Religion's Place in Nursing

angelicaparki · Apr 14, 2004

Aside from my professional views, please exuse me. If you knew Jesus, you'd have the right to comment, but because you don't have a personal relationship and prayer life with Him, your opinion is invalid. Even in medical care, if a person exhibit signs of ventricular fibrillation and the telemetry strip verifies this, it is the medical professionals that are responsible for initiating measures to defibrillate, etc... Only a fool would stand back and say, "This is really annoying, I don't think it is v-fib and I don't understand how to read this tele strip, so because I disagree with these signs, I am not going to treat it per protocol." When in fact it is v-fib and the person will die without treatment. You cannot rationally judge a case until you have heard all of the facts and are qualified to pass judgement. Just a fact for thought. In old Jewish culture a temple was a holy place of prayer and "inhabited by God." It was defiling to the temple to sell or make a profit in the temple, so of course Jesus would be upset. It is unfortunate we have come so far away from the truth that we forget ourselvelves. After you have tried a relationship with Christ then you can give a valid account and opinion of Him, obviously you feel convicted around Christians or you wouldn't be annoyed by it. :uhoh3:

That's right. I do remember that story, even with my limited biblical knowledge, now that you mention it. I am sure Jesus could be a pain in the butt, too, but like steph says, most think of him hanging out with lambs and babies. So that's why some christians think it's OK tpo push this stuff, because jesus did it too. Argh. I bet Jesus would admit the error of his ways if he could see how annoying it really can be. :)

TopCat1234 · Apr 14, 2004

hard core?? uhhh...right....
and why would i want to read about mcdowell. but if you really want me to...
this is from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/charade.html
josh mcdowell's charade (1982)
gordon stein, ph.d.
[note: the following article is copyright by gordon stein and is reproduced with his permission.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
josh mcdowell is one of the most popular writers that fundamentalist christianity has. he is also one of the least trustworthy. almost nothing he says in his books (e.g., evidence that demands a verdict) has been researched at more than the most superficial of levels. perhaps it is that very sloppiness that makes his books popular with lazy students who don't want to be confused with a lot of facts. they want simple answers, even when there aren't any.
mcdowell has produced a leaflet called a skeptic's quest , which ought to alarm all real skeptics. in it, he tells how he became a christian. his story may be typical of how a person becomes a fundamentalist christian. especially interesting is how little real scholarship or investigation is required. if his conversion is typical, then we can learn a lot from it.
it seems that mcdowell was a self-proclaimed "skeptic" during his undergraduate days. he became impressed with a small group of students whose lives seemed to have purpose. those students were, of course, fundamentalist christians. obviously, what the purpose of their lives was that mcdowell didn't have in his life, didn't seem to matter much to him. any purpose seemingly would do. he interacted with the students and was given the challenge "to examine intellectually who jesus christ was" of course, if he had tried honestly to do this, he would have come up dry, because outside of the new testament itself, nothing is known of jesus christ.
the way in which mcdowell came up with exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that belief in jesus was intellectually correct, is interesting. it shows how faulty reasoning can easily lead one astray. mcdowell decided that to disprove the intellectual validity of jesus be had to 1) demonstrate that the new testament was not historically reliable, and 2) since every-thing in christianity was based upon jesus' resurrection, all he had to do was prove that the resurrection never took place. of course, the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that an event never took place didn't bother mcdowell. he came to the incredible conclusion (on the basis of a faulty examination of the faulty evidence) that "the resurrection of jesus christ is one of the best established events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence" the fact that none of the "evidence" could have been admitted into a current american court under any of the ordinary rules of evidence seems not to bother mcdowell.
to establish the first point above (upon which the second point depends), mcdowell says he relied upon three basic tests: 1) the bibliographic test (he says this evaluates how many morificecripts you have, but this is really only one part of that test), 2) the internal evidence test, and 3) the external evidence test. let us take each of these in turn.
the bibliographic test for a morificecript in reality is 1) can we trace the morificecript back to the original in an unbroken chain?, 2) how many copies of the morificecript are there?, 3) how closely do the copies agree?, and 4) do we have any (or all) of the morificecript in the handwriting of the purported author? in reality, the new testament flunks badly tests number 1) and 4). we have a 300+ year gap between the first entire gospel morificecript and the time at which it was supposed to have been written. in addition, we have no morificecript in the handwriting of the purported author. in fact, we don't even know who the authors of the gospels were. remember, it's the gospel accordng to mark, luke, matthew, or john. this means that it's only an attribution, but not an established fact that anyone named that actually wrote a word of any gospel.
mcdowell seems incapable of reasoning. he claims that there are 14,000 or 26,000 morificecripts of the new testament. so what? what we need is not thousands of morificecripts from the middle ages (which is when most of these were written), but two or three from the exact time that jesus supposedly lived and died. we have none until at least 40-60 years later (that is none was written down until then, but things remained in an oral tradition form), and we have no copies of any gospel until the codex sianaticus of 350 a.d., more than 300 years later.
next, we must realize that because of both the unknown authors, the 40-60 year gap, and the 300 year gap to a complete gospel text, we do not have reliable eyewitness testimony in the gospels. once you realize this, any attempt to document the life of jesus or his purported resurrection (the gospel accounts, in addition, conflict with each other), as reliable history becomes impossible. mcdowell has committed an intellectual travesty by claiming the evidence is overwhelming (it is overwhelmingly negative for the resurrection of jesus. worse, mcdowell has passed off this travesty upon unsuspecting college students, who don't know enough to see through his inadequacies as a scholar. when a group is as intellectually bankrupt as the fundamentalists seem to be (which of them has denounced mcdowell for his inadequacies?), then we know that what they are pushing as their beliefs are unjustified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
is that what you had in mind??

the people of the world will persecute you because you belong to me, for they don't know the god who sent me. john 15:21

topcat

Owney · Apr 14, 2004

angelicaparki,

How dare you say that nobody should use the brain that God gave us. How dare you say that anyone who chooses not to have the same relationship with Jesus that you do has an opinion that is invalid. The Commandment that I have the most problem with is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me." This is nothing more than an exclusivity clause, leading us to a religious monopoly. Like most major religions we are to exclude any other form of spirituality, or humanitarianism. Like most modern religeous thinkers I use the brain that God gave me to follow whatever spiritual guidance I can from anywhere.

psychomachia/Jaaaman,

Excellent posts. I archived both of them in a Word file.

Jaaaman does a good job of attesting to the probable accuracy of the Old Testament. I believe psychomachia does have valid points with the likely inaccuracies in the New Testament. Some years ago, my minister pointed out the problems with the New Testament in a sermon entitled, "The Gospel Truth."

If anyone has read this far, you may indulge me by reading the following which I posted on the Pope Decalares Feeding Tubes, ect. string several days ago.

The Only Good Religion

I was born into a Roman Catholic family of six children. I went to public school for kindergarten, since my local Catholic school did not have one then went to first grade in one Catholic school and second grade in another, since my family had moved. When we moved again, it was too late to enroll me in the local Catholic school for that year, so I went to public school for third grade. My mother decided to leave me in public school and let me attend Catechism, since she did not want me to have to switch to a fifth school in as many years. Going to public school for third grade was a mixed blessing for me. I learned to print in second grade, but in those days cursive handwriting was not taught until third grade in Catholic schools. So I was behind in handwriting. I was, however, way ahead of all of the other children since I had learned to read by phonics, and not by word recognition, as everyone in public schools had been. When the teacher found out how well I could read, she would frequently have me read for the class. This helped to deal with some of my diminished self-esteem at having to learn cursive handwriting. I never did get really good with cursive, so I still print much of the time to this day.

I must say that I probably got the last of the good religious education from the Catholic Church. I felt one of the most attractive aspects of Catholicism was its immutability. "These are the rules. If you don't like them, find another church." The mass was conducted every day, and we were required to attend every Sunday. The mass was spoken or sung in Latin. Our missal was like an operatic libretto, giving us subtitles to follow this deliberately "dead" language. We were taught that there were venial sins, and mortal sins. Venial sins could be forgiven through prayer, but we could only be absolved of mortal sins by confessing them to a priest. We could not take communion with mortal sins on our souls. We were only required to take communion once a year, so the confessional line was usually quite long just before Easter Sunday. Catholic marriages were for life, there being no divorce, but separations were not forbidden. Neither party could ever re-marry. If I wanted to find out what the mass would be like, all I had to do was to look in my missal. The rules were well defined and understandable by most of us in high school.

After I graduated from high school (and Catechism), the church adopted "Vatican II." Everything changed. The altar was turned around and the mass was performed in English, taking away the art and beauty of Latin, and leaving it subject to the ever-changing characteristics of a dynamic, living language. I was on shaky ground with the church when I came back from Viet Nam. We now had guitar masses and other silly attempts to "modernize" the mass. One mass I attended the priest said, "I am supposed to ask you to all shake hands and greet each other, but I know that in twenty minutes, you will all be trying to run each other over in the parking lot, so we will dispense with that." One of my sisters had had a Catholic wedding. After a few years of fighting they went to the priest and were granted an annulment, so she was allowed another Catholic wedding. All of the rules have changed so much that I feel that I did not leave the church, but that the church left me.

I went to Viet Nam as an agnostic, if not an atheist. On our way to Pearl Harbor I was impressed with our navigator's ability to pinpoint the exact minute of our arrival in the middle of the largest ocean in the world. I believe it also renewed my faith in God. My faith was buttressed the night when we survived a typhoon in an area where four ships exactly like mine went down during WWII with the loss of hundreds of lives. I said a prayer, "God, get me through this night, and I will never doubt you again."

Our ship set a record for her type in the number of miles steamed during that cruise. We did not lose a man. We survived several combat engagements where we could watch the death that we inflicted on the enemy. We watch F4 Phantoms covering hillsides with napalm, and people being dismembered an immolated on the beach by our five inch guns. God did bring us all back alive. So my belief in God had been restored, but I felt that there was no church that fulfilled my religious needs.

I did go back to mass occasionally and still do to this day. Each mass seems sillier than the last, although I do like the greetings and blessings that we exchange. I did even take communion once, but only because I was at a wedding where there were no other Catholic friend in attendance who would know that I had not confessed mortal sins to a priest. One is not supposed to take Holy Communion with mortal sins on one's soul. I did say my confession directly to God, (like a Protestant)and said my Act of Contrition and penance. I may one day go to confession and thus reconcile myself with the church, but this would require me to abide by some rules that I cannot live with. I believe I would have no problem convincing my wife to re-marry me in a Catholic ceremony since she might agree to raise any children Catholic.

My wife had a pan hysterectomy in her twenties so birth control and child rearing are of little consequence. My most serious issue with the church is their exclusivity clause, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before thee." The Catholic Church forbids believing in any other entity or force, which could influence life on earth or in the hereafter.

For a number of years I hung out with a group of born again Christians. These folks were the finest examples of practicing what Jesus taught us--how to help each other. What troubled me was when one of them told me that regardless of how much good you do on earth, if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you will not get into Heaven. The Catholics do not say that. They say that once you have been confirmed you must follow the rules, but those that have never heard the word you could get into Heaven, if you've been good.

Since my wife is not Catholic we have had many discussions about Purgatory. Purgatory is something that the Catholic Church has over all other Christians. I find it hard to believe that there is not some form of only paying for our sins by how bad they are. I simply cannot believe that since I have lived in sin all these years in a non-Catholic marriage, I will be burning in the eternal fires of Hell right next to Adolph Hitler. It might be nice to have conversations with Adolph, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Andre Chouchescu, and Sadaam Hussein, but not forever. If I died today I would proudly stand before Saint Peter -- and he might even send me to Purgatory for a few weeks to pay for my sins. He might not, because I believe he will consider the amount of "hell on earth" I have already suffered. After I have paid my dues I would be able to walk through the Pearly Gates into the Promised Land.

I first heard of Unitarians from the folksinger Utah Phillips, who said that he had performed in their churches in Utah, a state that has very few public performance venues. In the late eighties I discovered Unitarian Universalism. A friend took us to First Friday, a monthly social event at our local U-U Church. We went to three or four of them before I discovered that Stan, another First Friday attendee, was the MINISTER. A few weeks after that I saw a letter to the editor of our local paper which said that our state governor was a member of the U-U Church, which does not require a belief in God! So we decided to check it out. At the first service a lady stood in the pulpit and said that there was no testament of faith. My wife and I signed the book that day. We could believe anything we wanted, or so we thought. After hanging around for a while we learned we could not believe anything we wanted, but that we were obligated, as thinkers, to find faith that we could believe and follow.

Life's road has led me to be a religious eclectic. Every recent poll has shown that most modern Catholics "pick and choose" those precepts of Catholicism they choose to live by, especially in the area of birth control (thank God, he even created many of THEM with the ability to think). So I CAN be a practicing Catholic, MY way. But I can also be a Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, Shinto, Voodoo, Zoroastrian, Druid, Pagan, Nature Worshiper, Native American, First Nation Member, Ignostic, Agnostic, Humanist, Atheist, or member of any other religion or belief which has something good to offer me.

Most of my religion today is Roman Catholic. I wear a St. Christopher medal on my dog tag chain and pray to him frequently, since he has pulled me through so many perilous journeys. I believe in St. Christopher in spite of the fact that a few years ago Vatican scholars decided that he, like St. Nicholas, might never have existed. But I also practice a lot of First Nation/Native American beliefs. Last year I did a sun dance in my back yard to fend off intermittent showers for our yard sale. It worked. I frequently pray to Earth, other planets, sun, moon and stars. Even in my Catholic prayers I remember to thank God for giving me the wisdom to think.

I believe life's journey continues down the road of the best religion. The best religion forces me to find and follow the best of ALL religions.

Go Now In Peace

:kiss

sbic56, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

Aside from my professional views, please exuse me. If you knew Jesus, you'd have the right to comment, but because you don't have a personal relationship and prayer life with Him, your opinion is invalid. Even in medical care, if a person exhibit signs of ventricular fibrillation and the telemetry strip verifies this, it is the medical professionals that are responsible for initiating measures to defibrillate, etc... Only a fool would stand back and say, "This is really annoying, I don't think it is v-fib and I don't understand how to read this tele strip, so because I disagree with these signs, I am not going to treat it per protocol." When in fact it is v-fib and the person will die without treatment. You cannot rationally judge a case until you have heard all of the facts and are qualified to pass judgement. Just a fact for thought. In old Jewish culture a temple was a holy place of prayer and "inhabited by God." It was defiling to the temple to sell or make a profit in the temple, so of course Jesus would be upset. It is unfortunate we have come so far away from the truth that we forget ourselvelves. After you have tried a relationship with Christ then you can give a valid account and opinion of Him, obviously you feel convicted around Christians or you wouldn't be annoyed by it.

Nobody's opinion is "invalid". You can disagree with mine, but you can't invalidate it. Sorry, that is just the way it is with opinions, no matter what one is talking about. I totally don't understand your religion/a-fib comparison. I don't see how you can compare facts with faith. I feel annoyed by christians only when they push their faith on me, perhaps much as you may feel right now because I do not believe as you do. I wouldn't say you feel "convicted" though. (Not sure what you meant by that comment, really.)

duckboy20 · Apr 14, 2004

Nobody's opinion is "invalid". You can disagree with mine, but you can't invalidate it. Sorry, that is just the way it is with opinions, no matter what one is talking about.

You are right, nobody's opinion is invalid. I think things are just a little tense on here sometimes :)

Psychomachia-Question: Could Jesus have existed? If no, then why not. What about Pharoah? If he lived is it possible that Moses lived and the things about him could have been true? Is it possible there was ever a "great flood" on the earth and Noah had to build an ark? You even said you want a ticket on there. I know you were being sarcastic. There is evidence that water once covered almost all areas of the earth if not the whole earth, some say the earth was warmer and the glaciers melted, I say maybe the earth did warm up, the glaciers melted, and there was a great flood. Could Jesus be the man he said he is? If not tell me exactly why. I think there is a chance he was. You can very well say there is a chance he wasn't. It is all in what we choose to believe. I believe you have said in previous posts that the earth is dated far before the Bible said it could have been. The method they use to date is Carbon Dating which has been disproven as many times as it has been proven. I think your opinion is as valid as mine we choose to believe what we choose to believe.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

If you knew Jesus, you'd have the right to comment, but because you don't have a personal relationship and prayer life with Him, your opinion is invalid.
You cannot rationally judge a case until you have heard all of the facts and are qualified to pass judgement.
After you have tried a relationship with Christ then you can give a valid account and opinion of Him, obviously you feel convicted around Christians or you wouldn't be annoyed by it.

Well, since Jesus is not around, it is kind of hard to pray with him. But it hardly invalidates our opinion.

And trust me, as a Jew that comes from a mixed heritage, I HAVE heard all the so-called facts. Heck, I get beaten to death with them (as do many nonChristians in the USA) on a regular basis. If anything, we are more qualified to speak on him as we are not "biased" by being Christian.

And I have tried to believe in Jesus for ages, but find that it does not "make sense" to me in the way that Judaism does.

The OP entitled the thread "Religion and Nursing" not Christianity and nursing. The OP asks us to "try Jesus" and I have (along with several others that have posted), and I find Christianity lacking. And has written so for the poster to see. That does not limit us in being able to form a valid opinion on him and the Bible.

And for you to say that we have no right to have an opinion...well that just demeans that Christianity that you espouse.

And when have YOU honestly tried to be a ..pick several of the following (Muslim, Hindi, Wiccan, Buddhist, Bahai'd, Rastafarian, Shintoist, Jew, Zoarastian). How can you say that THEY are WRONG if you have not tried all of them? And voice absolutely no opinion of them, whatsoever.

Jaaaman · Apr 14, 2004

A (Not So) Brief Defense of Christianity

Jimmy Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. The New Testament

The Greek Morificecript Evidence

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek morificecripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.

Papyrus and Parchment.

During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.

Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

Examples

Codex Vaticorifice and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).

Older Papyrii

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticorifice and Siniaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five morificecripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.

Oldest Fragment.

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33, and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.

This morificecript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.

Versions (Translations)

In addition to the actual Greek morificecripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384-400 A.D.

Church Fathers

A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy (100-450 A.D) who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.).

It has been observed that if all of the New Testament morificecripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!

A Comparison

The evidence for the early existence of the New Testament writings is clear. The wealth of materials for the New Testament becomes even more significant when we compare it with other ancient documents which have been accepted without question. Consider the following chart:

Author and Work Author's Lifespan Date of Events Date of Writing* Earliest Extant MS** Lapse: Event to Writing Lapse: Event to MS

Matthew,

Gospel ca. 0-70? 4 BC - AD 30 50 - 65/75 ca. 200

Mark,

Gospel ca. 15-90? 27 - 30 65/70 ca. 225

Luke,

Gospel ca. 10-80? 5 BC - AD 30 60/75 ca. 200

John,

Gospel ca. 10-100 27-30 90-110 ca. 130

Paul,

Letters ca. 0-65 30 50-65 ca. 200 20-30 years

Josephus,

War ca. 37-100 200 BC - AD 70 ca. 80 ca. 950 10-300 years 900-1200 years

Josephus,

Antiquities ca. 37-100 200 BC - AD 65 ca. 95 ca. 1050 30-300 years 1000-1300 years

Tacitus,

Annals ca. 56-120 AD 14-68 100-120 ca. 850 30-100 years 800-850 years

Seutonius,

Lives ca. 69-130 50 BC - AD 95 ca. 120 ca. 850 25-170 years 750-900 years

Pliny,

Letters ca. 60-115 97-112 110-112 ca. 850 0-3 years 725-750 years

Plutarch,

Lives ca. 50-120 500 BC - AD 70 ca. 100 ca. 950 30-600 years 850-1500 years

Herodotus,

History ca. 485-425 BC 546-478 BC 430-425 BC ca. 900 50-125 years 1400-1450 years

Thucydides,

History ca. 460-400 BC 431-411 BC 410-400 BC ca. 900 0-30 years 1300-1350 years

Xenophon,

Anabasis ca. 430-355 BC 401-399 BC 385-375 BC ca. 1350 15-25 years 1750 years

Polybius,

History ca. 200-120 BC 220-168 BC ca. 150 BC ca. 950 20-70 years 1100-1150 years

*Where a slash occurs, the first date is conservative, and the second is liberal.

**New Testament morificecripts are fragmentary. Earliest complete morificecript is from ca. 350; lapse of event to complete morificecript is about 325 years.

Conclusion

In his book, The Bible and Archeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact, negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New testament may be regarded as finally established."

To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament." In other words, the small changes and variations in morificecripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations.

We have the Word of God.

psychomachia · Apr 14, 2004

You are right, nobody's opinion is invalid. I think things are just a little tense on here sometimes :)
Psychomachia-Question: Could Jesus have existed?

Have I ever suggested a man named Jesus did not exist?? My issue is with the concept of an unknowable being who "exists" in a state that we cannot comprehend, thus must be taken on faith alone. For myself, Jesus has little to do with that particular aspect of belief/non-belief. Or to make it simple enough, it doesn't matter whether he existed or not.

What about Pharoah? If he lived is it possible that Moses lived and the things about him could have been true?

Your logic is a little flawed here. If "A" existed, then that does not automatically follow that "B" existed. And if Moses did live, so what?? Miracles and other supernatural events are everywhere in the Bible, but yet the same physical laws that exist here today were in place millions of years ago, so I do not believe that any of the miraculous events mentioned in the Bible actually occurred.

Is it possible there was ever a "great flood" on the earth and Noah had to build an ark?

Flood yes, especially since they continue to occur today, but not on the "world-wide" scale of the one mentioned in the Bible. Ark? With two of each "kind" - no.

You even said you want a ticket on there. I know you were being sarcastic.

Remember, sarcasm does not equal belief...just a little tip from your friendly neighborhood atheist...

There is evidence that water once covered almost all areas of the earth if not the whole earth, some say the earth was warmer and the glaciers melted, I say maybe the earth did warm up, the glaciers melted, and there was a great flood.

And there is evidence the earth is billions of years old, yet many Christians don't accept it because it contradicts their Bible. There is also evidence for evolution, but that too pushes god out of his position as CEO of the Universe.

Could Jesus be the man he said he is?

The question should be, "could Jesus be the man the Christian religion says he is." Answer: Not with the evidence known today.

If not tell me exactly why.

Oh, I don't know, how about that whole immaculate conception issue?? That one's a little hard to swallow...

I think there is a chance he was.

Anything has a "chance" - but possible is not the same as probable.

You can very well say there is a chance he wasn't. It is all in what we choose to believe.

Or not believe...

angelicaparki · Apr 14, 2004

I believe everyone has a right to an opinion and their opinion is valid to them. However for an opinion to be true, it has to be studied out, kind of what you said. I didn't say what I said to offend anyone, but neither do I refute what I said.

Well, since Jesus is not around, it is kind of hard to pray with him. But it hardly invalidates our opinion.
And trust me, as a Jew that comes from a mixed heritage, I HAVE heard all the so-called facts. Heck, I get beaten to death with them (as do many nonChristians in the USA) on a regular basis. If anything, we are more qualified to speak on him as we are not "biased" by being Christian.
And I have tried to believe in Jesus for ages, but find that it does not "make sense" to me in the way that Judaism does.
The OP entitled the thread "Religion and Nursing" not Christianity and nursing. The OP asks us to "try Jesus" and I have (along with several others that have posted), and I find Christianity lacking. And has written so for the poster to see. That does not limit us in being able to form a valid opinion on him and the Bible.
And for you to say that we have no right to have an opinion...well that just demeans that Christianity that you espouse.
And when have YOU honestly tried to be a ..pick several of the following (Muslim, Hindi, Wiccan, Buddhist, Bahai'd, Rastafarian, Shintoist, Jew, Zoarastian). How can you say that THEY are WRONG if you have not tried all of them? And voice absolutely no opinion of them, whatsoever.

duckboy20 · Apr 14, 2004

Psychomachia-you say the world is billions of years old but again you are basing that off of carbon dating which is the basis of scientists saying it is that old. Just like I said in my last post Carbon dating has been shown not to work just as many times as it has shown to work. I was not saying that since Pharoah lived Moses had to live. But if I believe that Moses lived it takes just as much faith for me to believe that Pharoah lived. My point was not about miracles, just about the faith it takes to believe in a person.

Oh, I don't know, how about that whole immaculate conception issue?? That one's a little hard to swallow...

Again to Christians we believe God created man. So if he created man who says he cannot implant an egg inside a woman? If I did not believe in God then heck yeah that would sound weird to me too and I would no doubt not believe it. My point here is not to 'convert' you, just try and make you think a little more. You use faith every day. One of my favorite songs has a line, " you cannot see the wind, you see the effects of the wind, but you cannot see the wind". It takes faith to say that hmmmm that is wind. I feel it, I see it's effects, but I cannot see it at all. Right now I cannot see Jesus. I can see the effects of him throughout this world either by people who love him or hate him or deny he exists. I can also feel him in my life.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

Nobody's opinion is "invalid". You can disagree with mine, but you can't invalidate it. Sorry, that is just the way it is with opinions, no matter what one is talking about. I totally don't understand your religion/a-fib comparison. I don't see how you can compare facts with faith. I feel annoyed by christians only when they push their faith on me, perhaps much as you may feel right now because I do not believe as you do. I wouldn't say you feel "convicted" though. (Not sure what you meant by that comment, really.)

Good response sbic.

It's hard for me to respond to Angelica without violating the TOS against a personal attack. But Angelica, I read your post and it makes no sense to me, so your post is invalid to me.

However, I will say that I have studied the Bible and read it many times. Attended many a Bible study with instructors, went to a Christian church for over 10 years, and can honestly say I've had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Today, however, I've come to a different understanding of the universe. You don't know the thought process that those of us who don't think as you have gone through to come to our belief system. :)

Tweety, BSN, RN · Apr 14, 2004

My point here is not to 'convert' you, just try and make you think a little more.

It's quite obvious to me by now that psychomachia has put quite a bit of thought into this and doesn't need much more thought provoking here. LOL

I have enjoyed this thread, obviously both sides are unbending in their beliefs, but the conversation has been quite interesting. Carry on. :)