>>3289
Sorry, Jeff.
>>3291
>The inconsistency in the manner of God's character I'd best explain as ancient primitive tribes being told lessons in a manner they were able to "get" properly. The lessons change radically once those tribes become orderly and not a bunch of club wielding shit eaters. It's why I don't get the concept of original sin the way I'm supposed to. Man's fall from Eden is a negotiation in my mind between man and God, rather than a great shaming in which God punishes children for the sins of their ancestors. It's a radical departure from scripture which Jesus did not change/alter/promote/mention/support. But it's the only way I have grasped at it that makes sense to me.
I don't think that there weren't people smart enough to have a deeper understanding of theology. Even then, why couldn't an omnipotent being find a way to explain concepts to people in a way they can wrap their heads around? It just looks like the idea of an ancient, more anthropomorphic Canaanite god colliding with a more abstract, Hellenistically inspired idea of an ultimate god.
>Both the Old and New Testament have things in them that align with historical evidence; major floods, downfalls of civs, etc.
The historicity of much of the Old Testament is pretty questionable. The existence of the Patriarchs and the Exodus story are pretty dubious. There's also a curious lack of mentions of the usual Biblical figures in the Elephantine papyri. The Tel-Dan stele seemingly points to the existence of a King David though, or at least a house attributed to him.
I'm actually open to the possibility of a catastrophic flood happening many thousands of years ago, but I'm not scientist and don't know what to think of what people like Randall Carlson claim. I also find it suspicious that there are all kinds of obscure county histories and so on that mention people digging up the bones of giants. But these are pretty speculative and also not ideas unique to the Bible.
>I believe Jesus was a real man who came to save us.
I lean toward there being a historical Jesus, but I think if he existed he was pretty different from how people later began to think of him. I'm definitely not allergic to considering the arguments of the smarter mythicists out there though.
>From what I haven't established cause I'm funny like that but I hold it dear because the peak works of our own civ were accomplished when this set of beliefs and ideals were held dear to people.
I don't think the central claims of Christianity are true, don't like Christianity as a value system, and never felt much of a connection to the figure of Jesus even when I was religious and thought he was the Son of God.