|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a 'true Christian'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Don't let this go to your head but those were some nicely formed and thoughtful posts.
I don't agree with all of it. You're still a crazy person. But, girl, you can write.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's really hard to thank someone who calls me a crazy person but I really do appreciate your appreciation. Very much. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So my answer is you may be saved even if you reject some parts of scripture or allegorize them, but how much you can get away with isn't something I'd want to speculate about. God is merciful, but it's risky. As risky as saying that some goats will end up on the right side of Jesus?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
So my answer is you may be saved even if you reject some parts of scripture or allegorize them, but how much you can get away with isn't something I'd want to speculate about. God is merciful, but it's risky. A perfect example of get-out-of-Hell-card-Christianity.
Of course, God wants us to study and interpret His word and His creation. If He wanted us to follow a list of actions by rote without thinking, He would have given us an explicit list. Yes, you might get your Biblical interpretation wrong but still follow Jesus and do what He said we had to do to be saved because our hearts tell us it's right not because it's a list on which you check off each item as you do it. As you said,
God reads the heart and knows if a person is honest or not. which rebuts your claim. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I would have to say that while it might be possible in principle, it is at best exceedingly difficult.
The Bible presents itself as a primarily human document. It includes omissions, disagreements, even mistakes. To deny this is to go against the Bible. And in fact it often requires twisting and misrepresenting and adding to the Bible to cover up the problems. In reality the Bible never claims to be inerrant, never claims to be the literal word of God - excepting sections which claim to report a message delivered to a human, or words attribute to God in stories. The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine - but one which is held to dictate to God. Indeed the primary point of this doctrine seems to be for men to put words into God's mouth. I don't see how it could be considered as anything other than Christianity in name alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I don't see how it could be considered as anything other than Christianity in name alone. When I was reading your post, I lost track of what the antecedents where for your pronouns. By the time I got to the sentence I quoted above, I had no idea what you were to say. What is it that constitutes Christianity in name only? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
But you know, if the Bible IS the word of God you are taking chances whenever you reject or reinterpret any of it. So if one were to ignore the stipulation to kill those no good queers (Lev 20:13) how much of a chance would you think one is taking on a 1-10 scale and would this be more of a risk than serving a gay bread (that's a gay person some bread, not selling gay bread)? Edited by Larni, : gay breadThe above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Biblical Inerrancy, at least the usual forms. Indeed, I can't imagine any really Christian form surviving study of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I'm not taking any chances that Treasure Island is the word of God, so I take it literally. (The silver is still there, you know.)
But you know, if the Bible IS the word of God you are taking chances whenever you reject or reinterpret any of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
In reality the Bible never claims to be inerrant, never claims to be the literal word of God - excepting sections which claim to report a message delivered to a human, or words attribute to God in stories. The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine - but one which is held to dictate to God. Premise 1. The bible never claims inerrancy.(How would that be possible anyway, since each book was individually written before the biblical cannon? Your premise basically states that Ayrton Senna, at the age of 10, didn't claim to be an F1 driver) But as we know, the cannon was later put together. It is a moot point. A spiritual understanding of God's word is received by those who receive spiritual revelation. You don't accept such scriptures, therefore you are the one to be against the bible, because you believe they hold no truth. Premise 2. "The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine" ( This wouldn't follow anyway, but you would still have to prove your case, you are saying that it can't be inerrant based on human reasons you have, and because of omission. These are feeble premises, and a "human doctrine" would be that of human reason. A human doctrine would be held by those that don't accept that Christ rose from the dead, but you are saying that because we accept these things as read, we are "anti-biblical". My response to that is; LoL!
"The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine" That doesn't follow anyway. You are simply stating a cynical motive, not proving one. And you are also stating things opposite to the truth. You full well know that people that don't believe in the bible, are anti-biblical, in that they reject it, but those that believe it, are biblical Christians. You are stating that black is white and white is black. This conclusion also assumes the correctness of a premise which you didn't state, your premise would have been;
Pauls' unstated premise writes: "If the bible omits inerrancy, THEN people, namely Christians, have a motive to establish a doctrine not based on the biblical text" The bible couldn't have claimed inerrancy, as to contain such a statement at the stage when the scriptures were individual, wouldn't be expected, and to jump to the conclusion that we have a "human" motive of putting words in God's mouth, is just silly. Only people that squeeze millions of evolutionary years into the bible, have human motives. Notice they didn't try and squeeze steady-state into the bible, but it wouldn't surprise me if, actually, some people did try! You are basically saying that a biblical position is unbiblical, and that people that take a biblical position, are anti-biblical, and want to put words into the bible that aren't there, because they accept the plain reading of the bible. An argument that holds no water, and doesn't even make sense. Those that accept the bible, know that there is a spiritual element which the natural mind can't understand, to it. This is why the bible says that the natural man can't understand spiritual things. The scripture itself disqualifies your conclusions because it tells us that the natural man can't "get there" so to speak, by natural intellect. The scriptures are spiritual matters, they themselves claim to be, and it tells us that those who believe, "have the mind of Christ". Sorry Paul, but your argument is BACKWARDS. The only motive we have, is to accept God's word, understand it on a spiritual level, as it says we have been given the ability to do. Those that live to squash things in there, like gay-sex and evolution, and animal sex, they want to indulge, are motivated by human motives and governed by human reason. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
I think you play with the term, "literally", what we usually mean is a plain contextual reading. If it is clearly historical narrative, then we take it as historical. So when it says, He "opens the treasuries of heaven" or the "pillars of the earth", we don't believe those things literally exist. This is just a strawman-game evolutionists play with creationists. They full well know what we mean really, we just mean that we accept the bible, and the obvious conclusions that come from it. All people know those basic, general meanings. When He says a 300 cubit ark, there is no reason to say that it really means a metaphorical cubit and that the ark was actually 30cm in length. You seek to insult our intelligence but we are not stupid just because you do this.
This basically means that we don't do a hatchet job on the bible, to fit in human philosophies, or natural philosophies, or what the bible calls, "empty philosophies". So basically we are just consistent. So whether it is steady state theory or Big Bang theory or Panspermia, or abiogenesis, or whatever popular philosophical nonsense with no ultimate meaning, comes along, we don't fall for it. Everyone knows that a plain acceptance of a literal bible, was always the correct most honest way to proceed, after all, before Darwin, most people wouldn't have tried to squeeze millions of years between the "Yoms" of Genesis. But now they do. It doesn't take Einstein to figure as to why they NOW want to do that, because they are basically AFRAID that science has disproven God's word. What they need to do is be courageous, and study, to learn that a passing philosophy will pass, but "my words shall never pass." Who knows what the philosophy of tomorrow is, perhaps the conjunction of planets via diabolical transferation of abiogenetic gene flows from the centre of space. Yeah, whatever, but as for me, I will be going with the immutable; "I the Lord, do not change." (love your avatar, haha, cool, I love that guy.) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
mike the wz writes:
Unfortunately, most Bible literalists wouldn't know a historical narrative if it sat down beside them in church. Is the talking snake part of a historical narrative?
If it is clearly historical narrative, then we take it as historical. mike the wiz writes:
And yet we see creationists arguing the literal existence of "fountains of the deep".
So when it says, He "opens the treasuries of heaven" or the "pillars of the earth", we don't believe those things literally exist. mike the wiz writes:
Or gravity. Or bacteria.
So whether it is steady state theory or Big Bang theory or Panspermia, or abiogenesis, or whatever popular philosophical nonsense with no ultimate meaning, comes along, we don't fall for it. mike the wiz writes:
Well, science has disproven much of the Bible. Maybe you just need to let go of the idea that the Bible is God's word.
It doesn't take Einstein to figure as to why they NOW want to do that, because they are basically AFRAID that science has disproven God's word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: It would easily be possible for each book to claim it. But of course you miss the point, The point is that inerrancy is not a Biblical doctrine. And, of course, the various canons were assembled by fallible humans. Simply being in a canon is no guarantee of inerrancy.
quote: And here you're just confused. I don't say that the Bible holds no truth. And your so-called spiritual understandings are not scriptures. So it's hardly clear what you are even trying to say.
quote: In fact that is a conclusion drawn from the preceding point AND the point that you have neglected - that the Bible presents itself as a human and fallible work. The rest is quite irrational. In Christian terms a doctrine contrary to the Bible surely comes from a human sources and is therefore human.The rest is too confused to make sense of. quote: I'm not stating a motive at all.
quote: No, I'm saying that so-called "Biblical Christians" reject the Bible and all too often treat it with less respect than unbelievers. And that's a fact.
quote: I didn't say anything about a motive and that is not my argument at all.
quote: No, I say that people who go against the Bible and want to put words into the Bible that aren't there are taking an anti-Biblical position. And if they say otherwise, they are obviously wrong.
quote: Yet, if the Bible is to be interpreted simply and literally, it must be accessible to anyone capable of reading for comprehension (which - as you've demonstrated by your mutilation of my argument - would appear to be more a problem for you) And whether the Bible is factually inerrant or not does not require any special spiritual understanding to see.
quote: Does it really say that merely believing is sufficient to have the "mind of Christ" ? I doubt it very much. But go on, produce chapter and verse and we'll see.
quote: That may be your motive - but if it is, you're doing it wrong.
quote: And there you see the fruits of the inerrantist doctrine. Truth and justice rejected as "sins". Thanks for supporting my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
deleted. No point in overdoing it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
From here:
Tangle writes: Faith writes: I'm talking only about people who think they are Christians. Once upon a time being a Christian meant being a nice person. Someone who followed gentle Jesus, meek and mild - someone who washed the feet of sinners, defended prostitutes and walked amongst lepers. He's exactly the kind of bloke that would have been on the side of the persecuted homosexual. When did those values change Faith? Why have made Jesus into someone that isn't nice? Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024