Truthfulness of the Bible

mrmazoo · Post by **mrmazoo** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:13 pm

First post everyone, so take it easy on me.

I want to ask Christians why they believe the Bible is true.

Now, as an atheist, I don't believe the Bible to be the true word of god. However, I am willing to grant you that the Bible is the actual word of god. By "word" I mean that god was the author. But I still don't see how that gets you anywhere and this is why:

God being god, there is no way for a mere mortal to comprehend the mind of god. Christians use this type of logic all the time, and I agree with them. For example, if someone asks "Why would god make this huge gigantic universe that is 99.999% devoid of life if he were so concerned with what happens on this measly little planet?" The answer to this question would be something like "We can't understand the mind of god. Surely he has a good reason for doing whatever he does. Not knowing the reason doesn't mean a reason doesn't exist." A similar argument can be made for asking why god allows innocent people to die in natural disasters. Or why they die young of illness and disease.

I agree with this argument. Lets call it the God's Mind Versus Man's Mind argument. If you don't agree with the argument, please explain why.

Now comes the crux of my argument. Consider the following statement:

"It is possible for god to lie."

Is the statement true or false? I say it must be true in all possible worlds. I can not even conceive of a universe where a god exists and that god was not capable of purposely telling a falsehood.

So, if god is capable of lying, then god is capable of lying to all of us.

And therefore, even if god authored the Bible, it might still be false.

You might ask, "Why would god lie?" I would respond by giving you the God's Mind Versus Man's Mind argument. However, some possible explanations are the following:

* God is not interested in the truth. He made up a story just to see who would believe it and who would not.

* God is testing us to see who relies on faith and who relies on the reasoning power of their own mind. He favors those who have faith and it is more reliable to test peoples' faith with falsehoods than it is with truth.

* God DISfavors those who have faith and the Bible is a test.

* God is simply mischievous and wants to cause trouble.

I could think of many more but you get the point.

It seems to me that even if we grant that the Bible is the word of god, we are still left with the possibility that it is false (in part or in whole). Not only that, you can never even be sure that god WANTS you to believe the Bible.

The problem (for Christians) with this argument is deep. There is no verse you can point to in the Bible which will help you in the least. You can't even appeal to faith anymore because the very belief that faith is a virtue has been put into question.

The only solution for Christians (and incidentally Jews and Muslims) is to simply ignore the Bible and rely on their own minds to figure out what a good life is and how to attain it.

What are your thoughts?

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:23 pm

I think you should talk to Daniyal and Truthbringer.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:35 pm

Rapunzel;1183647 wrote: I think you should talk to Daniyal and Truthbringer.

Daniyal is barred

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:36 pm

So the crux of your argument is that it is theoretically possible for God to lie therefore the Bible, even if the inerrant word of God, is unreliable.

To be honest, a weak argument.

Way before we get to the stage of arguing God's honesty there are so many more fruitful debates over whether the Bible, as it currently exists, is the true word of God or whether it is a translation of a translation of man's understanding of God's word.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:39 pm

I'm not sure I understand the premise of an athiest accepting that the Bible is the word of God.

If you do then how can you be an athiest ?

Why do you think that Christians require a "solution". They would ascertain that they require no proof but just to believe. Have Faith. The pointing to "a verse" would be of no value at all

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:46 pm

mrmazoo;1183642 wrote: By "word" I mean that god was the author.

God wasn't the author. The stories were handed down by word of mouth over hundreds of years. Stories like that are like Chinese whispers - they get changed in the telling, whether intentionally or not. Eventually they were written down by different authors.

In AD 325 the Roman Emperor Constantine I convened the First Council of Nicea. He called together 318 bishops, from every region of the Empire except Britain. He told them that Christian doctrine was muddled and inconsistent. He made them bring all their stories and writings but when some of the more shocking passages from these writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous. The Council were in session for a month arguing over what they did or did not agree with and what certain words meant (many writings were in foreign languages). Some documents were kept whole, some they only kept a word or two from, e.g., Holy Spirit. Some words they refused to use, such as Gnostic, which was a word used by heretics. Gradually they put together the parts they agreed on and this became the Nicene Creed, which is basically the New Testament part of the Bible.

Hope that helps. Welcome to FG. :-6

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:48 pm

oscar;1183654 wrote: Daniyal is barred

About time.

:wah:

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:48 pm

Bryn Mawr;1183655 wrote: Way before we get to the stage of arguing God's honesty there are so many more fruitful debates over whether the Bible, as it currently exists, is the true word of God or whether it is a translation of a translation of man's understanding of God's word.

Exactly. Thankyou. :-6

daBunnyWendy7 · Post by **daBunnyWendy7** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:53 pm

My answer to this important question is to read it then pray about the truthfulness of what you have read.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Mon May 04, 2009 3:20 pm

mrmazoo;1183642 wrote: ................Is the statement true or false? I say it must be true in all possible worlds. I can not even conceive of a universe where a god exists and that god was not capable of purposely telling a falsehood.........................

What are your thoughts?

1) Your saying it must be true does not make it true.

2) The question is not valid. As God is capable of all things, the question should be: Would God ever lie?

3) The Bible is a manual for Christian living. The Holy Spirit helps those who seek God's word to understand its meaning.

Question: If The Bible is fluff and there is no Savior, why are atheists so threatened by what non-atheists think and believe? It isn't like atheists have anything better to offer.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon May 04, 2009 3:43 pm

Kindle;1183690 wrote: 1) Your saying it must be true does not make it true.

2) The question is not valid. As God is capable of all things, the question should be: Would God ever lie?

3) The Bible is a manual for Christian living. The Holy Spirit helps those who seek God's word to understand its meaning.

Question: If The Bible is fluff and there is no Savior, why are atheists so threatened by what non-atheists think and believe? It isn't like atheists have anything better to offer.

As an athiest myself, I have never felt threatened by religion as such. I dont understand why I would. If I dont believe something exists how can I feel threatened by it. I hold no fear of the Devil, for example. How can I ? ( although I have been accused of being a devil worshipper for my sins as an athiest ) I may feel threatened by the actions of extreme religious fundementalists, of what ever denomination or faith. Thats different.

I'm not sure what it is as an athiest I am supposed to bring to the table. What it is I'm supposed to offer.

Our differences are pretty minimal most of the time - as human beings. Our differences, such as they are, are great for discussion.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:27 pm

Now comes the crux of my argument. Consider the following statement:

"It is possible for god to lie."

Is the statement true or false? I say it must be true in all possible worlds. I can not even conceive of a universe where a god exists and that god was not capable of purposely telling a falsehood.

So, if god is capable of lying, then god is capable of lying to all of us.

And therefore, even if god authored the Bible, it might still be false.

You might ask, "Why would god lie?" I would respond by giving you the God's Mind Versus Man's Mind argument. However, some possible explanations are the following:

* God is not interested in the truth. He made up a story just to see who would believe it and who would not.

* God is testing us to see who relies on faith and who relies on the reasoning power of their own mind. He favors those who have faith and it is more reliable to test peoples' faith with falsehoods than it is with truth.

* God DISfavors those who have faith and the Bible is a test.

* God is simply mischievous and wants to cause trouble.

I'm a deeply confused person on this issue.

But I think you are arguing semantics at this point: God could lie, but we are required to go on faith that he isn't. If God is lying he isn't God.

On top of that the Bible is transmitted to us through human minds - we are not capable of comprehending GOD is his/her entirety. At the same time we might well be expected to use our Godgiven brains to loook at the world around us and understand that the Bible is is the best effort of human minds to interpret the will of God. Successive generations of honest, clever, well-meaning people have done their honest best to translate that meaning into our own languages and the Bible we read (in its many variations) is the result.

That it isn't consistent is a result of the "Chinese whispers" effect of many translations. The mystery of God is that these successive interpretations by those who really care might well be moving us closer to an understanding of God's Will.

I remain confused and just hope that trying to live a life in accordance with the morality that seeps through the Bible is God's will. If heshe exists.

mrmazoo · Post by **mrmazoo** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:37 pm

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I believe my argument is much stronger than most arguments concerning the truthfulness of the bible. Most people say that the bible is NOT the word of god, but the word of man and therefore it is fallible. Or, they try to find inconsistencies in the Bible that contradict each other.

But my argument goes much further. I'm saying that even if every word in the bible was put there by god (directly or indirectly), you STILL can't be certain that it contains true knowledge. My argument cuts to the very foundation of god and truth.

If you point to this or that passage and show an inconsistency, someone might explain it away (and they usually do). Or, the best you can hope for is get an admission that that single passage might have been wrong (which you'll never get anyway).

I'm not an atheist that believes the bible is the word of god. I'm saying I am willing to assume, for the purpose of argument, that the bible is the word of god. I'm saying that even with this assumption, you still can't know the Bible is true. If this is the case, then there is no point in trying to find inconsistencies in the bible, or pointing out that men actually physically wrote the bible (duh). The veracity of the very MESSAGE that the bible sends is now in question, because what if the message itself is a lie?

Someone said the question is invalid. That makes no sense. Only arguments can be valid or invalid. A question or statement is just a question or a statement. My question is "Is god capable of lying?" Their point was that god is capable of anything so the "real" question ought to be "Would god lie?"

Fine, lets take a look at this new question.

In order to answer it, we need to know god's mind and what god's intentions are. Obviously, this is not possible because of the God's Mind Versus Man's Mind argument. So, we are left with the certain knowledge that god CAN lie. And if god can lie and if we have no idea whether he would or would not lie, then we can not possibly know that god's words are true.

Therefore, the Bible is no help in deciding how to live one's life. Ultimately, Christians are in the exact same boat as non-believers. You have to figure it out for yourself. Nobody will help you. Not even god.

I hope I've made myself clearer. Thanks for all the replies and for welcoming me here.

mrmazoo · Post by **mrmazoo** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:51 pm

Clodhopper;1183710 wrote: I'm a deeply confused person on this issue.

But I think you are arguing semantics at this point: God could lie, but we are required to go on faith that he isn't. If God is lying he isn't God.

But see now here's the problem. You are told to have faith by god, who could be lying. Maybe the test is NOT to see who has faith, but to see who DOESN'T have faith. Maybe god favors those who do NOT have faith and he uses the Bible as a test. In his mind he thinks "Anyone who would believe this crap is useless to me."

I'm not saying that is what he thinks. I'm saying it COULD be what he thinks and that there is no way around this possibility. You can't say to yourself "God wouldn't do that" because you don't know what god would or would not do. You are a mortal. Again, this is the GMVMM argument.

I understand you simply choose to have faith, but why do you choose to have faith? There is no longer even a biblical reason. No man, no matter who they are, can know god's mind. So, it doesn't matter how many successive wise men translated and retranslated the bible. They will never get any closer to the truth because they are all operating on the assumption that god wants us to know the truth.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:55 pm

Man, you are being honest. That is of course welcome!

I don't know. But if God is lying he isn't worth worshipping. Doesn't mean anything in terms of whether heshe exists or not. But it does seem to me that the Bible tells us truths about the human state. I don't have much time for the Old Testament, but the New does seem to tell us real truths about Human life. Jesus, at the least, was an amazing man.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:03 pm

For many like myself.....we do not see the bible as 'the word of god' or any god. The bible is the story of the people who lived through those times as they wrote it themselves as mortals on this earth.

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Mon May 04, 2009 8:33 pm

Snowfire;1183702 wrote: ..............I'm not sure what it is as an athiest I am supposed to bring to the table. What it is I'm supposed to offer.

Our differences are pretty minimal most of the time - as human beings. Our differences, such as they are, are great for discussion.

The problem with trying to answer questions such as Mr Mazoo originally asked is that there is no common ground. A belief in God is faith based and atheists want to use their interputation of the Bible verses to substantiate their viewpoint by saying our faith is not realistic -- that we cannot prove it.

If you are looking for a discussion, the question we could pose in a thread is 'why do you have faith that there is a God'? Or 'why do not believe in a God'?

mrmazoo · Post by **mrmazoo** » Tue May 05, 2009 6:47 am

Kindle;1183768 wrote:

If you are looking for a discussion, the question we could pose in a thread is 'why do you have faith that there is a God'? Or 'why do not believe in a God'?

Actually, I'm not interested in that discussion because I've had it thousands of times and it never goes anywhere.

I'm interested in why Christians have faith in the Bible. Why do they insist that the Bible is true when even if it truly is written by god, that still isn't enough to know it is true.

Why do you believe you ought to have faith to begin with? Is it not written in the Bible that faith is good and virtuous? But what if the Bible is wrong? What if god is playing tricks? What if god actually favors those without faith?

How about we start with this question:

"Why do you believe that god favors the faithful over those without faith?" or

"Why do you believe that god WANTS people to have faith?"

I submit that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he does.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:51 pm

A good deal of the Bible is midrash and was never intended to be read literally.

The basic question today ought not be "Did it really happen this way?, but "What does it mean"?

As far as what the Bible says I fail to see what is wrong with "doing justice and loving compassion".

BTW the word translated into "faith" in the Bible should have been translated as "trust".

Shalom

Ted:-6

cigar898 · Post by **cigar898** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:01 pm

mrmazoo;1183642 wrote: First post everyone, so take it easy on me.

I want to ask Christians why they believe the Bible is true.

Now, as an atheist, I don't believe the Bible to be the true word of god. However, I am willing to grant you that the Bible is the actual word of god. By "word" I mean that god was the author. But I still don't see how that gets you anywhere and this is why:

God being god, there is no way for a mere mortal to comprehend the mind of god. Christians use this type of logic all the time, and I agree with them. For example, if someone asks "Why would god make this huge gigantic universe that is 99.999% devoid of life if he were so concerned with what happens on this measly little planet?" The answer to this question would be something like "We can't understand the mind of god. Surely he has a good reason for doing whatever he does. Not knowing the reason doesn't mean a reason doesn't exist." A similar argument can be made for asking why god allows innocent people to die in natural disasters. Or why they die young of illness and disease.

I agree with this argument. Lets call it the God's Mind Versus Man's Mind argument. If you don't agree with the argument, please explain why.

Now comes the crux of my argument. Consider the following statement:

"It is possible for god to lie."

Is the statement true or false? I say it must be true in all possible worlds. I can not even conceive of a universe where a god exists and that god was not capable of purposely telling a falsehood.

So, if god is capable of lying, then god is capable of lying to all of us.

And therefore, even if god authored the Bible, it might still be false.

You might ask, "Why would god lie?" I would respond by giving you the God's Mind Versus Man's Mind argument. However, some possible explanations are the following:

* God is not interested in the truth. He made up a story just to see who would believe it and who would not.

* God is testing us to see who relies on faith and who relies on the reasoning power of their own mind. He favors those who have faith and it is more reliable to test peoples' faith with falsehoods than it is with truth.

* God DISfavors those who have faith and the Bible is a test.

* God is simply mischievous and wants to cause trouble.

I could think of many more but you get the point.

It seems to me that even if we grant that the Bible is the word of god, we are still left with the possibility that it is false (in part or in whole). Not only that, you can never even be sure that god WANTS you to believe the Bible.

The problem (for Christians) with this argument is deep. There is no verse you can point to in the Bible which will help you in the least. You can't even appeal to faith anymore because the very belief that faith is a virtue has been put into question.

The only solution for Christians (and incidentally Jews and Muslims) is to simply ignore the Bible and rely on their own minds to figure out what a good life is and how to attain it.

What are your thoughts?

The problem with the question is you put God on the same plain as man with the same limitation (not telling the truth is a limitation of one's self). It's like the age old question "Can God create a boulder that He can't lift?"

God is not bound by human limitation. God knows all about sins (a lie is a sin) but that doesn not mean He does them.

AwTin · Post by **AwTin** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:58 am

Kindle;1183690 wrote: 1) Your saying it must be true does not make it true.

2) The question is not valid. As God is capable of all things, the question should be: Would God ever lie?

3) The Bible is a manual for Christian living. The Holy Spirit helps those who seek God's word to understand its meaning.

Question: If The Bible is fluff and there is no Savior, why are atheists so threatened by what non-atheists think and believe? It isn't like atheists have anything better to offer.

Atheists are not threatened by theists. As an aspiring scientist, my motivation to debate with religious people is to argue that their worldview is incorrect, childish, and a hinderance to human progress.

As for not having something better to offer, you are wrong. What is better is the scientific method. What is better is falsifiability. What is better is objectivism, perservering curiosity, and the will to apply the same criticism to my beliefs as I apply to others'.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:10 am

mrmazoo;1183642 wrote: First post everyone, so take it easy on me.

I want to ask Christians why they believe the Bible is true.
Christians believe that the Bible is truth because it matches their practical experience of reality. They are converted by the gospel (often after experiencing changed personal behavior in a friend or relative), that tells them that Jesus has died in their places so that they can live eternally without condemnation or punishment. They respond to that message by living lives of gratitude to Jesus. They do not need to read a Bible, and many Christians have lived and died without one, or without much of one. However, where they possess Bibles that they can read, they invariably (sooner or later) agree with what is written in the Bible, so that disagreement with any Bible teaching is usually regarded as a sign of lack of conversion- or even of deliberate attempt to pervert the Bible's message, or to discount it, which is very common indeed. The manifest dishonesty of those who make such attempts only serves to confirm them in their belief that only the gospel has the power to change people into trustworthy individuals. It is not a question of finding a deity who tells the truth. It is a matter of finding a human who does so.

AwTin · Post by **AwTin** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:28 am

xyz;1325111 wrote: Christians believe that the Bible is truth because it matches their practical experience of reality. They are converted by the gospel (often after experiencing changed personal behavior in a friend or relative), that tells them that Jesus has died in their places so that they can live eternally without condemnation or punishment. They respond to that message by living lives of gratitude to Jesus.

Do you know what is was really common among ancient religions? Human sacrifice. You do realize that Christianity is no different, I hope. Christianity suggests that it was necessary for there to be a human sacrifice to compensate for our moral inadequacy. Is the story of Jesus' sacrifice a selfless act on Jesus' part? Or was it a selfish act on humanity's part in an effort to please God and avoid hell?

Human sacrifice is medieval and immoral, and Christians embrace it.

From Wikipedia's article on human sacrifice: "Victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods..."

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:04 am

AwTin;1325115 wrote: Do you know what is was really common among ancient religions? Human sacrifice. You do realize that Christianity is no different, I hope.
Christianity forbids any sacrifice, because the Christ was the first and final sacrifice that had and has actual effect. Even hatred is deemed worth of eternal punishment in Christianity.

Many people know this, find it too demanding, and commit actionable acts by accusing Christians of supporting human sacrifice.

AwTin · Post by **AwTin** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:18 am

xyz;1325133 wrote: Christianity forbids any sacrifice, because the Christ was the first and final sacrifice that had and has actual effect. Even hatred is deemed worth of eternal punishment in Christianity.

Many people know this, find it too demanding, and commit actionable acts by accusing Christians of supporting human sacrifice.

But Christians do support human sacrifice. They worship a man who was sacrificed in the name of saving humanity from damnation. Whether they support the sacrifice of people other than Jesus is irrelevant.

And that begs the question: Why does Christianity condemn human sacrifice when its very foundation is built on just that?

The truth is: Christianity is built on the principle that without human sacrifice, there is no glorious afterlife and there is no messiah.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:10 am

AwTin;1325149 wrote: But Christians do support human sacrifice.
Then prosecute them.

Or be prosecuted.

AwTin · Post by **AwTin** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:23 am

xyz;1325170 wrote: Then prosecute them.

Or be prosecuted.

Do you mean persecute?

The reason I don't persecute most Christians is because most are oblivious to the primitive and immoral nature of much of the Old Testament and of the sacrifice of Jesus. Most gain a euphemistic understanding of Christianity from a very early age and never learn to look at it objectively or with skepticism. I wouldn't persecute someone who claimed to be a Nazi but doesn't know about the racism and eugenics involved with being a Nazi. Likewise, I won't persecute a Christian who doesn't know about the pre-enlightenment morality that pervades his/her precious books.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:57 am

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

...Stephen F Roberts

Pretty much sums it up for me

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:04 pm

[QUOTE=AwTin;1325172]Do you mean persecute?[/qu7ote]

The poster AwTin is liable to prosecution.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:57 pm

When will folks get over the idea that the Bible can be taken literally. It is a religious book and not a science or history text. It is composed of myth, legend, folk tale, allegory, philosophy etc. with precious little history. The question to be asked is did it really happen this way but what does it mean?

Shalom

Ted

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:04 pm

Ted;1339592 wrote: When will folks get over the idea that the Bible can be taken literally.
When people stop killing, thieving and lying?

recovering conservative · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:33 pm

Ted;1339592 wrote: When will folks get over the idea that the Bible can be taken literally. It is a religious book and not a science or history text. It is composed of myth, legend, folk tale, allegory, philosophy etc. with precious little history. The question to be asked is did it really happen this way but what does it mean?

Shalom

Ted
Good point! When it's presented as an all or nothing proposition, many who have abandoned religions decide that there is nothing of value in that religion, and then, nothing of value in any religion. The thread title "Truthfulness of the Bible" shouldn't be the most important issue to either a Christian or non-Christian. Religion as science ends up being 2nd rate science! You end up either abandoning religion, or abandoning an honest examination of new scientific evidence.

recovering conservative · Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:48 pm

AwTin;1324224 wrote: Atheists are not threatened by theists. As an aspiring scientist, my motivation to debate with religious people is to argue that their worldview is incorrect, childish, and a hinderance to human progress.

As for not having something better to offer, you are wrong. What is better is the scientific method. What is better is falsifiability. What is better is objectivism, perservering curiosity, and the will to apply the same criticism to my beliefs as I apply to others'.

As "an aspiring scientist" you may be the type of person who is satisfied with a naturalistic approach to the world....but, this doesn't work for everyone, as you may notice when you condemn Christianity on a Christian forum!

And I didn't look at your profile, but my hunch is that you may be at an age where big, metaphysical questions are not on your mind. I went from being a hardline antitheist to spending many years trying to find a compromise when I got married and we started having children. When you have children, it's not just about you anymore. You have to start thinking about your worldview and whether it will help you guide and raise your children. Not that you're going to panic and run back to some church looking for guidance, but when that stage in life comes along, you might realize it's not all about objective evidence!

Many people follow all sorts of religious practices because they "feel right." And who are we to argue with them? The dividing line should be where religion interferes with science and politics -- and this is a grey area, that has no magic, sharp dividing line.

People need more in life than objective answers and collection of evidence; they also need meaning in their lives, and for some people, this can be provided through a naturalist understanding of the world, but this does not work for everyone, and from what I'm learning in the last couple of years, it's not going to work for the majority of people regardless of how many new atheists are out there preaching metaphysical naturalism. If the majority have some supernatural beliefs, but act rationally and constructively in the world around them, that's about all we should ask of them.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:20 am

recovering conservative;1339775 wrote: If the majority have some supernatural beliefs, but act rationally and constructively in the world around them, that's about all we should ask of them.
It may be that the claim is true that only by relating appropriately with the supernatural can the ordinary be satisfactory.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:24 am

xyz;1340184 wrote: It may be that the claim is true that only by relating appropriately with the supernatural can the ordinary be satisfactory.Ah, kind of like the placebo effect of substituting illusion for reality.

Boogalette · Post by **Boogalette** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:47 pm

I`m Christian and I don`t believe the bible is the word of God.

God did not write it, mortal man did.

Did the men who wrote for it have some beautiful things to offer, subjects and ideas that we could ruminate on? most certainly.

I was at church this Sunday morning. What I like about my pastor is that he also understands that this point of view and his sermons incorporate the idea that some of the congregation take it literally and some do not.

Most of an Anglican service is ritual, and the sermon is like 10 minutes LOL!

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:42 pm

Boogalette;1340842 wrote: his sermons incorporate the idea that some of the congregation take it literally and some do not.
So if he says, "Do not steal," some of you steal, and others do not, as you feel led?

Boogalette · Post by **Boogalette** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:49 pm

xyz, no, not that.

I have to be honest, no examples are coming to me right now. But I suppose `stoning people for sin`might be one.

recovering conservative · Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:59 am

Boogalette;1340857 wrote: xyz, no, not that.

I have to be honest, no examples are coming to me right now. But I suppose `stoning people for sin`might be one.

Pay no attention to the troll using the dishonest analogy. I learned the hard way that this idiot isn't worth the time!

If I understand you correctly, you were making the point that your church, and your own understanding of Christianity - does not hinge on the Bible being inerrant and dictated by God. It's this doctrine of inerrancy that puts fundamentalists in a straightjacket, because fundamentalists don't all agree on their interpretations of scripture -- and this means only one can be right, and everybody else must be wrong........and that's how religious wars get started!

You don't need to explain that your church has a clear understanding of how to apply Christian principles -- so parishoners aren't going to pick and choose whether or not to steal; that's just ludicrous! Your pastor understands that everyone can learn lessons from the same story, whether or not they think it's real, or mostly mythology.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:40 am

Boogalette;1340857 wrote: xyz, no, not that.

I have to be honest, no examples are coming to me right now. But I suppose `stoning people for sin`might be one.
So did the Israelites take that command literally? Or did they say, "Oh, He's only joking"?

Are we talking about taking things literally, or are we simply reading without having much clue about what we read?

Boogalette · Post by **Boogalette** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:58 am

xyz;1340957 wrote: So did the Israelites take that command literally? Or did they say, "Oh, He's only joking"?

Are we talking about taking things literally, or are we simply reading without having much clue about what we read?

Would yopu be able to provide an example for me? I have already stated that I cannot come up with anything...

I`m talking abouty taking things literally.

Too many people and groups interpret the Bible to their own ends, both positive and negative. I have my own opinions of what is right and wrong.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:21 am

Boogalette;1340961 wrote: Would yopu be able to provide an example for me? I have already stated that I cannot come up with anything...
To write that 'his sermons incorporate the idea that some of the congregation take it literally and some do not' is unusual, to say the least. Bible teachers usually take the view that a particular passage be understood in one particular way, unless of course the passage is intended to have more than one meaning, as some are. Now few people will disagree that the command not to steal is to be taken literally, but when it comes to sexual behaviour, for example, some tend to think there's a difference in the way the Bible is to be interpreted, though they hardly ever attempt to explain that position. If members of a congregation can pick and choose on behavioural matters, it does not seem like one that can be associated with Christ.

Boogalette · Post by **Boogalette** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:26 am

xyz;1340964 wrote: To write that 'his sermons incorporate the idea that some of the congregation take it literally and some do not' is unusual, to say the least. Bible teachers usually take the view that a particular passage be understood in one particular way, unless of course the passage is intended to have more than one meaning, as some are. Now few people will disagree that the command not to steal is to be taken literally, but when it comes to sexual behaviour, for example, some tend to think there's a difference in the way the Bible is to be interpreted, though they hardly ever attempt to explain that position. If members of a congregation can pick and choose on behavioural matters, it does not seem like one that can be associated with Christ.

My pastor is accomodating and interprets passages in a manner that is in the spirit of Christ rather than a black and white approach. He condems no one, he passes no judgement by using the Bible, he encourages each of us to be the best human beings possible through kindness and love.

I`m picking up that you are no fan of the church. That is fine, and your choice.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:34 am

Boogalette;1340969 wrote: My pastor is accomodating and interprets passages in a manner that is in the spirit of Christ rather than a black and white approach.
The Holy Spirit is exceedingly 'black and white'. That is why Jesus was crucified.

'All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.' 2 Ti 3:16-17 GNB

There are so many unqualified.

Boogalette · Post by **Boogalette** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:54 am

xyz;1340970 wrote: The Holy Spirit is exceedingly 'black and white'. That is why Jesus was crucified.

'All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.' 2 Ti 3:16-17 GNB

There are so many unqualified.

I disagree with that. You mentioned that passages are up for interpretation.

So is it black and white or gray?

Look, I`m the wrong person to argue with about the church. I have only come into it recently after a long hiatus. I respect others point of view on the chruch and will never try to convert them. I`m still a student.

xyz · Post by **xyz** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:09 am

boogalette;1340971 wrote: I disagree with that.
I hope you can sort out your problem soon.

You mentioned that passages are up for interpretation.
Not so.

Look, I`m the wrong person to argue with about the church.
I think you're onto something there.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:40 am

xyz;1340973 wrote: I hope you can sort out your problem soon.Thats what "ignore" is for. She should probably use it.

recovering conservative · Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:00 am

Ahso!;1340975 wrote: Thats what "ignore" is for. She should probably use it.

Exactly! There are some people who are worth engaging in a debate, and then there are others who are not worth the time or trouble.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:01 am

xyz;1340957 wrote: So did the Israelites take that command literally? Or did they say, "Oh, He's only joking"?

Are we talking about taking things literally, or are we simply reading without having much clue about what we read?

You present that as a straight either / or choice - can you really see no other alternative scenarios? That's a very limited viewpoint you have there.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:51 am

recovering conservative;1341019 wrote: Exactly! There are some people who are worth engaging in a debate, and then there are others who are not worth the time or trouble.Hes actually very easy to silence. Simply ask him to explain himself and he runs for cover with his tail tucked between his legs.