Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a 'true Christian'?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 76 of 141 (726692)
05-11-2014 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
05-11-2014 4:16 AM


Credit Due
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 4:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 8:27 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 7:33 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 141 (726695)
05-11-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by AZPaul3
05-11-2014 8:08 AM


Re: Credit Due
It's really hard to thank someone who calls me a crazy person but I really do appreciate your appreciation. Very much. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2014 8:08 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 141 (726699)
05-11-2014 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-11-2014 3:29 AM


Re: How much scripture is it safe to disbelieve?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 3:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 79 of 141 (726703)
05-11-2014 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-11-2014 3:29 AM


Re: How much scripture is it safe to disbelieve?
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.
  • If I don't read all the Bible as literal, I might make a mistake in interpretation.
  • If I make a mistake in interpretation, God may not give me a get-out-of-hell-free card
  • I gotta have a get-out-of-hell-free card
  • Therefore the entirte Bible is literally true.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 3:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 80 of 141 (726708)
05-11-2014 9:48 AM


Can a real Christian believe in an inerrant Bible ?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2014 2:29 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 85 by mike the wiz, posted 05-11-2014 3:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 141 (726722)
05-11-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
05-11-2014 9:48 AM


Re: Can a real Christian believe in an inerrant Bible ?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2014 9:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2014 3:08 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 82 of 141 (726724)
05-11-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-11-2014 3:29 AM


Re: How much scripture is it safe to disbelieve?
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 bread

The 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 3:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 83 of 141 (726726)
05-11-2014 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by NoNukes
05-11-2014 2:29 PM


Re: Can a real Christian believe in an inerrant Bible ?
quote:
What is it that constitutes Christianity in name only?
Biblical Inerrancy, at least the usual forms. Indeed, I can't imagine any really Christian form surviving study of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2014 2:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 84 of 141 (726728)
05-11-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-11-2014 3:29 AM


Re: How much scripture is it safe to disbelieve?
Faith writes:
But you know, if the Bible IS the word of God you are taking chances whenever you reject or reinterpret any of it.
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-11-2014 3:29 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 05-11-2014 3:49 PM ringo has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 85 of 141 (726732)
05-11-2014 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
05-11-2014 9:48 AM


Re: Can a real Christian believe in an inerrant Bible ?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2014 9:48 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2014 4:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 86 of 141 (726733)
05-11-2014 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
05-11-2014 3:21 PM


Re: How much scripture is it safe to disbelieve?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 05-11-2014 3:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 05-11-2014 4:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 141 (726734)
05-11-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mike the wiz
05-11-2014 3:49 PM


Re: How much scripture is it safe to disbelieve?
mike the wz writes:
If it is clearly historical narrative, then we take it as historical.
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?
mike the wiz writes:
So when it says, He "opens the treasuries of heaven" or the "pillars of the earth", we don't believe those things literally exist.
And yet we see creationists arguing the literal existence of "fountains of the deep".
mike the wiz writes:
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.
Or gravity. Or bacteria.
mike the wiz writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 05-11-2014 3:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 88 of 141 (726737)
05-11-2014 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by mike the wiz
05-11-2014 3:35 PM


Re: Can a real Christian believe in an inerrant Bible ?
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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!
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:
That doesn't follow anyway. You are simply stating a cynical motive, not proving one.
I'm not stating a motive at all.
quote:
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.
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:
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"

I didn't say anything about a motive and that is not my argument at all.
quote:
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.
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:
The scripture itself disqualifies your conclusions because it tells us that the natural man can't "get there" so to speak, by natural intellect.
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:
The scriptures are spiritual matters, they themselves claim to be, and it tells us that those who believe, "have the mind of Christ".
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:
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.
That may be your motive - but if it is, you're doing it wrong.
quote:
Those that live to squash things in there, like gay-rights and evolution, and all manner of sins they want to indulge, are motivated by human motives and governed by human reason.
And there you see the fruits of the inerrantist doctrine. Truth and justice rejected as "sins". Thanks for supporting my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by mike the wiz, posted 05-11-2014 3:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-16-2014 3:22 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 141 (726739)
05-11-2014 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by AZPaul3
05-11-2014 8:08 AM


Re: Credit Due
deleted. No point in overdoing it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AZPaul3, posted 05-11-2014 8:08 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 90 of 141 (727151)
05-15-2014 7:47 PM


Tangle says at another topic...
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 05-16-2014 12:04 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024