|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Phat writes: Percy,talking to Faith writes: This brings up an interesting question. As a Christian, I will share what I consider to be important doctrines. Are you sure you're mainstream? I was just poking fun at Faith's contradictory statement that the largest Christian church is out of the mainstream. Her tail is wagging her dog.
Phat writes: We disagree on whether evidence should be the main measure of belief and faith. Speaking just for myself, I don't think faith should be based upon evidence. I think ideas about the real world should be based upon evidence, and ideas about the spiritual world should be based upon faith.
And finally...it it not important whether or not the Bible is word for word literal. But it *is* important whether the Bible is literally and inerrantly true. If it truly has these qualities then its importance and significance is transcendent. It would mean that all other religions *and* science are wrong. But all the evidence from both within and without the Bible says that it is neither literally inerrant nor the word of God, whose existence in some recognizably Christian form hasn't been established anyway. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You can't base arguments upon myths and legends. Shit, Darth Vader could totally kick Godzilla's ass. With Midi-chlorian levels that high, even if he couldn't just force throw him back into the ocean, he could at least force choke the atomic breath out of him. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Mainstream, by my definition, is other people whom I would feel in communion with on a spiritual level. That is simply not what "Mainstream" means. Its the thing that has the most people involved in it, like the main stream is the one with the most water in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
All the members of which - just like you - claiming the one they happen to be attached to is the correct one. That's really not what all of us believe. Yes there are some central tenets of Christianity, but there is a large amount of agreement on those particular issues. When cornered, Faith readily admits to that, with the exception of insisting that Catholics get it all wrong. Most of the 'order of service' you find practiced in Churches is based on tradition and custom. Those kinds of things are the largest difference between churches. It is true that belief in the Triune nature of God is the mainstream belief. But that doctrine is generally not what any Christian would tell you is necessary to believe in order to be saved. It is however a reason for fundamentalists to tell you the fear for your immortal soul regardless of what they told you about salvation. Not even the Pope insists that only Catholics worship Jesus correctly. Faith and may others do of course does make the claim that only their versions of Christianity can be correct. Many other Christians acknowledge that very few tenets are essential to Christianity whatever it is that they themselves prefer.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 729 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The problem is that your theology implodes if it is nothing but self-reference. You could build such a theology on any book.
It is a standard rule of Biblical exegesis to interpret Bible by Bible because you risk developing a false theology based on partial concepts taken out of context if you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The points you're trying to make about Catholicism and the Trinity and other things are underlain by a work of fiction, and speaking just for myself there is no interest in arguments based upon fiction. You can't base arguments upon myths and legends. But NoNukes seems willing to accept the authority of the Bible for the sake of discussion. Perhaps this kind of discussion does not belong this particular forum. But haven't we had past discussions where we've looked at inconsistencies in the Bible? In any event, I think I should be allowed to address an argument at my chosen point. I am not the only person here who points out that Faith cannot or at least has not made a case of any kind.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Not sure what you thought I was saying. My occasional comments about topic are more just marveling at Faith's attitude that the rules don't apply to her. Judging us hopeless regarding the topic, she feels free to introduce whatever other topics she likes.
I'm not moderating the thread. Adminemooseus stepped in briefly over the weekend to issue a caution about content-free posts, which was needed, but there's no on-topic discussion being interfered with, so the off-topic discussion doesn't seem to be causing any problems. My main intent was just to let Faith know that even though I'm not interested in discussing Bible-based arguments that you did seem interested. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What's wrong with tracing the mainstream through the doctrinal history?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's amazing that I can show by comparison with scripture that the Roman Church isn't Christian and that doesn't mean anything to anybody.
But the vast majority of those "sects" differ only in very small points that don't put them outside the Christian camp. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What's wrong with tracing the mainstream through the doctrinal history? Mainstream means "most popular". What you are calling mainstream is not the most popular. So how are you measuring it as being the mainstream?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Unbelievable that you think jar said anything that needs to be answered.
And of course to call the Bible fiction puts you so far out of reality there's no point in talking to you at all, I don't know why I try. Even most atheists don't deny that there is some historical truth in the Bible. But you go to a "Christian" church and you deny the only foundation there is for Christianity? Mindboggling stuff here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mainstream SHOULD mean most orthodox or most true to the teachings of the Bible, even if that stream dies down to a trickle. But prophetically we're expecting "Christianity" to get very huge and popular with nothing but lies and false doctrines, so I guess that's what this is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was just poking fun at Faith's contradictory statement that the largest Christian church is out of the mainstream. Her tail is wagging her dog. Even though the majority of its doctrines and practices are clearly anything but Christian and I showed that, you are still going to insist that it's "the largest Christian church." This is really amazing.
Speaking just for myself, I don't think faith should be based upon evidence. I think ideas about the real world should be based upon evidence, and ideas about the spiritual world should be based upon faith. Oddly this is a popular view, which makes absolutely no sense at all. You cannot have genuine faith in anything you don't believe to be true, which means you have to have some evidence to believe it. That is human nature.
But it *is* important whether the Bible is literally and inerrantly true. If it truly has these qualities then its importance and significance is transcendent. It would mean that all other religions *and* science are wrong. But all the evidence from both within and without the Bible says that it is neither literally inerrant nor the word of God, whose existence in some recognizably Christian form hasn't been established anyway. Well, it's spiritually discerned, which I guess is the only explanation for your inability to recognize it in the end. One would think that a little respect for the history of Christianity might still be felt even by unbelievers in the western world, but perhaps you are ignorant of the history as you obviously are of the Bible itself. The greatest minds of the west made up the early church and have drawn inspiration from the Bible down the centuries. Believing it as God's word. Millions died for the truth of the Bible, for its being the word of God, under the Inquisition. It's obviously possible to believe a total lie, though, and give your life to it, as Muslims do. I think the only way to know the difference would be to know a lot of history. (Muslims die for their "faith" by committing violence and murder, though. I wonder how they'd do faith-wise being slaughtered as Christians always have been. My guess would be their "faith" would evaporate in a flash. As a matter of fact it is a tenet of Islam that it's good to lie to your enemies, so you could take back your "faith" and save your life and then resume your "faith." A Christian must die for his faith, not save his life but give it for Christ. Big difference there.) Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9626 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: It's amazing that I can show by comparison with scripture that the Roman Church isn't Christian and that doesn't mean anything to anybody. There's so much wrong with that sentence that I can't even start explaining why it's nonsense from the first syllable to the last. You realise that you are trying to explain to me why black is, in fact, white - I just need to believe your version of a mythological tale for it to be true? Catholics aren't Christians. Pfffnrrr. You'll be telling me that my arse doesn't hold up my pants next.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1762 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I SHOWED that the beliefs of the RCC contradict Christianity. Obviously that means nothing to you. Also I did not say that "Catholics" aren't Christians. Some of them may be if they grew up with the simple gospel as some apparently do. I'm talking about the institution they belong to, which they should leave if they are Christians.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025