Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

So your Mom said it so it must be true? This is how people just accept things without thinking about it very much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

So your Mom said it so it must be true? This is how people just accept things without thinking about it very much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

It's not that bad, really. My mother (yes, my mother!) learned koine Greek to read the gospels and she found nothing very earth-shaking. It's true there are some differences among the four gospels as to what Jesus said or did, which is undoubtedly due to the nature of these witness accounts that were recorded after Jesus' death. But while you may not get the exact same parables or lineage in every gospel, the fundamental message is very much the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

About reading the gospels literally, this reminds me of the pro-establishing English as the national language fundamentalist Christians saying that if English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for us.

Anyone who read the gospels literally in English hasn't even the barest acquaintance with the history of the religion. They are hard to read literally in Greek because the meaning of phrases so many years later is not always clear, the gospels contradict one another (medieval theologians made extensive catalogues of the contradictions), and they were set down by numerous authors years after the fact.

Also, those who read it literally seem to think Jesus was and spoke as a lawyer, which he decidedly wasn't. Hard to think that someone who taught in parables wished his words to be taken literally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Like everything else in the bible.

I hate derailing this thread. But just a question. So, do Christians believe in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? This story is mentioned in the Quran and homosexuality is expressly prohibited.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Like everything else in the bible.

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with people reading the Gospels literally, or not reading them literally. I even wish some of the Christianity bashers here had a clue about what's really in the gospels.

There are a few things in Paul's letters I'm not so comfortable with (anti-homosexuality). But I'm in the camp that thinks Paul shouldn't be taken literally for our day, because Paul was writing pastoral letters and is very specific to his time and context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Jew and I can tell you historically I would bet Christians have engaged in more terrorism in the name of religion (certainly against Jews) than any other religion.

To me it doesn't really make sense however to blame a religion for terrorism-- it will at most be an excuse not a reason

.

stop feeling sorry for yourself. You were never a slave in America like the blacks, you were not robbed of your land like the native Americans. You live in an expensive area and send your kid to a private school and shop at wholefoods

If you like, you can try living among the muslims or communists or someone else

I am not sure if you are projecting or just aren't very good at understanding. Nowhere did I say I felt sorry for myself. But attitude that Islam is somehow a uniquely evil religion is ridiculous and offensive, given that as much or more evil has been done in the name of Christianity.

Are you a jewis person saying Christianity has caused more wars than Islam, therefore you get to be the best. I suggest you study history more. War is seldom because of religion. Christianity did not cause the American civil war or the revolutionary war, or invent the atom bomb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We could get into a tit-fot-tat about the Muslim conquests in Africa and through India.

Or why the Christian ruler Michael of Constantinople initially begged Rome to help defend Constantinople against the Muslim invaders.

But that would be childish, don't you think?

Which is why its foolish for this topic to be addressed. Both religions have been used to kill millions of innocent people. Its not a reflection of either belief system.

Anonymous wrote:We could get into a tit-fot-tat about the Muslim conquests in Africa and through India.

Or why the Christian ruler Michael of Constantinople initially begged Rome to help defend Constantinople against the Muslim invaders.

But that would be childish, don't you think?