God is quite busy
- Started
- Last post
- 301 Responses
- gramme0
Science can't discredit the Bible, no matter how badly one would like to see that happen. The Bible contains some historical facts that have been confirmed by archaeology, but it also contains ideas that have no physical proof and thus must be believed on the basis of faith alone. Faith and science cannot ever tread in the same waters, since science is all about observation of physical evidence.
It is not possible to argue away the possibility of (g)God using logic. Dawkins can't, though he believes otherwise. Dawkins and Zacharias actually had a public debate on the matter, and Dawkins got totally shut down. Not even Hume could do it. With all due respect, I seriously doubt amxiousarms or Khurram can.
- can you provide a transcript of this debate? google cant seem to find it.spifflink
- Woops, it was Lennox vs. Dawkins. The link came from Zacharias' website, I miscredited that part.gramme
- the lennox debate was not a shutdown haha, it was pretty weak on both sides.spifflink
- well that's one way of looking at it, though I disagree.gramme
- i figured you wouldspifflink
- :)gramme
- mikotondria30
There is nothing, nothing, in the Christian bible, or the 'sacred' texts of any religion that furthers or enlightens mankind one bit. There is no unique and sound morality that has not been discovered or practiced elsewhere - love thy neighbor as you love yourself - although a world apart from the morality of animals is a quality of humanity that has been practiced in every culture - the basic tennets of respect for one another was not 'discovered' by some devine revelation in one place, several thousand years ago.
It's not as if the children of Israel got out into the desert and suddently realised that they shouldnt steal or kill - such concepts had been bound into law in many cultures that had preceded them.- look no further than how many lives have been redically transformed.....designbot
- *radically. And I have witnessed this first hand many times.designbot
- I am talking about people going from abusive alcoholics to being completely transformed by the Bible alone.designbot
- the aztecs for instance********
- christianity is not the only religion that has 'transformed' lives. don't think your brand of faith is the only tranformational force.spifflink
- i have also seen a lot of lives wrecked completely because of christianity, but that is anecdotal.spifflink
- hey spiff, I was responding directly to his comment....leave it in it's context :)designbot
- please explain a life "wrecked" by Christianity that you have witnessed?designbot
- i have seen divorces over it, suicides over it, and many many other things.spifflink
- how is my comment taking yours out of context. honestly keep track of the conversation.spifflink
- i won't question your supposed witness of christ if you won't question my witness of the destructive power of ignorance.spifflink
- You are going to have to be more specific. Suicide over it??designbot
- well the reason I ask is because I don't see how it's possible unless scripture is twisted...or it was from some radical church.designbot
- yep. you know, when you end your life because of subjectively unbearable outside influences.spifflink
- well while i believe in humanity's greatness, people are corruptible, including religious people *gasp*spifflink
- Well, I know people personally, very close friends. who were going to kill themselves until they were radically transformed.designbot
- .....people who claim to be christian might twist scripture and cause someone to do this, but scripture alone would never cause this.designbot
- cause someone to do this. Everything written stands against this type of action.designbot
- I am not making any of this up either, been witness to some truly crazy events people have come out of.designbot
- are you saying I am making these things up? never mind. i am done.spifflink
- No not at all. I am just saying that based on everything the Bible teaches to claim someone committed suicide from it seems very contradictory.designbot
- very contradictory.designbot
- gramme0
Incorrect, miko. The concept of salvation by grace—through faith alone—is entirely unique to Christianity. All other religions believe in salvation through good deeds, enlightenment, or karma.
- actually christianity has many different sects, some say faith it all you need (pretty lame), some say works, some say bothspifflink
- its just another version of 'life after death fate depending on you susbscribing to the religionmikotondria3
- The only correct interpretation is that salvation is by grace through faith alone. It says that in many, many places.gramme
- James says that we are justified by works, but if you read the entire passage, what he means is that works are the product of true faith.gramme
- true faith. So, faith without works is dead, even though works in and of themselves do NOT save.gramme
- Since none of us are capable of perfection in this life, our good deeds cannot satisfy God's justice.gramme
- We must depend on the grace of God through the sacrifice of his son, who defeated death by suffering on the crossgramme
- and descended into hell so that we would be spared.gramme
- yeah again. pretty lame. while intrareligious arguments are pretty absurd, i have heard convincing cases for both by people with a LOT more scholarly aptitude and a much better understanding and knowledge of scripturespifflink
- by people with a LOT more scholarly aptitude and a much better understanding and knowledge of scripturespifflink
- however again, interpreting scripture is pretty subjective, no matter how absolutist you think it is. there is a lot of wiggle room in a lot of places.spifflink
- a lot of placesspifflink
- In some places yes, in this case, no. No room at all. And I don't have an MDiv, but you can hardly call me ignorant on the subject.gramme
- the subject.gramme
- BTW my father is an extremely intelligent, scholarly pastor who has been in the ministry for 30+ years.gramme
- He knows his stuff as well as a 60 yr. old man can, and he would agree with my statements here about interpretation.gramme
- wasn't this place with no wiggle room the cause of the explosion of new religious sects in 1800s america though?spifflink
- (I know that's anecdotal, just wanted to reinforce that my conclusions haven't occurred in a vacuum or b/c of ignorance).gramme
- i don't really care necessarily about your interpretation, just saying christianity hasn't really agreed on itspifflink
- i understand, and am glad you have a strong backup referencespifflink
- Well, fallen human beings can't be blamed for a lack of perfect consensus.gramme
- That's not a very strong argument imho.gramme
- But then of course you'll counter that all of my arguments are weak, blah, blah blah... and around we go.gramme
- ********0
::farnoise::
- designbot0
There are some important things we should distinguish here....
There are many things in the old testament that were done away with with the "new covenant" and Jesus sacrifice. For example, in the old testament, we have ceremonial and sacrificial laws written by Moses for the Jews. These were never meant to be permanent.
When Christ died, the Bible says "what was nailed to the cross were the handwritten ordinances of man." The ceremonial/sacrificial laws were written by Moses, and thus were done away with because Jesus became that sacrificial lamb instead. So to answer your question the reason why Christians don't follow everything written in the Old Testament today, is because the Bible itself tells us that these were done away with. We can see that God died for all our sins so many of the old ways of sacrifice and worship to him aren't necessary anymore.
It might also be important to point out that just because something is written in the Bible, doesn't mean it had God's approval. That is to say, often times the writers are merely documenting the events that are taking place, as horrible as they may sometimes be. There are many things God speaks out against that happen in the Bible, so you can't assume that just because it's written, it's acceptable by God. I think this actually lends to the credibility of the book because the writers include embarrassing details and screw-ups often times about themselves that most people would be inclined to leave out.
- gramme0
"I guess what I'm asking is, how do you distinguish between the things that are meant "only for the time" and the ones we should follow today? What criteria are you using?
To the casual observer (me), it seems that you are tossing out the ones that are inconvenient because they seem sexist or un-PC, ie, no longer socially acceptable.
You have to admit, there is no indication in the Bible itself that any of these decrees from god are meant this way (have an expiration date on them)."
—One way to distinguish between ideas that were meant for the time of writing only and those that were designed to be carried out by future generations regardless of culture is to consider the context. I know this has been said before here, but one must think about the general gist of a passage, it's overarching theme, patterns of speech, the audience, etc. For example, when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was speaking in large part to Jews in Rome who had recently converted to Christianity; thus, he spent a lot of time talking about the covenants and prophecies in the Old Testament—how those covenants and prophecies were fulfilled in Christ.
Due to scholarly diligence, we still have access to old Hebrew (Old Testament) and Hellenic Greek (both the scholarly dialect and the "Koine" or common dialect). With such knowledge we're able to discover that throughout the New Testament, when a writer addresses his audience with "my brothers," he is actually saying in Greek "my brothers and sisters," which in Greek is a single word similar to our "sibling".
Spinning off of that little tangent, another way we can determine what was meant for the current time and what was meant for all time is to understand history. When we know a) who the speaker is, b) who they're speaking to, and c) what the background information is, we can get a much better sense of the intended meaning. This is a daunting task for any layman, but thankfully we have well-trained pastors all over the world (well, some better than others of course) who expound on these very things for our benefit.
- @ ukitdesignbot
- oops :)designbot
- how do you get 'training' for interpreting the bible? seems like a pretty subjectively based occupation.spifflink
- hey spifflink, the same way you would get trained to read any ancient writing. How do you think anyone interprets hieroglyphs for example?designbot
- example?designbot
- Seminary. Teachers there are experts in ancient Greek & Hebrewgramme
- and tend to be brilliant people in general. A decent seminary pushes students very, very hard in their studies.gramme
- what word are you referring to:
in Greek "my brothers and sisters," ?******** - learning a language is applicable to many things. its not 'bible training' its language training.spifflink
- In seminary one learns history, language, apologetics and preaching skills.gramme
- often counseling too.gramme
- gramme0
For spiffink: that was actually John Lennox (Christian mathematician) vs. Lennox. I found mention of it on Zacharias' site, so at first thought it was Zacharias debating. Here's a link to the debate:
- ********0
Gramme: ideologues expound for the promulgation of the system they are part of. We can never understand "intended meaning" which is a rhetorical trick that pushes meaning into the fuzzy and poetical. You cannot know very much about Paul's audience. Patrician women slumming it in the catacombs on Tuesday and Cult of Mithras on Weds? Jews in Rome? yes, and a thousand of nationalities, the most cultured of which spoke Greek, lingua franca of the med basin especially in the East.
And, we shouldn't forget, Paul never met Jesus. Everything he preached was passed on to him.
- seminarians? why not overians?********
- women are chattel is why.********
- Paul did meet Jesus on the road to Damuscus after he had been resurrected.designbot
- that was a dream wasn't it?********
- seminarians? why not overians?
- gramme0
That's incorrect about Paul, Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus, as Paul was going to the Sanhedrin there to secure rights to persecute Christians throughout Judea. Christ literally stopped him in his tracks.
- +1 see my above comment :)designbot
- appeared? please clarify this "appearence"********
- not damascus for one********
- OK sorry damascus it is********
- Yes, the road to Damascus. Read Acts. Christ appeared. It's right there on the page.gramme
- "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"gramme
- appeared suggests he was alive. So this is the resurrected Jesus who "appears" and apparently "talks" in Greek or aramaic?********
- TheBlueOne0
My whole problem with all this inerrancy is that it kills the poetry and the 'truer than true' aspects of the Bible that rally make it a deep spiritual book for me. But such is the case for all religions when they take themselves too seriously, they lose what really makes them beautiful and useful or the spirit of men, to guide us in those dark spaces where the finite meets the infinite.
But this is just my opinion, which is is something that is truer than true for me. Your truths may vary depending on circumstances.
- So then I can create my own truths based on my circumstances? sweet.designbot
- You're doing it right now.TheBlueOne
- No at all, but you my friend just admitted you are.designbot
- And you live inside your comfortable delusion that your not. It's cool though. You're making it work for ya.TheBlueOne
- gramme0
If you can understand the intended meaning of Moby Dick, you can understand the intended meaning of 90% of the Bible. People squabble over meaning because they want to serve their own agendas. I think of Thomas Jefferson, who would tear out portions of the Bible that didn't sit well with him.
I'm not claiming to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I do consider God to be sovereign, and thus that it's HIS message that counts, not mine. So, if there is a portion of Scripture that doesn't sit well with me, that's more of a reflection on my own poverty of mind/heart than on the character of God. I have often found that further study enlightens the subject for me, and I have yet to compromise my affinity for reason and logic in efforts to understand God's word.
How dare we criticize the character of Divinity—as if he was ever on the same moral or intellectual playing field as us. We are made in His image, rather than the other way 'round.
- No, I read Moby Dick in english, a living language. No-one knows ohow ancient greek sounds like.********
- jefferson tore out mentions of jesus actuallyspifflink
- Of course people understand ancient Greek, it's been meticulously preserved, just as much as Latin.gramme
- Same goes for ancient Hebrew. The old tongues are far from inaccessible.gramme
- gramme: I hope you find salvation, truly. You sound like an earnest seeking man. A little too much proselytizing maybe...********
- Hebrew still spoken in temple as it always has been.********
- I have found salvation.gramme
- And for the record, I never start these threads, I merely defend my faith from those who would discredit it.gramme
- At the least, I can try to stop the spread of misinformation regarding God and his message.gramme
- But the ultimate goal is to share my faith with people, because it is the ultimate good news.gramme
- Despite what people think of it.gramme
- good for you********
- No, I read Moby Dick in english, a living language. No-one knows ohow ancient greek sounds like.
- ********0
"Paul's declarations of the "creed" of his religion also support this: physical resurrection is nowhere stated to be a necessary belief. 1 Cor. 15:3-11 I discuss in the links above, but to that can be added 1 Tim. 3:16, where the necessary elements of the religion are listed as the incarnation, spiritual justification, some connection with angels, the teaching of the Gospel, and the ascension. No mention of physical encounters or empty tombs or even resurrection (as anything distinct from ascension). Likewise, Paul's summary of the Gospel at Philippians 2:6-11 omits a physical resurrection: instead of being raised, Jesus is merely exalted after death by being given a powerful "name." And Colossians 1:13-29 summarizes the theology of the Gospel, yet makes clear that by giving his body Jesus removed sin (vv. 22), and that after death his "body" became the church (vv. 24; supported by Ephesians 5:30, where it says we are now Christ's body). This implies that there was no living "body" of Jesus on earth after his death, except the power of his name and message, and thus the church itself. However, Paul does say Jesus was given a new body in heaven, and that was probably the original belief--the church becoming his new earthly body, not his corpse."
- automaticiam0
Personally I think religion is a personal matter and thus should be kept to yourself. Every time God gets debated and disagreements arise bombs get dropped, children cry and people die. Enough is enough.
- designbot0
^Please actually quote the verses you are referring to....because most of this is simply not true unless you are reading it into scripture. Also it's easy to take verses out of context when you only paste one sentence from them.
- ukit0
The Bible basically comes out and says women are not equal to men. How on Earth is that dependent on context?
- That is patently false.gramme
- The Bible says that men were made for leadership and that women were made for nurture.gramme
- There are of course exceptions of women in leadership such as government—the Bible never says anything to gainsay women in gov't.gramme
- women in gov't. The modern misconception is that leadership is more valuable than nurture.gramme
- You've heard the saying: behind every great man is a great woman.gramme
- My mother, for example, is an incredibly wise, gentle, and loving woman. I honor for teaching me muchgramme
- about what it means to be a man.gramme
- designbot0
^Where does it say this?
- designbot0
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3.28
No distinction here between male and female, race, or anything else. Scripture says we all are one.
- ukit0
Ephesians 5:22 - 25*
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.1 Timothy 2:9 - 15*
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.Genesis 3:16*
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.
There's plenty of it...now I'm sure you will tell me this is all meant "in context" and open to interpretation in a way we would find acceptable in the 21rst century, but...c'mon guys.
- ukit0
Interestingly, God also didn't want women to pleat their hair, or wear jewelry:
1 Peter 3:1 -3
1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;