misleading.

I agree that 'not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable' yet would interject that understanding that frame of mind, in itself, would not make it the more or, maybe, most benefical or correct--in the long run for humanity. Here, I'd say that society on the whole, is at fault for clamping down on what I term 'the positive freedoms' through often unspoken and indirect educational restrictiveness. This thread is about conceptions and misconceptions in Christianity, and this touches on one long, long enforced misconception which did not start getting attention until only after some 1000 plus years of public ignorance of what the 'church' was hiding--the Bible. I would apply the same general charge towards Shintoism, Taoism, Cunfucianism (in the modern context where it is practiced as a belief system), Hinduism, Islam, Judaism--but we are only discussing it as it concerns Christianity here on this thread. I am still thinking about it; it was a good point, and I just feel as though something is yet missing there, some rocks have not been turned over yet.

I would say that if what an individual believes, ignores proven-through-time-and-test logicality and strong-standing theory, those beliefs are non-players in the shaping of ultimate reality other than just being reality in that they exist in the real minds of real beings--just as mice had been thought to come into existence in piles of cloth back in BCE days, just as the earth's being the center of the universe, or flat, just as the Hopi tribe's religionists thought that their service was holding the sun in place, so forth and so on. . .

Therefore, I stick to my guns, in saying that by far, the greastest misconception in Christianity since the formulation of the Roman Catholic Church, is that of thinking that certain ones who were the founders of the first century order, along with those who had been the founders of the first sediments of Judaism, and there after, had been caused to write down a divine message for all humanity for time eternal. It is primarily a misconception born through Judaism, thus spreading to Christianity and Islam.

It is here, that those 'questions' (for the greater part) which Buntaro had, in all correctness, mentioned on the 'Missionaries' thread, cause those who wish such not to exist, to purposely ignore. It is here, where the thread on 'biblical texts' can be considered a side thread for this one. It is here, where the real logic, pragmatism (not philosophy), honesty and fairness of looking at the conceptions of Christianity begins.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Here is something I would consider to be a misconception some Christians have: the rols of faith.

Faith must act as a stand-in where reason can say nothing

I like that definition. But don't some Christians apply faith to questions that can be answered by reason - for example, evolution versus creation? Why isn't faith reserved just for those questions to which reason cannot provide an answer, such as the existence of god?