ForumsWEPRThe Religion Debate Thread

704 259521
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!

Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!

I'm going to start the ball rolling:

We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?

Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj

  • 704 Replies
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

Additionally, we have no way of knowing if these quotes weren't added simply for the message to be more compelling to Jewish dissenters.
Wouldn't they know it was added? They had the Old Testament writings before Jesus.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Just read the Bible and you can see that their teachings obviously contradict what it says. They believe that you can become a god because God was once like us.
That is not what they believe at all.

They also think you can earn salvation. In the Bible, it says God gives salvation as a free gift.
Actually, it says a whole lot more than that. While not all of these are mutually exclusive and some are probably not meant in a literal sense, the bible makes it quite clear that salvation is, in most cases, not freely given.

What do you think about this explanation?
Which one?
- Polhill's claim that "becoming headlong" is a mistranslation of "becoming swollen" explains nothing of Luke's omission of any detail about being hanged.
- The "Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at all" explanation means that there was no hanging.

Exhortation and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure about translations.
In other words, you look for the meaning you want to find until you find it.

God is not omnibenevolent.
And why is that?

Anyone who believes in an unfiltered version of the gospel is a child of God. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
That explains nothing whatsoever. What version is "unfiltered"? It seems like you're just saying that God's people consist of anyone who agrees with your interpretation.

Like I said, the meaning seems to be lost in translation when it should have been translated to "had formed".
1 That's the problem. "Had [verb]ed" is a modern English pluperfect. You're trying to support your claim that modern translations of the ancient texts are the cause of these contradictions, yet your interpretation of the "original meaning" is based on a modern translation.
2 You're still sidestepping the fact that God, after making Adam, decides "I will make a helper for him", and then shows up with a bunch of creatures for Adam to have as his helper.

He does.
The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
John 19:7‭-‬9 NIV
Nice quotemine. You've cited a passage that gives no support to your claim. The Jewish leaders clearly did not insist that Jesus be quiet. Furthermore, in the very next line, Pilate asks another question, to which ...
11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Yes. It is not wanton lol.
Thank you for comically skirting the issue. Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents, wanton or otherwise, are contained within the holy bible?

The Holy Spirit did not superintend them.
How do you verify this?

God has a decretive will and a perceptive will. He will impose his decretive will but not his perceptive will (his will that we follow the law).
So? Was that supposed to counter my statement, or merely elaborate upon it?

The difference is that through Jesus's death we take his place as God's heir and Jesus took our place as God's enemy. It was definitely radical to the Jews. It turned all their legalism upside down
While I can't say that this is a mundane occurrence, I can't say that the scripture supports it either. Where does the notion that Jesus (and therefore God) is filling the role of God's enemy come from?

God's people aren't perfect. That's what I've been trying to say.
I get that. What I'm saying is that it isn't an efficient way of bringing His divine will to the people, and I'd really expect Him to do better if He intends to exact penalties on people for not complying with it.

I never said everything is perfect. No one said that. God's plan of restoration to fix the royally screwed up world is perfect.
If God's plan is perfect, and the world was engineered according to God's plan, why is the world screwed up?

Wouldn't they know it was added? They had the Old Testament writings before Jesus.
Who? Which writings? This could use more context.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Just read the Bible

Which one? (KJV, NIV, NWT, ESV...) They're all framed in ways to reflect specific desired interpretations. Example.
and you can see that their teachings obviously contradict what it says.

Every other denomination says the exact same thing about your beliefs. If you presuppose their beliefs, there is no contradiction. I'd rather not get into bickering about the specific merits of one denomination over another, because they're all internally "true, from a certain point of view", but as examples, the next 3 quotes and responses:
They believe that you can become a god

(For argument's sake that it's not contradictory from within their perspective, much like things within yours) Becoming like "a god" is very different from becoming "God." Becoming heirs to God's kingdom and sharing in His divinity.
because God was once like us.

(For argument's sake that it's not contradictory from within their perspective, much like things within yours) This is supported by John 5:19. You're just not interpreting it correctly. As an example, in your misguided view, Jesus is God, and therefore walked the earth, as we do. It's a similar concept.
They also think you can earn salvation. In the Bible, it says God gives salvation as a free gift. Ephesians 2:4-10.

(For argument's sake that it's not contradictory from within their perspective, much like things within yours) Actually, they'd agree that it is a gift afforded to all, but actions can affect the quality of the gift. They guarantee a resurrection and immortality for literally everyone, but judgment afterward can be favorable or less favorable based on actions.
What do you think about this explanation?

It's stretching the text as much as other interpretations. The fact that the plain text requires an explanation, and there are multiple, equally unfalsifiable possibilities that can be asserted as truth, means that when you say "Just read the Bible," you're aware that it's disingenuous.
Which denominations?

As far as I know, all of them have differing views on which commandments need to be followed and to what degree, as well as disagreements over methods of worship, beliefs, church structure, scripture, etc. Infractions may enrage God to different degrees, which can lead to spiritual punishments, depending on who you ask. This is part of the reason different denominations exist.
but what should be clear is the gospel of Christ.

Should be. Isn't. Different denominations have wildly different views. Many even disagree on how divine he is.
What do other denominations say?

As an example, JWs consider the holy spirit to mean =ad52cca0-f05c-4039-b6c4-a047274ebd81&insight[search_result_index]=0]God's active force.
Wiki: Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations)
Exhortation and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You "feel" like you're interpreting scripture properly? =3ea38500-0350-41fc-9068-df81bf6ab019&insight[search_result_index]=0]True religion is not just ‘the right religion for me’.
God is not omnibenevolent.

How do you determine morality if God is not morally perfect? Why follow Him if He's not?
Anyone who believes in an unfiltered version of the gospel is a child of God.

What is an "unfiltered version"?
Remember when we talked about the process of determining the canon? That's how.

It is, but it's evidently flawed.

God ultimately determines the canon.

How can a perfect being divinely guide and ultimately determine a flawed process? The only possibility is that God intended for mistakes and lies to be included in the official canon. Since He's not omnibenevolent, this is possible.
It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired.

Then why bother making a point of saying that Jesus didn't reference apocryphal works, if that doesn't immediately rule it out from being inspired?
The Holy Spirit did not superintend them.

How do you determine this?
Ignore my argument haha.

Your argument was your confidence that the scriptures were unaltered due to statements by members of the early church. The problem is, as I've said, some quoted errors like the end of Mark 16 as canonical. How do you determine which statements are reliable, without being circular?
But I mean the Catholic church was wrong for a while until Luther and others stood up.

And many groups would say that Luther wasn't right either. How do you determine who's right? Don't say "read the bible" because at the time, the Catholic Church was considered the officially "inspired" authority to ultimately interpret what it said, and to argue was heresy. How do you determine when a group is no longer "inspired"?
Would it be wrong to compare it to how people can call someone by one name and then another name when talking to a different audience.

It’s allegedly the same person telling the same audience about the same mountain. The mountain doesn’t care about its title.
Beyond that, it’s very strange because he switches between Horeb and Sinai even within Exodus. This implies that they are separate mountains, creating more confusion.

Wouldn't they know it was added?

I didn’t mean "added" as in "forged later," but that the NT writers simply inserted some pandering references from Jewish texts in order to give credence to the Messiah claims.
They had the Old Testament writings before Jesus.

No they didn’t. Jewish scriptures existed, and were later accepted into the Hebrew Bible canon, which was later generally adopted by Christians as OT. The Hebrew Bible canon may have been officially compiled in response to the NT canon.
-----------------------
- Polhill's claim that "becoming headlong" is a mistranslation of "becoming swollen"

Not merely a mistranslation, but that the source text was copied wrongly, which cast more doubt on the entire process.
Where does the notion that Jesus (and therefore God) is filling the role of God's enemy come from?

1 Cor 15:21-28, Rom 5:6-12
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

That is not what they believe at all.
That's what Joseph Smith believed, I think.

Actually, it says a whole lot more than that. While not all of these are mutually exclusive and some are probably not meant in a literal sense, the bible makes it quite clear that salvation is, in most cases, not freely given.
We are getting into a different territory here so I hope you don't mind if I skip this for now until we are finished with the credibility of the Bible. If you want to start thinking about refutations I would point you here

The "Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at all" explanation means that there was no hanging.
And I'm assuming you think that means his guts could not have spilled out after falling? The source explains that it doesn't need to explain how it spilled out so it shouldn't be a problem.

You're still sidestepping the fact that God, after making Adam, decides "I will make a helper for him", and then shows up with a bunch of creatures for Adam to have as his helper.
God said I will make a helper because He was going to make Eve.

Nice quotemine. You've cited a passage that gives no support to your claim. The Jewish leaders clearly did not insist that Jesus be quiet. Furthermore, in the very next line, Pilate asks another question, to which ...
11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
No I didn't mean that the Jewish leaders insisted that Jesus be silent, but rather that the Jewish leaders pushed him on to talk and so He went silent.

Thank you for comically skirting the issue. Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents, wanton or otherwise, are contained within the holy bible?
I don't deny that those quotes are in the Bible, but I disagree with the authors commentary about them.

How do you verify this?
How do you determine this?
The only scientific way I can think of is by looking at the lives affected by those scriptures. If those lives are truly changed then it is true. Other than that, other explanations involve divine revelation of some sort. A lot of the books in the Bible claim that they are inspired too so we have that little piece of evidence if it means anything.

So? Was that supposed to counter my statement, or merely elaborate upon it?
It means that you need to look at it through a different perspective. We aren't supposed to know all of God's decretive will. We just have to trust that it's good.

While I can't say that this is a mundane occurrence, I can't say that the scripture supports it either. Where does the notion that Jesus (and therefore God) is filling the role of God's enemy come from?
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4 NIV
When we sin, we choose the world in many cases. Therefore we are enemies of God. And on the cross, Jesus took the wrath we deserve for being sinners/enemies of God.

I get that. What I'm saying is that it isn't an efficient way of bringing His divine will to the people, and I'd really expect Him to do better if He intends to exact penalties on people for not complying with it.
I'm sure I worship the same God as those saved by missionary work. The people in Africa or in the Philippines who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible know God like the people with English translations. I would say that God's people have good access to his word. Also God's word is not about law and punishment anymore but rather grace and mercy so I would be more concerned if He intends to show people his love.

If God's plan is perfect, and the world was engineered according to God's plan, why is the world screwed up?
Because He gave us a choice and we chose wrong.

Which one? (KJV, NIV, NWT, ESV...) They're all framed in ways to reflect specific desired interpretations. Example.
Those differences in the examples you gave have no effect on the message of the Bible that God saves.

Every other denomination says the exact same thing about your beliefs. If you presuppose their beliefs, there is no contradiction. I'd rather not get into bickering about the specific merits of one denomination over another, because they're all internally "true, from a certain point of view"
Too bad Mormonism isn't a Christian denomination. It pulls from outside sources for their faith and denies one or more of the fundamental biblical truths.

It's stretching the text as much as other interpretations. The fact that the plain text requires an explanation, and there are multiple, equally unfalsifiable possibilities that can be asserted as truth, means that when you say "Just read the Bible," you're aware that it's disingenuous.
Not for the major doctrines in the Bible though.

Then why bother making a point of saying that Jesus didn't reference apocryphal works, if that doesn't immediately rule it out from being inspired?
Because it's a legitimate factor.

Your argument was your confidence that the scriptures were unaltered due to statements by members of the early church. The problem is, as I've said, some quoted errors like the end of Mark 16 as canonical. How do you determine which statements are reliable, without being circular?
Like in the case of Mark, archeological facts. The more knowledge we have, the more we can discern what is true.

And many groups would say that Luther wasn't right either. How do you determine who's right? Don't say "read the bible" because at the time, the Catholic Church was considered the officially "inspired" authority to ultimately interpret what it said, and to argue was heresy. How do you determine when a group is no longer "inspired"?
The Catholic Church was never really the "inspired" people.

It’s allegedly the same person telling the same audience about the same mountain. The mountain doesn’t care about its title.
Beyond that, it’s very strange because he switches between Horeb and Sinai even within Exodus. This implies that they are separate mountains, creating more confusion.
Maybe his audience already knew they were the same. There isn't much confusion when you read both Exodus and Deuteronomy.

I didn’t mean "added" as in "forged later," but that the NT writers simply inserted some pandering references from Jewish texts in order to give credence to the Messiah claims.
Oh I see. I have confidence it was added.

No they didn’t. Jewish scriptures existed, and were later accepted into the Hebrew Bible canon, which was later generally adopted by Christians as OT. The Hebrew Bible canon may have been officially compiled in response to the NT canon.
That's still the writings which are in the OT.

Not merely a mistranslation, but that the source text was copied wrongly, which cast more doubt on the entire process.
That's why the author opted for the other explanation. But as I've said before, the translation proccess was not inspired.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

And I'm assuming you think that means his guts could not have spilled out after falling? The source explains that it doesn't need to explain how it spilled out so it shouldn't be a problem.
?

You, from a week ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."
Clearly, then, you did not understand the passage, because the phrasing was archaic and the message unclear.

God said I will make a helper because He was going to make Eve.
Then there was no point to parading a bunch of animals around for him to reject and no point to including that line at all.

No I didn't mean that the Jewish leaders insisted that Jesus be silent, but rather that the Jewish leaders pushed him on to talk and so He went silent.
He still didn't go silent. Pilate ends the conversation at John 18:38.

I don't deny that those quotes are in the Bible, but I disagree with the authors commentary about them.
Fair enough. It really doesn't make for a very good message of peace and love, though.

The only scientific way I can think of is by looking at the lives affected by those scriptures. If those lives are truly changed then it is true.
1 That is not even remotely scientific.
2 How do you determine whether a change is caused by any specific thing?
3 What type and amount of change is needed to qualify as life-changing? Getting stoned to death by angry zealots is presumably more significant than understanding a movie reference, for example.
4 How do you even quantitatively define the change in a person's life?
5 In what sense does influence = veracity? Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the number of fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the people it indoctrinates?

Other than that, other explanations involve divine revelation of some sort.
Did you receive such a revelation?

A lot of the books in the Bible claim that they are inspired too so we have that little piece of evidence if it means anything.
Yes. We have evidence that a story author claims in his story that the story is a true story. So?

We just have to trust that it's good.
Really? Why?

When we sin, we choose the world in many cases. Therefore we are enemies of God. And on the cross, Jesus took the wrath we deserve for being sinners/enemies of God.
You did not support your assertion. You just took the opportunity to restate your assertion.

The people in Africa or in the Philippines who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible know God like the people with English translations.
Really?

Because He gave us a choice and we chose wrong.
We've been over this. Every time you bring the argument back to this, you refuse to acknowledge part of your claim because it's impossible to support in its entirety. How about you just pick any three and give up on the fourth because He cannot be all of these:
https://imgur.com/zX5UAmI.png

Too bad Mormonism isn't a Christian denomination. It pulls from outside sources for their faith and denies one or more of the fundamental biblical truths.
1 No true Scotsman. Mormonism is founded on a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is therefore Christian by definition.
2 There are no fundamental biblical truths.

Not for the major doctrines in the Bible though.
That doesn't really answer any part of his statement, so I'm just going to ask: In what way?

Because it's a legitimate factor.
Not if it's irrelevant, as you claim.

Like in the case of Mark, archeological facts. The more knowledge we have, the more we can discern what is true.
Meaning that, by your own admission, we have no sound reason to believe any of these stories to be true accounts.

The Catholic Church was never really the "inspired" people.
All catholics would have to disagree, there. What makes your claim more valid than theirs?

Maybe his audience already knew they were the same. There isn't much confusion when you read both Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, there is. That's the whole point of bringing it up. You only managed to resolve that confusion by assuming that the name refers to the same mountain, just as you resolved confusion over the death of Judas by assuming that his hanged body fell onto the field.

That's still the writings which are in the OT.
Yeah, because someone (probably some uninspired Catholics in the Vatican) decided to pick out a bunch and call them canonical. The point is that your claim that Jesus and his disciples ignored, and therefore invalidated, the apocrypha is groundless and unsupportable.

But as I've said before, the translation proccess was not inspired.
Well, why the heck not? Shouldn't the Word of God be a bit more secure against tampering and general incompetence?
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

You, from a week ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."
Clearly, then, you did not understand the passage, because the phrasing was archaic and the message unclear.
Yeah that's what I thought at first. That's why I assumed that's what you thought. Does my change in perception affect the way I know God? Not much because all this story tells me or needs to tell me is that Judas died. I actually haven't listened to or read any sermons about this story so I might be wrong, but I'm sure that if Judas was hanged figuratively then the message would be the same. That's just the way each gospel decided to tell the story.

Then there was no point to parading a bunch of animals around for him to reject and no point to including that line at all.
He did so in order to give him a choice. You could argue that there was no point in God putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden also but an answer to that would be the same. God allows us to make a choice.

He still didn't go silent. Pilate ends the conversation at John 18:38.
"But Jesus gave him no answer" means he went silent.

Fair enough. It really doesn't make for a very good message of peace and love, though.
Give me a quote from the Bible that you think supports an unloving message or I can pick one out of the list.

That is not even remotely scientific.
Lol I mean it's the most "sensible" way if that makes sense.

How do you determine whether a change is caused by any specific thing?
Their testimony.

What type and amount of change is needed to qualify as life-changing? Getting stoned to death by angry zealots is presumably more significant than understanding a movie reference, for example.
I'm not sure I understand.

How do you even quantitatively define the change in a person's life?
I'm not sure. It's not our job to judge people like that anyway. If you notice someone who is just a better person in general because of their faith, that's a good sign. If you see positive changes, the Holy Spirit is working, but if the person proclaims to have faith and yet you don't see changes, maybe the work is taking some time or maybe thw Holy Spirit is not even working in that person. That's what I mean when I say we can't judge people in that way.

In what sense does influence = veracity? Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the number of fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the people it indoctrinates?
As I have said before, to God it's not about numbers. It's about his saving power.

Did you receive such a revelation?
God reached out to me first and I responded. That's what I consider divine revelation anyway. I might be getting my terminology wrong.

Yes. We have evidence that a story author claims in his story that the story is a true story. So?
A person's word is valuable to some degree. If the author said he was not inspired upfront then we can discard it. Just like when a defendent is asked if he or she is guilty or not. His or her word means something. But take it or leave it.

Really? Why?
Because God says so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXqwbU8z9aU
That's definitely no Christianity.

We've been over this. Every time you bring the argument back to this, you refuse to acknowledge part of your claim because it's impossible to support in its entirety. How about you just pick any three and give up on the fourth because He cannot be all of these:
Omnipotent, existent,competent, benevolent. Last time I excluded benevolent.

No true Scotsman. Mormonism is founded on a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is therefore Christian by definition.
But they reject that Jesus is God. More.

That doesn't really answer any part of his statement, so I'm just going to ask: In what way?
Sorry. I didn't understand his argument.

Not if it's irrelevant, as you claim.
I don't believe I called it irrelevant.

Meaning that, by your own admission, we have no sound reason to believe any of these stories to be true accounts.
Except we do. The Bible has the power to save for example.

All catholics would have to disagree, there. What makes your claim more valid than theirs?
I don't dilute God's grace through works.

Yes, there is. That's the whole point of bringing it up. You only managed to resolve that confusion by assuming that the name refers to the same mountain, just as you resolved confusion over the death of Judas by assuming that his hanged body fell onto the field.
No I said it was a figurative hanging.

Yeah, because someone (probably some uninspired Catholics in the Vatican) decided to pick out a bunch and call them canonical. The point is that your claim that Jesus and his disciples ignored, and therefore invalidated, the apocrypha is groundless and unsupportable.
What I meant originally, was that they ignored those writings according to the quotes and teaching we have from them.

Well, why the heck not? Shouldn't the Word of God be a bit more secure against tampering and general incompetence?
I don't know why it's not protected like that. I sometimes think the same about my morality. Like Christ lives through me and I am born again and yet I still sin. However, I sin less and less as I study God's word. I get mad less easily and I am careful where I look (if you know what I mean) because I know God more. You might be able to compare the proccesses like that... It doesn't look perfect when it should be, but there's something going on behind the scenes. In the case of the tampering of the Bible, even though it undergoes changes, God makes sure that his message is conveyed exactly how He wants it when He wants it. Sometimes there's a fluke like that "church" in Africa or like when I sin. But it's all under control.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

He did so in order to give him a choice. You could argue that there was no point in God putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden also but an answer to that would be the same. God allows us to make a choice.
Why?

"But Jesus gave him no answer" means he went silent.
Oh, sorry. I was right the first time. Pilate ends the conversation at 9:12, right after Jesus answers again. Mark and Matthew don't mention any response except "Thou sayest it".

Give me a quote from the Bible that you think supports an unloving message or I can pick one out of the list.
Here's a few:
Genesis 3:16
Genesis 6:5-7
Genesis 9:21-25
Genesis 12:11-20
Genesis 19:26
Exodus 7 - Exodus 14
Exodus 20:5
Exodus 21:17-21
Exodus 22:16
Exodus 32
Leviticus 5:17
Leviticus 10:1-6
Leviticus 19:20-22
Leviticus 24:10-16

Their testimony.
No, I mean what criteria do you use to separate cause from other factors?

I'm not sure I understand.
When you say that their lives are changed, how changed are their lives?

If you notice someone who is just a better person in general because of their faith, that's a good sign.
Buddhists FTW.

If you see positive changes, the Holy Spirit is working [...]
So, if people are guided by the Holy Spirit ... they change for the better ... and this change proves that they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. Simply astounding! *drops monocle*

As I have said before, to God it's not about numbers. It's about his saving power.
Allow me to rephrase, then: Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the fervor of the fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the extent to which it indoctrinates people?

God reached out to me first and I responded.
And how do you ascertain that this is God's doing.

Because God says so.
Not good enough. If He wants to be trusted more than that guy I described on page 13, he's going to need to do a lot better.

That's definitely no Christianity.
1 No true Scotsman.
2 These people in Africa who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible clearly do not know God in the same way.

Omnipotent, existent,competent, benevolent. Last time I excluded benevolent.
And this time you excluded competent.

But they reject that Jesus is God. More.
No, they don't. Strangely, even your extremely biased source makes no such claim.

I don't believe I called it irrelevant.
You from six days ago:
"It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired."

The Bible has the power to save for example.
That's a poor example, because it in fact doesn't.

I don't dilute God's grace through works.
1 That does not validate your claim in any way whatsoever.
2 In what sense is grace even capable of being diluted?

No I said it was a figurative hanging.
You from eight days ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."

What I meant originally, was that they ignored those writings according to the quotes and teaching we have from them.
And as Emp pointed out, we can just as reasonably conclude that they ignored nigh all other writings that aren't directly or indirectly referenced by them; i.e., most of what is now the old testament.

In the case of the tampering of the Bible, even though it undergoes changes, God makes sure that his message is conveyed exactly how He wants it when He wants it. Sometimes there's a fluke like that "church" in Africa or like when I sin. But it's all under control.
Then we must logically conclude that God has little or no interest in the physical or spiritual wellbeing of most mortals.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Those differences in the examples you gave have no effect on the message of the Bible that God saves.

Accuracy has no effect? Then let's agree to only reference the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/

But they reject that Jesus is God.

Good luck defending the Trinity with the NWT.

Too bad Mormonism isn't a Christian denomination.

That's definitely no Christianity.

That's not for you to decide. Everything on this page counts, regardless of your feelings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

the fundamental biblical truths.

Since you're being vague, instead of us guessing at what you mean by that, list everything you consider essential to being a "true Christian," since everything else is superficial.

Not for the major doctrines in the Bible though.

How do you draw the line between what's major and what's unimportant? If it's all God's perfect word, who are you to value one part of scripture over another?

A lot of the books in the Bible claim that they are inspired too so we have that little piece of evidence if it means anything.

The Catholic Church was never really the "inspired" people.

How do you determine who is inspired? How do you determine when a group is not inspired? If the Catholic Church's claim means nothing, why should the authors'? If even the process that selected the books was "evidently flawed," what makes you believe any of it was "inspired" at all?

I don't dilute God's grace through works.

You said that works are a form of worship.
P26: "If you are really saved, you would want to worship God by doing good works, sharing the gospel, and obeying God's laws. If you're not doing those things, have you really been saved?"
P27: "God chooses us regardless of our works."

Maybe his audience already knew they were the same.

The fact that the plain text requires an explanation, and there are multiple, equally unfalsifiable possibilities that can be asserted as truth, means that when you say "Just read the Bible," you're aware that it's disingenuous.

Like in the case of Mark, archeological facts. The more knowledge we have, the more we can discern what is true.

The facts demonstrate that members of the early church were fallible. How do you determine which of their statements are reliable without being circular?

But as I've said before, the translation proccess was not inspired.

I'm sure I worship the same God as those saved by missionary work. The people in Africa or in the Philippines who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible know God like the people with English translations. I would say that God's people have good access to his word.

How do you determine they're getting the right message? Since you're also using translations, how do you determine you're getting the right message?

Omnipotent, existent,competent, benevolent. Last time I excluded benevolent.

You've said that God is bound by logic, so which is it?
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

Why?
Because He wants to test us so we can see how much faith we have. I don’t think it would be a sin if Adam chose an animal though.
-
Oh, sorry. I was right the first time. Pilate ends the conversation at 9:12, right after Jesus answers again. Mark and Matthew don't mention any response except "Thou sayest it".
Does that mean there are no contradictions or... what are you trying to say exactly?
-
Here's a few:
If you insist.
--
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16)
-
Although you don't see much love in this picture, you see another one of God's traits. Here, God is showing his wrathful side. Eve made a wrong choice and she suffered the consequences. That's not to say God did not show Eve mercy and grace. She was given clothes later in the chapter that were significantly better than fig leaves.
--
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:5-7)
-
Again, God displays his hatred towards sin. And again He shows mercy when He saves a flawed man and his family.
--
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
-
This is not a message a love, but it doesn't have to be because it's an interaction between two humans. I actually don't know how human inflicted curses and blessings work in the Old Testament so I don't know the meaning of this particular passage. It doesn't show anything about God from what I see.
--
11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. 14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he *****, and menservants, and maidservants, and she *****, and camels. 17 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19 Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had. (Genesis 12:11-20)
-
We have established that God will punish people for their sins unless He is merciful to them. I guess his love overrides his wrath. In this case, God doesn't show mercy towards Pharaoh, but He shows mercy to Abram. This supports a loving message because God saves Abram from the consequences of his sin (lying), but we still get to see his just characteristic when He punishes Pharaoh according to his sin.
--
26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:26)
-
She was punished because she looked back because was worried about all of her possessions back home. God gave her a way out but she cared more about what she had more than what she was receiving from God which was salvation.
--
Exodus 7-14
-
These chapters detail the plagues God inflicted on Egypt when Pharaoh didn't let his people go. It describes Pharaoh's heart being hardened by himself and by God. Whenever his heart is being hardened, it is not wrong to say God was hardening it each time. God hardened Pharaoh's heart by letting Pharaoh harden his own heart. It makes the distinction between God and Pharaoh in order to show that God's plan was taking place despite Pharaoh's stubbornness.
--
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Exodus 20:5)
-
God can be both jealous and loving. Just as He is just and loving. His love overrides his jealousy when He wills it.
--
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. 18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
-
This is not a message a love but rather it is the law. This Mosaic law was made to distinguish the Israelites from other nations. In other parts of the Bible, you will find examples of God's love.
--
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (Exodus 22:16)
-
This is assuming the man did not rape her most likely. The next verse says 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.The father would probably not want to give his daughter to a rapist.
--
Exodus 32
-
Here, the people disobeyed God by making an idol to worship. He decided to discipline them.
--
17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
-
So basically if someone sinned but didn't know it was wrong, he is still guilty of it and is subject to the punishment. This is just because He did something wrong against God. You can't add anything except the grace of God to diminish a crime.
--
1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. 2 And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp. 5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said. 6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord hath kindled. (Leviticus 10:1-6)
-
God punished Nadab and Abihu for disobeying his command. That's really how He ought to deal with all of us, but He grants all of us the grace to live.
--
20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. (Leviticus 19:20-22)
-
If a man sleeps with a woman who is married, they will not die because she was under the authority of another man, but they will still be punished. Any sin warrants death, but this is an example of common grace.
--
10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan: ) 12 And they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be shewed them. 13 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:10-16)
-
The Lord ain't messin around when you blaspheme his name.
--
No, I mean what criteria do you use to separate cause from other factors?
It's up to you if you want to believe it or if you want to investigate the cause further. In many cases, however, you will find that the only explanation is the grace of God.
-
When you say that their lives are changed, how changed are their lives?
They would be more loving. You would see it in their interactions and reactions to others. People affected by God's love are not necessarily more outgoing, but they are more patient and forgiving for a start. They might also refrain from their other regular sins more like procrastinating for example. The best examples are those who are killers and then they see the truth and then God works through them.
-
Buddhists FTW.
Exactly. They got something going for them. But you have to examine their faith further to see if their way is the truth.
-
Allow me to rephrase, then: Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the fervor of the fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the extent to which it indoctrinates people?
No, because that's not how you gauge the truth of my faith either. If you see any kind of positive change, that is a good sign, but it is not the determining factor of the truth. Like Socrates said: "if this is the doctrine that corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person." You should be able to discern positive changes.
-
And how do you ascertain that this is God's doing.
That is what I put my faith in in the first place. Naturally I would assume it's God. This might be circular reasoning, but I have other evidences about my faith. If my faith is confirmed, then God is confirmed. Does that make sense?
-
Not good enough. If He wants to be trusted more than that guy I described on page 13, he's going to need to do a lot better.
The difference is that God gives us a whole collection of 66 books that tells us about who He is and what He does for us. He does good things for bad people. I am a bad person and then I was made righteous by Christ. He saves people all the time and we see it everywhere in the Bible and in real life. You just have to look for it.
-
No true Scotsman.
That's not for you to decide. Everything on this page counts, regardless of your feelings.
Oh lol okay that's what you mean when you bring up No true Scotsman. I'm slow. However those practices do not correspond with the clear doctrines of the Bible.
-
These people in Africa who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible clearly do not know God in the same way.
You know there are other churches in Africa right?
-
And this time you excluded competent.
No I didn't. I still exclude benevolent. God knows what He's doing and everything is accounted for.
-
You've said that God is bound by logic, so which is it?
I still exclude benevolent. Just because God is "limited" by logic, does not mean He is not omnipotent. We reason things about God to find the truth. The truth is binary as is logic.
-
No, they don't. Strangely, even your extremely biased source makes no such claim.
"For example, Mormons reject belief in the Trinity" Either they believe in more than one God or Jesus is not God because the Trinity is real.
-
You from six days ago:
"It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired."
That makes me look silly huh? Lol well if it's a legitimate factor then it's not irrelevant. It's not of great importance, but it is a way to help "us to discern what is inspired."
-
That's a poor example, because it in fact doesn't.
I guess God is the one who saves, but you get the point.
-
In what sense is grace even capable of being diluted?
God's grace is perfect. By saying that you need to work for salvation means that you are undermining God's grace. This contradicts God's word.
-
You from eight days ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."
Me from 12 days ago:
"What do you think about this explanation?" And then I changed my mind and agreed with that explanation. I thought that was evident. My fault if it wasn't.
-
And as Emp pointed out, we can just as reasonably conclude that they ignored nigh all other writings that aren't directly or indirectly referenced by them; i.e., most of what is now the old testament.
The thing is, why would they talk about something unless it was relevant to their teachings? Why would Jesus reference a book that is contrary to his word?
-
Then we must logically conclude that God has little or no interest in the physical or spiritual wellbeing of most mortals.
And how did you come up with that conclusion?
-
Accuracy has no effect? Then let's agree to only reference the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
I meant only in the examples that the link gave. I have no idea what the New World Translation changed in the Bible aside from what was said in the link.
-
Good luck defending the Trinity with the NWT.
That's why let's not reference the New World Translation. We don't even know the specific people who worked on that translation.
-
Since you're being vague, instead of us guessing at what you mean by that, list everything you consider essential to being a "true Christian," since everything else is superficial.
Being a "true Christian" means you are a disciple of Christ.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 12:8)
You have to trust that Jesus lived and died and rose again so that you are forgiven. And you have to accept Him as your Lord and Savior. When you have the Holy Spirit in you, Christ lives in and through you so you can see it through works.
-
How do you draw the line between what's major and what's unimportant? If it's all God's perfect word, who are you to value one part of scripture over another?
I value all parts of the Bible. Just because one part of the Bible isn’t a major doctrine does not mean it’s not important. People just have different interpretations of it sometimes. As long as they are true Christians, their interpretations are valid I guess.
-
How do you determine who is inspired? How do you determine when a group is not inspired? If the Catholic Church's claim means nothing, why should the authors'? If even the process that selected the books was "evidently flawed," what makes you believe any of it was "inspired" at all?
It is only evidently flawed because people pick and choose scriptures that agree with their beliefs. That includes the early church but over time I think the Protestant branch did a good job of determining the canon considering everything. Like they took into account historical facts and stuff.
-
You said that works are a form of worship.
P26: "If you are really saved, you would want to worship God by doing good works, sharing the gospel, and obeying God's laws. If you're not doing those things, have you really been saved?"
P27: "God chooses us regardless of our works."
Exactly. I mean that God’s grace is grace. Grace is unmerited favor and so our works cannot increase God’s grace. We just do good works because we love God.
-
The fact that the plain text requires an explanation, and there are multiple, equally unfalsifiable possibilities that can be asserted as truth, means that when you say "Just read the Bible," you're aware that it's disingenuous.
No, we know that Mt. Horeb and Mt. Sinai are the same. Just because we don’t know why Moses chose to use both of the names does not mean that they are not the same. The explanation has not effect on the major doctrines of the Bible.
-
The facts demonstrate that members of the early church were fallible.
And we are that much closer to the truth because of it.
-
How do you determine which of their statements are reliable without being circular?
Read other sources.
-
How do you determine they're getting the right message? Since you're also using translations, how do you determine you're getting the right message?
By their works and their testimonies. The people who translated the translations I read are credited (unlike the NWT) so real scholars can check their academic credentials.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Because He wants to test us so we can see how much faith we have. I don’t think it would be a sin if Adam chose an animal though.
1 He's supposed to know that already.
2 If Adam chose one of the animals, God would not, in fact, "make him an helpmeet".
https://imgur.com/7Fp5mYg.png

Does that mean there are no contradictions or... what are you trying to say exactly?
It means that, according to "John" Jesus refuses to answer one thing (19:9) and then goes on talking (19:11). According to "Mark" (and, consequently, Matthew) He only said one thing (15:2) during the whole discussion.

Although you don't see much love in this picture, you see another one of God's traits. Here, God is showing his wrathful side. Eve made a wrong choice and she suffered the consequences. That's not to say God did not show Eve mercy and grace. She was given clothes later in the chapter that were significantly better than fig leaves.
Him doing something vaguely nice as a token gesture does not negate the effect of His vindictive reprisal. A merciful god would not be so easily swayed to act against its creation.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

Again, God displays his hatred towards sin. And again He shows mercy when He saves a flawed man and his family.
Notice how God is only upset with man, yet He decides to destroy "both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air". Again, a merciful god would not be so easily swayed to act against its creation.
https://imgur.com/7Fp5mYg.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

This is not a message a love, but it doesn't have to be because it's an interaction between two humans. I actually don't know how human inflicted curses and blessings work in the Old Testament so I don't know the meaning of this particular passage. It doesn't show anything about God from what I see.
God act's on his behalf to enact the curse at 27, but sure, we can ignore this one.

We have established that God will punish people for their sins unless He is merciful to them. I guess his love overrides his wrath. In this case, God doesn't show mercy towards Pharaoh, but He shows mercy to Abram. This supports a loving message because God saves Abram from the consequences of his sin (lying), but we still get to see his just characteristic when He punishes Pharaoh according to his sin.
This does not support a loving or just message. He brings plagues upon the man and his household because he believed a servant of God who lied to him. There is no justice in that, and I dare say you know it.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

She was punished because she looked back because was worried about all of her possessions back home. God gave her a way out but she cared more about what she had more than what she was receiving from God which was salvation.
1 So she was worried about her livelihood. That's giving a very charitable interpretation of what could as easily mean "glanced back to see what all the commotion was behind her", and it still demonstrates His total lack of compassion toward someone who the angels were trying to save.
2 Despite her understandable reservations, she did not go back, making this reprisal at the very least premature.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

These chapters detail the plagues God inflicted on Egypt when Pharaoh didn't let his people go. It describes Pharaoh's heart being hardened by himself and by God. Whenever his heart is being hardened, it is not wrong to say God was hardening it each time. God hardened Pharaoh's heart by letting Pharaoh harden his own heart. It makes the distinction between God and Pharaoh in order to show that God's plan was taking place despite Pharaoh's stubbornness.
1 Despite? It's integral to His plan that the Pharaoh resists.
2 Here you're trying to absolve God of responsibility by distorting "hardened Pharaoh's heart" into "letting Pharaoh harden his own heart", but that is not what the text says. As you conceed that God was involved in hardening it, God is still to blame for hardening it.
3 This time, the plagues weren't inflicted only on the Pharaoh, or even just his household. The entire kingdom, all of its citizens, all of the livestock, and at least a good chunk of the local wildlife suffered because of this.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

God can be both jealous and loving. Just as He is just and loving. His love overrides his jealousy when He wills it.
You missed the point. Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children means punishing people for things their parents did, and this goes not only for them, but also for their own descendants three generations further down the line.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

This is not a message a love but rather it is the law. This Mosaic law was made to distinguish the Israelites from other nations.
Why does God's law demand this kind of cruelty?

In other parts of the Bible, you will find examples of God's love.
That remains to be seen.

This is assuming the man did not rape her most likely. The next verse says 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.The father would probably not want to give his daughter to a rapist.
Oh, okay. So, according to God's law, a man is legally entitled to rape virgins at his leisure, provided that he pays off their fathers for depreciating their exchange value. Is God really that depraved, or did this just not occur to Him?
https://imgur.com/7Fp5mYg.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png
Also, Deuteronomy 22 clearly does refer to rape (the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her), and in this case, God's law decrees that the victim be stoned to death if she doesn't scream audibly enough to be saved when raped in an urban area.

Here, the people disobeyed God by making an idol to worship. He decided to discipline them.
1 They did not disobey Him. Only Moses was privy to that rule He had just finished making up.
2 It was Aaron, a holy man chosen by God, who made the idol and they worshiped it because he told them to. He apparently redeems himself in God's eye by helping Moses slaughter 3000 of the people he misled.

So basically if someone sinned but didn't know it was wrong, he is still guilty of it and is subject to the punishment. This is just because He did something wrong against God. You can't add anything except the grace of God to diminish a crime.
That is not just, because it is God's obligation to ensure that all people know and understand His law. A competent god would know better than to punish its people for something they cannot have been aware of.
https://imgur.com/7Fp5mYg.png

God punished Nadab and Abihu for disobeying his command. That's really how He ought to deal with all of us, but He grants all of us the grace to live.
Which command? He demands that offerings be burnt on His altar, yet when two of His priests light a fire to burn the offerings on His altar, He incinerates them and His prophet forbids anyone from mourning their death.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

If a man sleeps with a woman who is married, they will not die because she was under the authority of another man, but they will still be punished.
No. If a man has his way with a slave woman set to be someone else's wife, she will be punished. He just has to give a ram to the priests and he is forgiven.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png
On a similar note, in Numbers 12, when two people correctly point out that Moses has gone against God's law, Moses gets away scot free and the male accuser is scolded. The woman is struck with leprosy until Moses has God forgive her.

The Lord ain't messin around when you blaspheme his name.
https://i.imgur.com/j8s6b4r.png

It's up to you if you want to believe it or if you want to investigate the cause further. In many cases, however, you will find that the only explanation is the grace of God.
Show me any such case.

They would be more loving. You would see it in their interactions and reactions to others. People affected by God's love are not necessarily more outgoing, but they are more patient and forgiving for a start. They might also refrain from their other regular sins more like procrastinating for example.
So now you're saying it isn't enough to "truly change lives"; it needs to change them personally in a positive way? Should we not then dismiss all of the scripture that promotes the opposite (slavery, mysogeny, warfare, genocide, animal cruelty, collective punishment, child abuse)?

Exactly. They got something going for them. But you have to examine their faith further to see if their way is the truth.
Why? Because they don't claim to be receiving commands from a tyrannical cosmic overlord?

No, because that's not how you gauge the truth of my faith either. If you see any kind of positive change, that is a good sign, but it is not the determining factor of the truth. Like Socrates said: "if this is the doctrine that corrupts the youth, I am a mischievous person." You should be able to discern positive changes.
If it isn't a determining factor, why should it even be a factor? Also, your quote has no apparent relevance.

That is what I put my faith in in the first place. Naturally I would assume it's God.
Why?

This might be circular reasoning, but I have other evidences about my faith. If my faith is confirmed, then God is confirmed. Does that make sense?
Only if your faith is confirmed by God being real, but that's tautological. Otherwise, no.

The difference is that God gives us a whole collection of 66 books that tells us about who He is and what He does for us.
Poorly, as has been demonstrated.

He saves people all the time and we see it everywhere in the Bible and in real life. You just have to look for it.
Were that the case, we would have nothing to discuss here. The fact is that we do not see it. Only you see it, and only because it's what you want to see.

However those practices do not correspond with the clear doctrines of the Bible.
That's right! Almost none of these denominations, for example, uphold the doctrine of putting people to death for minor infractions. This is a particularly glaring omission, since Jesus himself was calling people out on it in Mark 7.

You know there are other churches in Africa right?
Just as you know that no surfeit of unrelated churches will negate the existence of these ones.

No I didn't. I still exclude benevolent. God knows what He's doing and everything is accounted for.
For that to be true, the world cannot be screwed up at all. Yet we've established that the world is screwed up enough to be in need of fixing. So, are you discarding the claim that it's screwed up, or the claim that it isn't His fault?

"For example, Mormons reject belief in the Trinity" Either they believe in more than one God or Jesus is not God because the Trinity is real.
We've been over this: The trinity holds that God is three entities who exist simultaneously, permanently, and independently. According to "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", which that article cites, Jesus is the son of God, split off from Him and later rejoined. Therefore, it is one of several nontrinitarian denominations of Christianity.

Right now, I'm wondering which denomination you're beliefs are founded upon. Presumably some form of protestantism other than lutheran and anglican?

By saying that you need to work for salvation means that you are undermining God's grace.
In what possible sense?

The thing is, why would they talk about something unless it was relevant to their teachings?
Because it coincides with Jesus's word.

Why would Jesus reference a book that is contrary to his word?
To dispell confusion about which books are true to God's will.

And how did you come up with that conclusion?
Thus:
- God makes sure that his message is conveyed exactly how He wants it when He wants it.
- God's message is not conveyed in a manner that allows most mortals (atheists, other religions, other denominations) to attain physical and/or spiritual wellbeing.
- Therefore, God does not want His message to be conveyed in a manner that allows most mortals to attain physical and/or spiritual wellbeing.

That's why let's not reference the New World Translation. We don't even know the specific people who worked on that translation.
Good point. How much do we know about the 47 people who translated the King James bible?

Being a "true Christian" means you are a disciple of Christ.
[...]
You have to trust that Jesus lived and died and rose again so that you are forgiven. And you have to accept Him as your Lord and Savior.
I like how this definition conforms exactly to each denomination from the perspective of the same denomination.

It is only evidently flawed because people pick and choose scriptures that agree with their beliefs. That includes the early church but over time I think the Protestant branch did a good job of determining the canon considering everything.
Which was accomplished by picking and choosing scriptures that agree with protestant beliefs.

No, we know that Mt. Horeb and Mt. Sinai are the same.
Uh, no. You only assume that they are the same because only by being the same can they have the same role in both stories.

Read other sources.
Which ones?

By their works and their testimonies. The people who translated the translations I read are credited (unlike the NWT) so real scholars can check their academic credentials.
Right, so we can reasonably suppose that they didn't make many more mistakes than most concurrent translators. Unfortunately, that doesn't make any of them right.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

That is what I put my faith in in the first place. Naturally I would assume it's God.

This thread has demonstrated that your beliefs on things you put your faith in can be misguided or wrong.
This might be circular reasoning,

Beyond that, it's predicated on your inclinations. You want it to be true, because it's comforting. It needs to be true, because the alternative is terrifying. There are certainly factors of sunk cost in play. You're trusting your heart, which is warned against.
but I have other evidences about my faith.

So do the majority of other denominations, from their points of view.
However those practices do not correspond with the clear doctrines of the Bible.

They absolutely do, from a certain point of view.
the Trinity is real.

Counterclaims:
Origin of Trinity
Separate Entities
Mystery is Against God's Nature
The thing is, why would they talk about something unless it was relevant to their teachings?

These?
We don't even know the specific people who worked on that translation.

Taking credit would be considered boastful toward one's works, clearly violating Ephesians 2:9.
Being a "true Christian" means you are a disciple of Christ.
[...]
You have to trust that Jesus lived and died and rose again so that you are forgiven. And you have to accept Him as your Lord and Savior. When you have the Holy Spirit in you, Christ lives in and through you so you can see it through works.

People just have different interpretations of it sometimes. As long as they are true Christians, their interpretations are valid I guess.

Matthew 7:21-23 says some will accept Christ, perform works in accordance with what they believe to be signs of salvation, truly believe they are saved, and not be, due to their misguided "interpretations". Your salvation hinges upon those minor details.
I value all parts of the bible.

You've already thrown out the end of Mark 16. Clearly that verse was not important.
Just because one part of the Bible isn’t a major doctrine does not mean it’s not important.

How do you determine what is "major"?
It is only evidently flawed because people pick and choose scriptures that agree with their beliefs. That includes the early church

Then whence came inspiration? What demonstrates divine guidence?
but over time I think the Protestant branch did a good job of determining the canon considering everything. Like they took into account historical facts and stuff.

Is the bible meant to be a "living document" that changes with the times, or a permanent construct? As an example, let's compare it to the Star Wars canon. When Disney bought Lucasfilms, and they saw the mountain of "Expanded Universe" items, they decided that the official canon was the movies, certain shows, etc. This wiped out millenia-worth of previously established lore, including core understandings of The Force, lightsabers, characters, etc. Whether or not they "did a good job of determining the canon" ignores that they altered what was considered to be firmly in place.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

I'm going to be really rude and interrupt here with one question:

Has the discussion on this forum evolved at all since eight or nine years ago when I first joined? Coz it kind of looks like it hasn't, just, occasionally, new players come in and cover the same material as has been archived in various manners in previous incarnations of this thread.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

Has the discussion on this forum evolved at all since eight or nine years ago when I first joined?

It seems like there's less name-calling.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
978 posts
Farmer

How would you guys define the following terms:
1. Love
2. Hate
3. Anger
4. Wisdom
5. Knowledge
6. Humble
7. Discipline
8. Abuse

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Hmm... let's try. On a gut level:

1. Emotion* provoking deep personal affection towards a person (or object or concept, depending on how broadly the term is used?)
2. Emotion* provoking deep aversion towards a person, object or concept
3. Emotional state* during which one is increasingly short-tempered and aggressive
4. Ability acquired with experience and/or study to easily understand, process, apply and contextualize information
5. The sum of information contained in a mind/memory, book, data storage etc.
6. [Humility] Awareness of one's own limitations
7. Ability to focus on doing something without being distracted
8. Act of taking advantage of or harming someone, or using something against it's intended purpose

*emotions being basically chemical/hormonal reactions that affect one's consciousness

-----
I'm reasonably certain that the above is neither complete nor 100% accurate, but let's roll with this for now. For what reason were you asking this?

Showing 511-525 of 704