Christianity needs a resurrection according to 'intellectual atheism'

Holy Books in all religions have stood the test of time, why is that. Great and brilliant minds throughout history have spent lifetimes in exploring and studying editing and redacting them. I choose to interpret the narratives found within and the endless scholarship afforded to them, as a signifier that our inexplicable existence does have meaning and purpose. We can read these books and quite uniquely interpret and abstract from them, according to our state of mind, what we need to hear or understand. They act as a mirror to our Self.

This has been a very interesting topic. Although raised traditionally Catholic, even my parents questioned the decisions and morals of the organized church. I find as the generations progress (in my family anyway) there is less faith in organized religion, but still high basic humanist morals.

But there are so many questions:
Regarding marriage: why bother if all the laws recognize common law, and the couple is not part of an organized religion?
Death - does our soul/spirit exist in another realm, or is totally done after life on earth? If so, why bother being moral if there is no consequences? Is there such a thing as reincarnation?

The further the generations fall from Christian (or any other organized religion) teachings, where do they learn their moral code?

So many of our Western holidays are based on Christian High Days, but when do children learn of more than Santa and the Easter Bunny? As far as I know some of granchildren have never been inside a church, and religion is no longer taught at school.

Is there a need for some type of organized faith? I would like for our children to have some form of education about religion, not necessarily religious education, if that makes any sense.

HolySox, belief in life after death is no longer a general belief.

It is confusing for some old people to be presented with the Atonement myth as if it were historical fact.

Caleo

HolySox, belief in life after death is no longer a general belief.

It is confusing for some old people to be presented with the Atonement myth as if it were historical fact.

The Bible is one of the most reliable historical documents on the planet. As such we have confidence that the authors did witness Jesus having risen from the dead.

In our lifetime we have seen the UK become a society that was been built on this fact (apologies can't think of a more politically correct word) to one where people are told "there is no God", "death is an end" and so are making the rules up ourselves. I find the saddest common expression around today is "this life isn't a rehearsal" - actually Christians see this life very much as a rehearsal!

Caleo why would it be confusing especially for Old people to differentiate fact from fiction. I'm not sure what your implying. And Faith and belief do not claim to be ' truth ' they are categories that fall beyond the boundaries of fact/fiction. Death in my mind is a bigger mystery than life and no one has factual knowledge of what happens when we die, apart of course from the evidence of our physical bodies. But from a spiritual perspective there's a rich abundance of ideas to choose from, the majority of which asserting death is a portal to another life.
Harriet Sherwood writing in the Guardian states 'faith is on the rise and 84% of the global population identifies with a religious group. and of course I'm not claiming this as a fact, just an observation

Many years ago (obviously!) I appeared in a play at school by a Hollywood scriptwriter, one Ladislas Fodor, called The Vigil, set in a courtroom. One of the witnesses was Pontius Pilate’s wife, and defence counsel asked her (I quote from memory): “Are you a Christian?” She replied: “I don’t know, but I liked the man,” and he said “Then you are a Christian.”

It was a truly ghastly play, but this seems an interesting definition.

grumppa

Stormystar, it is the nature of old people to be conservative in their beliefs.

As for "another life" (after death) I don't deny it is a possibility. Nobody however has any slightest notion what eternity feels like, sounds like, smells like, or looks like. I hope very much there is an absolute Mind that knows us all and will know us all after we are dead.

I agree grumpa! The great strength of Christianity is it is based upon how someone lived their life in the terrible world.

Alegrias1

25Avalon

Voltaire said if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.

And look - they did!

Precisely.

They did not so much invent him as try to express him on language.

I believe that Jesus existed. There is so much documented evidence that has persisted for 2,000 years. I also believe if
we all followed his teachings the world would be a better place. Whether or not he was the Son of God is another matter.

HolySox : “The Bible is one of the most reliable historical documents on the planet.”

Me (professional theologian): Not true. I find it one of the most interesting collections of writings on the planet, but that’s a whole different thing.

"The great strength of Christianity is it is based on upon how someone lived their life in the terrible word"; I disagree Caleo.

Christianity is not based upon but is the belief in Jesus as God made man. Who took human form, lived among mankind, witnessed their suffering, experienced their temptation, sacrificed his own life and took upon himself the suffering he endured on the cross to pay the price of sin.

geekese not true? Maybe as a gullible Christian I am assuming the integrity of the Bible. I understood it has been carefully copied through the centuries by the faithful. I understand some very early origional manuscripts are held in the Vatican. The 'Dead Sea Scrolls' found fairly recently agree with many OT books, some differences.

Perhaps as a Christian I am cynical of scholars in that they assume other ancient texts are true and use these to undermine the books in the Bible.

But my faith is in Jesus. The Bible is helpful but not essential. As Smileless quite dightly puts it, oir faith is in Jesus.

HolySox, the text of some parts of the Bible are reasonably well attested. But it’s a wild exaggeration to say that as a whole it constitutes a reliable historical document - that is complete nonsense. There are tens of thousands of much more reliable historical documents which do not rely on the blind faith of religious partisans.

By all means use it as a basis of your faith, but don’t try and misrepresent it as something it is not.

Caleo older people’s Nature is not necessarily fixed within a conservative mindset concerning beliefs, on the contrary it’s my experience and those of my older friends we’ve grown more carefree and wilder, wearing hats and purple -as the poem goes. Learning and exploring new ways of being and thinking, and most certainly living a more liberated life. And beliefs alter, they are not Truths. I consider the Gods we image are the ones that reflect Self, and if we think we have a higher self, what better role model could there be than Jesus. And I speak as a non Christian

‘ There are tens of thousands of much more reliable documents’. Are there? How do you know? What makes them reliable, and the Bible isn’t?

geekesse you're right in the sense that we shouldn't base our faith on a piece of paper. Surprised me to learn the Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the Protestant Bible. Which is correct? Which one to follow?

As I said my faith is in God and His Son Jesus. He has used the Bible (and some other scripture) to help me understand what He is doing. In this respect I have found the Bible very reliable but appreciate 'scholars' prefer to debate authenticity rather than consider the message.

"if we think we have a higher self, what better role model could there be than Jesus" well put Stormystar.

DiscoDancer1975

‘ There are tens of thousands of much more reliable documents’. Are there? How do you know? What makes them reliable, and the Bible isn’t?

Hansard, historical archives…

HolySox

geekesse you're right in the sense that we shouldn't base our faith on a piece of paper. Surprised me to learn the Catholic Bible has 7 more books than the Protestant Bible. Which is correct? Which one to follow?

As I said my faith is in God and His Son Jesus. He has used the Bible (and some other scripture) to help me understand what He is doing. In this respect I have found the Bible very reliable but appreciate 'scholars' prefer to debate authenticity rather than consider the message.

The Greek Orthodox Bible has 79 books, the Ethiopian Orthodox 81 books. There are other variations. Take your pick

I can’t believe how gullible people are. How can you believe that God could only make one child in his own image when he apparently made heaven and earth. Why was that child a boy? Obviously because it’s a patriarchal society. The virgin birth? If you were going to be stoned to death for sex before marriage wouldn’t you come up with a great story, then keep embellishing it to keep safe and the story going. How does the death and supposed resurrection save us from our sins? It’s just totally unbelievable. These are, in my opinion, human notions put together to a) keep the poor in their place over hundreds of years, to stop them from attacking the wealthier in society, b) to give the weaker minded some higher authority to blame when things go wrong and c) to give hope that death isn’t the end of everything.
I think Christianity and all other religions are nothing more than cults that were started in times when warfare between tribes for land for farming and metals was rife. Tribes needed more and more people to defend themselves from others who were after the same things. It was a case of getting people onside and against others.
Christianity and other religions are losing people because we have become wealthier and don’t need to fight for our tribal rights. Our tribes have become too diffuse for us to really note the boundaries. Of course, there are still wars in places like the Middle East etc where they are fighting over religious differences that are still very divergent.

IMO it's unnecessarily offensive to refer to anyone of faith, regardless of what that faith is as gullible Bluebellwood.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but it would add a lot more to this discussion if you could express it without insulting others.

Perhaps "guillible" is too strong a word, but the very definition of a religious person is someone who believes - i..e has faith in, something which cannot be proved.

It also appears to be the prerogative of the faithful to easily take offence if anyone questions their faith.

Perhaps we should all be more tolerant of each other's beliefs, and that should include tolerance of those who question your religious beliefs.

I am happy for other folk to believe anything they want as long as it doesn't lead to the Spanish Inquisition (or the rule of the Taliban, etc).