|
Post by placid-void on Mar 29, 2015 19:11:19 GMT -5
Each human genome is unique as a consequence of a variety of processes (mutation, recombination, insertions/deletions, etc.) Some of these variations between individuals are silent. Many are observed as different phenotypes, hence the differences observed between individuals including siblings. Genetic and epigenetic variation influences how each individual interacts with its environment. Cognitive processes are influence by genetic and epigenetic processes during brain development and beyond. It therefore seems unsurprising that individuals interpret and relate to a common stimulus (the Bible in this discussion) from a variety of different perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 29, 2015 20:18:16 GMT -5
Each human genome is unique as a consequence of a variety of processes (mutation, recombination, insertions/deletions, etc.) Some of these variations between individuals are silent. Many are observed as different phenotypes, hence the differences observed between individuals including siblings. Genetic and epigenetic variation influences how each individual interacts with its environment. Cognitive processes are influence by genetic and epigenetic processes during brain development and beyond. It therefore seems unsurprising that individuals interpret and relate to a common stimulus (the Bible in this discussion) from a variety of different perspectives. Okay, I thought that might be what you meant, but you know about never assuming... so I thought I'd ask.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 29, 2015 21:57:55 GMT -5
That doesn't seem right but when it comes to people's beliefs logic often does not play a part. Ummm.... I think it takes only the most basic understanding of how the Bible came into being for this to make perfect sense! You are the "fact-based" person here? (Time for some research.) How the bible came to be is not the issue. How people believe it came to be is.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 29, 2015 22:05:55 GMT -5
Ummm.... I think it takes only the most basic understanding of how the Bible came into being for this to make perfect sense! You are the "fact-based" person here? (Time for some research.) How the bible came to be is not the issue. How people believe it came to be is. I will concede that. (But you know better and being disingenuous is not helpful.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 30, 2015 3:06:14 GMT -5
In writing the following I am assuming we are thinking of some Christian version of the bible when we say God’s word. To take the theme of woman or man putting their own interpretation on God’s word to fit with their own ideas a small step further… We might wish to question how much of the bible might in fact be man’s interpretation or concept of God from the time periods and culture in which the author(s) lived. Could that not be why God’s character appears to change so much across the bible. Next how are the things we are reading relevant for us today? Do they make sense according to our current understanding of science and history? Perhaps we are reading man’s interpretations from a former time and assuming that some man created concept of God appearing in the (New Testament) bible is fixed truth. I think that you are right on target, Ellie with the purple hair! Love your hair!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 30, 2015 7:11:09 GMT -5
Not all persons identifying as Christian believe in hell or that God would sacrifice his/her son for sins. Perhaps all these conditions have been created and imposed by mankind rather than by God. No that is true. More and more Christians are abandoning the concept of hell and our new member Maryhig doesn't believe in Jesus crucifixion as being the thing that redeems us. (correct me if I'm wrong about that Maryhig). So I do see many people abandoning the teachings of the early RCC church. There is not much indication that hell was a destination until the RCC really. But my question would be this. If you don't believe the teachings of Christianity to be accurate, why be a Christian? Not that I'm complaining about the newer, gentler, kinder beliefs some Christians are slowly embracing. But they really aren't Christian beliefs anymore. Am I wrong about that? Difficult to answer these questions. The answers change depending on the definition of Christianity
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 30, 2015 7:14:10 GMT -5
Not all persons identifying as Christian believe in hell or that God would sacrifice his/her son for sins. Perhaps all these conditions have been created and imposed by mankind rather than by God. What would be a theology that would include Jesus and the bible but exclude hell and still be within the definition of 'christian'? Christian defined as following Jesus as a way of living. This includes drawing inspiration from the bible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 30, 2015 9:50:42 GMT -5
No that is true. More and more Christians are abandoning the concept of hell and our new member Maryhig doesn't believe in Jesus crucifixion as being the thing that redeems us. (correct me if I'm wrong about that Maryhig). So I do see many people abandoning the teachings of the early RCC church. There is not much indication that hell was a destination until the RCC really. But my question would be this. If you don't believe the teachings of Christianity to be accurate, why be a Christian? Not that I'm complaining about the newer, gentler, kinder beliefs some Christians are slowly embracing. But they really aren't Christian beliefs anymore. Am I wrong about that? Difficult to answer these questions. The answers change depending on the definition of Christianity Yes I'm sure that would give us different perspectives depending on the definitions. However, how far off the definition of Christianity do you have to move before it no longer defines Christianity? I think many Christians are moving to a place in their understanding of life that no longer defines traditional Christianity. When that happens is it still Christianity or something entirely new?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 30, 2015 10:25:32 GMT -5
Difficult to answer these questions. The answers change depending on the definition of Christianity :) Yes I'm sure that would give us different perspectives depending on the definitions. However, how far off the definition of Christianity do you have to move before it no longer defines Christianity? I think many Christians are moving to a place in their understanding of life that no longer defines traditional Christianity. When that happens is it still Christianity or something entirely new? Maybe it is the redefinition of christianity that has led to the migration of people from organized religions to those who claim “no religion”. This has been on the increase in the last 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 30, 2015 11:42:31 GMT -5
Yes I'm sure that would give us different perspectives depending on the definitions. However, how far off the definition of Christianity do you have to move before it no longer defines Christianity? I think many Christians are moving to a place in their understanding of life that no longer defines traditional Christianity. When that happens is it still Christianity or something entirely new? Maybe it is the redefinition of christianity that has led to the migration of people from organized religions to those who claim “no religion”. This has been on the increase in the last 40 years. Maybe. There is an growing population that are joining or supporting beliefs like Neil Donald Walsch has in his Humanities Team group. His beliefs are based on his Conversations with God books. New Age groups are popping up all over and growing. Probably because they do support the belief that there is no hell, that we all go to heaven and we are here to learn. Some also support the belief in reincarnation. I think Walsch's group does support that. So traditional Christianity is losing a lot of their members to what might be described a kinder, gentler version of God that is not exclusive but all inclusive.
|
|