Am I "sinning" for not having a reason to beleive?

I remember hearing a term called Red Letter Christians, essentially only following what Christ says (aka the red words in the bible) then what is told in the many contradicting parables and such from other perspectives of the apostles. Even still, you have to wonder who wrote that bible and for what purposes it ultimately was fashioned for, do you not?

word. I mean at least Lao Tzu was convinced to write down his actual thoughts so we have a good idea of the Tao according to him, but Jesus, no one ever said 'Jesus why don't you fuckin write something so it's not all just hearsay as poor as what lecture notes from students are to an actual philosophy taught'
 
I remember hearing a term called Red Letter Christians, essentially only following what Christ says (aka the red words in the bible) then what is told in the many contradicting parables and such from other perspectives of the apostles. Even still, you have to wonder who wrote that bible and for what purposes it ultimately was fashioned for, do you not?

I don't take it to quite that extreme, I consider the whole of Scripture (at least the original manuscripts, I'm still undecided on the concept of Biblical Inerrancy, and yes I've been to websites like http://www.evilbible.com and I'm not impressed, there are innumerous claims to "contradictions," and I've been able to answer most of the ones that have been thrown at me in the past, and if I have not, others have, it just takes a lot of knowledge about the original greek/hebrew wording, the culture of the time, and a fair amount of intelligence, and thus far I haven't encountered one that could not be resolved by someone who knows what they're talking about) to be the Word of God, and therefore the Word of Christ (as in Scripture, according to John 1, Christ is both symbolically and literally the Living Word.) Perhaps I should be more specific in that I believe Scripture is the only and absolute authority, as it is not capricious and cannot be swayed or tempted.

As for who wrote Scripture, approximately 30-40 different authors had a hand in it, according to most modern scholars, over several hundred years. What else is there to wonder about? If you're referring to the myriad fringe conspiracy theories, I think you've been reading a bit too much Dan Brown.
 
It's like treading water has became a great hobby in this forum. Not that the words have no merit, only that having been said a million times they do begin to wear thin.
 
It's like treading water has became a great hobby in this forum. Not that the words have no merit, only that having been said a million times they do begin to wear thin.

It's been about a year since the last philosophy thread you started... rather than rely on others to start interesting threads why not do so yourself? :)
 
It's been about a year since the last philosophy thread you started... rather than rely on others to start interesting threads why not do so yourself? :)

Attack our fine former Dictator! I say good man, leave him to his cabbages and debauchery.

But I agree with you Blowtus. Its like that awful Edmund Burke quote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

Clearly, all that is necessary for vapid adolescent philosophizing to triumph is that smart men create no new threads.
 
I've sort of reached a dead end with academic philosophy. It doesn't tickle me in the way it used to. Hell, last night I had a very strung out conversation about philosophy that drunkenly concluded that writing books about the bloody subject very much misses the point.

:)
 
I've sort of reached a dead end with academic philosophy. It doesn't tickle me in the way it used to. Hell, last night I had a very strung out conversation about philosophy that drunkenly concluded that writing books about the bloody subject very much misses the point.

:)

lol, Lao Tzu would be proud.
 
I've sort of reached a dead end with academic philosophy. It doesn't tickle me in the way it used to. Hell, last night I had a very strung out conversation about philosophy that drunkenly concluded that writing books about the bloody subject very much misses the point.

:)

A Pyrrhonian thought!

That's why I adore Cioran. I know 99% of academic philosophers hate him, but, but, he truly grasped the absurdity of it all. He may be the only true existential philosopher. I mean he wrote like 8 books of aphorisms (usually about 120-140 pages each), and excorciated himself for even writing those.

But truly, since Wittegenstein, one would have thought the systematic obtuse philosophical academic writing would have fallen by the wayside. Instead it continues, but burrows further and further into the ivory towers.