We have accounts from 2000 years ago

[Zzyzx]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 60 by Divine Insight]

And you're telling me this because....?

[1213]

Why does the divinely inspired word of a god need to be decided if it is "reasonable and good"?

I think it is not reasonable to follow something blindly, because Jesus said:

Can the blind guide the blind? Won't they both fall into a pit?
Luke 6:39

...obvious falsehood that "everything went exactly as the Bible tells"...

How is it obvious falsehood?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

We have accounts from 2,000 years ago which declare that a man who lived 2,000 years ago has been about to return at any moment for the last 2,000 years. And yet everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still very reliably DEAD! Why should we not consider this fact significant when we reasonably seek to consider the just how reliable these 2,000 year old claims are, or ever were?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 60 by Divine Insight]

And you're telling me this because....?

Because if you are living your life based upon accounts of Jesus from 2000 years ago in today's society, you would necessarily need to be living on promises of some imagined afterlife. Not on principles that are actually going to serve you well in this life.

[Divine Insight]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

We have accounts from 2,000 years ago which declare that a man who lived 2,000 years ago has been about to return at any moment for the last 2,000 years. And yet everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still very reliably DEAD! Why should we not consider this fact significant when we reasonably seek to consider the just how reliable these 2,000 year old claims are, or ever were?

Because these accounts proclaim that Jesus is NOT DEAD. He was "Risen" and currently resides somewhere above the clouds. He's LIVING, and he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, and he's the keeper of the gate, to eternal life.

Remember these accounts are all about a promise of ETERNAL LIFE. They are not a promise that you die when you die.

If Jesus was not risen as these accounts claim, then they are all a lie.

But if he was, then there really is an invisible man in the sky who is constantly spying on you!

And what you do in this life will determine whether he will be naughty or nice to you after you die.

That's the gist of it.

[JehovahsWitness]

Because if you are living your life based upon accounts of Jesus from 2000 years ago in today's society, you would necessarily need to be living on promises of some imagined afterlife.

Well I suppose that would depend on how one interprets the text. I'm not sure anyone can make a definitive statement of how people would interpret any particular text. Maybe the Pope could... Are you Pope?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?

We have accounts from 2,000 years ago which declare that a man who lived 2,000 years ago has been about to return at any moment for the last 2,000 years. And yet everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still very reliably DEAD! Why should we not consider this fact significant when we reasonably seek to consider the just how reliable these 2,000 year old claims are, or ever were?

Because these accounts proclaim that Jesus is NOT DEAD. He was "Risen" and currently resides somewhere above the clouds. He's LIVING, and he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, and he's the keeper of the gate, to eternal life.

Remember these accounts are all about a promise of ETERNAL LIFE. They are not a promise that you die when you die.

If Jesus was not risen as these accounts claim, then they are all a lie.

But if he was, then there really is an invisible man in the sky who is constantly spying on you!

And what you do in this life will determine whether he will be naughty or nice to you after you die.

That's the gist of it.

ALL of the elect are up in heaven. None of them have ever come back however. Except apparently for this one time in Jerusalem....

[Kenisaw]

To restate the OP:

"We have accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. We have no way to determine whether they are true in total, true in part, untrue in total.

Shall we base life decisions on those accounts? Why or why not?"

The parameters are pretty clear, as is your attempt to avoid the topic by mentioning peoples that fall outside said parameters. It's an understandable reaction for a theist to take though. As a former theist I am well aware of the impossible task of defending Biblical dogma...

I don't see any Biblical dogma in that and I have not attempted to defend any. I have merely shown, by example, that much of our society is dependent on basing life decisions on accounts from 2000 years ago which may or may not be true and accurate. Let me ask you, on what should one base one's life decisions?

.
I know you haven't attempted to defend any, which was the point.

You haven't shown that much of our society is basing life decisions on accounts from 2000 years ago. You've mentioned 2300 years ago, or 2400 years ago, but nothing from 2000 years ago. But if you want to stray from the OP, that is of couer your choice.

To answer your question, I think one should base their life decisions on all the available data and information that they can get their hands on.

[Kenisaw]

Likewise if the Bible tells us not to massacre people we already accept this. We're not taking Biblical advice in following common morality.

It seems to me that the common morality is based on Christianity. Even if not, my moral is based on the Bible and Bible is the reason why understand certain things are wrong and my moral is not just because someone said that “this is common moral, obey it, or…�.

Unfortunately it seems to me that moral nowadays is rather based on fear of punishment and surveillance cameras than understanding of what is really right and wrong.

There is no such thing as "really right or wrong". It all depends on when and where you were born and what your society or culture defined as right or wrong at that time. The common morality in your neck of the woods might very well have a foundation in typical Christian moral codes. That does not make it better or worse than a moral code in Pakistan or India or the Brazilian rain forest...

[Kenisaw]

Why does the divinely inspired word of a god need to be decided if it is "reasonable and good"?

I think it is not reasonable to follow something blindly, because Jesus said:

Can the blind guide the blind? Won't they both fall into a pit?
Luke 6:39

So you think some things in the Bible are wrong, or need interpreting? (Which makes me wonder why you wrote that "everything went exactly as the Bible tells" in an earlier post)...

...obvious falsehood that "everything went exactly as the Bible tells"...

How is it obvious falsehood?

Plants appearing before the Sun. A worldwide flood. PI equals 3....