Another Christianity Debate

[quote]georgeb wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
georgeb wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Stiggy wrote:
georgeb wrote:
Stiggy wrote:
georgeb wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Honestly, the “Christianity threads” on this board have gotten out of hand. Is there a point to all of this besides just stirring trouble? If someone ever did have something important to say, it would get lost in between retarded rants by self proclaimed “witnesses” and prophets.

For some of us there is. I’m legitimately trying to figure out what to believe in. I’m sorry if other people stirring up trouble have ruined it for you.

Ask yourself, is you legitimately trying to figure out what to believe in a global or political issue ?

Where else would I ask this? I suppose I could have posted this in the Get a Life Forum, but I didn’t think it would make a difference.

Maybe you could ask a priest or something or equiv. Questioning the bible is best done away from this place.

This is what the Bible calls the “blind leading the blind.” This is the worse advice anyone can give to you.

What you should do if you are searching for the truth, is read the Bible yourself and ask God to show you the truth.

How is this bad advice? Asking a Preacher for help is almost exactly the same as asking you. I want outside input that I can possibly apply to myself. A preacher is another person that I can ask. A preacher will be especially helpful because he is well-versed in the ways of Jesus and the Bible. When you want to know something, don’t you ask someone who is more knowledgeable than you?

Well, with all due respect, I think he told you to ask a “priest,” and while they might be knowledgable in Catholic doctrine, I don’t believe they have a good handle on the Bible…

Catholicism and Christianity are both based on Jesus, God, and the Bible. How could a Priest NOT be knowledgeable about the Bible? Don’t be so quick to discredit Catholicism.

And while he did specify a priest, his key words were priest or something or equiv. I believe that a Pastor is the basic equivalent to a Priest.[/quote]

Priest does not necessarily mean Catholic any more than Salad means Potato salad.

Example Buddhist Priest, Protestant Priest, Catholic Priest.

Its disappointing to know the religous experts don’t know what Priest means.

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
Prof., Stiggy and Vroom

My point over all is that the freedom to discuss a multitude of topics with people all over the world is part of what makes this a great site.

And abuse of that freedom could easily lead to us losing the ability to discuss these things.

What constitutes abuse?

Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]

What would you think if someone started discussing painting and decorating in supplements and nutrition ?

Whilst Religion is a world issue, questioning people on their beliefs and passing judgement is not.

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
georgeb wrote:

I felt the second passage illustrated the fact that it must be recognized there is something greater that guides the grand scheme of things.

Recognizing that there is something greater means that you are being held accountable for abiding by basic morality.

Where do we get basic morality?

Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]

I think it safe to say that morality is whatever form has been in existence long before christianity, if that’s what you are suggesting.

EDIT: Might also point you to the who made god thread for a hyuuge discussion on the nature of morality.

I wish it could go back to the way it was during the election. That was the best fun I’ve had irritating people in a long while.

Come on Vroom, you loser, would you vote for Kerry if he was running for President of Canada. Wait, what do you call your leader up there?

[quote]georgeb wrote:
One of the biggest things that I hope you could see is that we should be hanging on the details of the exact scripture of whatever religion we are. We should be taking the main idea to guide us, on the basis that we have no pure books to be taking exact interpretations from.

I’m going to use the Bible as an example, as I am most familiar with it. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m in no way saying the Bible is wrong. However, I think that you when you take the bible literally- word for word- you have to take it with a grain of salt, for a few different reasons:

  • Each of the books in the Bible was written by men. Jesus said himself that no man is perfect or good, and because of this fact, the Bible cannot be 100% good or perfect either simply because the authors were not.

  • The copies of the Bible we read are translations from other languages. There is the potential for flaw in the translation, because of the huge differences in expression of ideas in different languages.

  • The books of the Bible are extremely old, some of which occurred before written history. Take the example of Adam and Eve. There was no written history when this occured, so this story was likely passed down through verbal stories. The details definately changed. (Look at rumors- how often does the REAL story get told?) Because of this, I don’t think we can take the words literally.

  • CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Versions of the Bible
    There are TONS of different versions of the Bible. How are we to know which one has the exact words to follow?

Once again, the Bible is not wrong, but it should not be taken literally.
[/quote]
Even though the Bible was written by man, it is not an ordinary book:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God has promised to preserve it from corruption:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

[quote]Stiggy wrote:
Protestant Priest,
[/quote]
Which Protestant denomination uses the term priest?

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
georgeb wrote:
One of the biggest things that I hope you could see is that we should be hanging on the details of the exact scripture of whatever religion we are. We should be taking the main idea to guide us, on the basis that we have no pure books to be taking exact interpretations from.

I’m going to use the Bible as an example, as I am most familiar with it. Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m in no way saying the Bible is wrong. However, I think that you when you take the bible literally- word for word- you have to take it with a grain of salt, for a few different reasons:

  • Each of the books in the Bible was written by men. Jesus said himself that no man is perfect or good, and because of this fact, the Bible cannot be 100% good or perfect either simply because the authors were not.

  • The copies of the Bible we read are translations from other languages. There is the potential for flaw in the translation, because of the huge differences in expression of ideas in different languages.

  • The books of the Bible are extremely old, some of which occurred before written history. Take the example of Adam and Eve. There was no written history when this occured, so this story was likely passed down through verbal stories. The details definately changed. (Look at rumors- how often does the REAL story get told?) Because of this, I don’t think we can take the words literally.

  • CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Versions of the Bible
    There are TONS of different versions of the Bible. How are we to know which one has the exact words to follow?

Once again, the Bible is not wrong, but it should not be taken literally.

Even though the Bible was written by man, it is not an ordinary book:

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God has promised to preserve it from corruption:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

[/quote]

Yeah but you should see how badly proof readers mangle stuff I’ve written.

The words of the lord may indeed be pure, but the interpretations of man are going to be subject to error. No?

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
The words of the lord may indeed be pure, but the interpretations of man are going to be subject to error. No?[/quote]

Undoubtedly true. That is why it is best to avoid interpreting the bible. If you will take the scriptures at face value, without allegorizing etc., and systmetically study out a subject, there is a lot in the bible that is very clear. That is, the biblical teaching on the subject is complete, and understandable to the reader.

And, if the bible is to serve it’s purpose, how man is reconciled to God would have to be one of these.

I should add though, the bible is not a lazy person’s book, if you just go at it half-heartedly, or from a prejudicial point of view, you won’t get very far.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God has promised to preserve it from corruption:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. [/quote]

What about:

1 Corinthians 7:12.:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.

In which the author clearly states that it’s him speaking and not the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:25
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment…

Here again, we’ve got a disclaimer indicating that at least some part of Scripture is not from the Lord; contradicting “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”

At best, “most” Scripture is form the Lord, not all of it. What if the part that says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” is not from the Lord, but only from men trying to give their Scripture more authority?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God has promised to preserve it from corruption:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

What about:

1 Corinthians 7:12.:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.

In which the author clearly states that it’s him speaking and not the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:25
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment…

Here again, we’ve got a disclaimer indicating that at least some part of Scripture is not from the Lord; contradicting “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”

At best, “most” Scripture is form the Lord, not all of it. What if the part that says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” is not from the Lord, but only from men trying to give their Scripture more authority?
[/quote]
Heh Pookie, what’s up dude. You must have a special program that regularly searches for this type of thread.

Sorry though, as is typical, you are just picking a fight, and haven’t really studied the scripture as I have indicated is neccessary.

1Cor 7:12 is in contrast to 1Cor7:10 which states:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.

Paul is saying here that the Lord Jesus has made a direct pronouncement on this, which is found at Mat 5:32. In 1Cor 7:12, he is not saying his own pronouncement is not inspired, only that the Lord Jesus has no direct statement on it. (I can also tell you why there isn’t, but you don’t deserve the help at this point.) 1Cor7:25 would be the same idea.

Your textual interpration skills are very poor pookie, you ignored a relevant passage just a few lines away. Shame on you.

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:

The words of the lord may indeed be pure, but the interpretations of man are going to be subject to error. No?[/quote]

Atehists love to say this. It’s old, tired and quite wrong, but that doesn’t seem to matter:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Sorry though, as is typical, you are just picking a fight, and haven’t really studied the scripture as I have indicated is neccessary.[/quote]
I take that back. Maybe you’re not picking a fight this time. After all, you only listed 2 apparent contradictions, compared to your normal ten.

My apologies, and I hope I gave you enough of an answer to make you see you need to put more time into it before you throw it out the window.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Stiggy wrote:
Protestant Priest,

Which Protestant denomination uses the term priest?[/quote]

Only a few, I googled it.

However its not confined to Catholicism.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Heh Pookie, what’s up dude. You must have a special program that regularly searches for this type of thread.[/quote]

Yeah, you really need a program to find religious discussion on T-Nation… it so seldom happens. :slight_smile:

It appears to me that until I come around to your way of seeing it, that answer will always apply. Any contradiction or objection or question I raise about it will be answered with: You need to study it more.

[quote]1Cor 7:12 is in contrast to 1Cor7:10 which states:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.

Paul is saying here that the Lord Jesus has made a direct pronouncement on this, which is found at Mat 5:32. In 1Cor 7:12, he is not saying his own pronouncement is not inspired, only that the Lord Jesus has no direct statement on it. (I can also tell you why there isn’t, but you don’t deserve the help at this point.) 1Cor7:25 would be the same idea.[/quote]

I fail to see what that changes. Paul is saying that on some particular subject, he has no pronouncement from the Lord, so instead he gives what he thinks is the correct course of action. Would he need to explicitly give this disclaimer if he knew his view was “inspired?” Everywhere else, no such claim is made; it is assumed that all pronouncement are, in fact, insipired. Here, he explicitly makes it known that he speaks, not the Lord, seemingly indicating that he’s had no divine inspiration on the subject.

Possible. But no matter how much I read what comes before or after that passage, I can’t find a way for Paul’s declaration to seem “inspired” when Paul explicitly states that he speaks, not the Lord in one case; and in the other that he has “no commandment of the Lord.”

Why say those things if his pronouncements are inspired? If he had divine inspiration, he’d simply state the Lord’s will, as he knew it.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
My apologies, and I hope I gave you enough of an answer to make you see you need to put more time into it before you throw it out the window.
[/quote]

Is it me who’s looking for a fight? In two posts you:

  • Claim I have a program that searches for these threads.
  • Just want to pick a fight.
  • Haven’t studied scripture.
  • Don’t deserve the help you could provide.
  • My textual interpretation skills are poor.
  • I ignore relevant nearby passages.

You then “apologize”, only to add that I only listed two contradictions instead of “my usual” 10 and that I’m throwing the Bible out the window.

So, do you want to discuss what I find to be a contradiction between two passages, or would you rather keep listing my various failings, warts, imperfections and other shortcomings?

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
georgeb wrote:

I felt the second passage illustrated the fact that it must be recognized there is something greater that guides the grand scheme of things.

Recognizing that there is something greater means that you are being held accountable for abiding by basic morality.

Where do we get basic morality?

Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]

evolution

[quote]Pookie wrote:

Paul is saying that on some particular subject, he has no pronouncement from the Lord, so instead he gives what he thinks is the correct course of action. Would he need to explicitly give this disclaimer if he knew his view was “inspired?” [/quote]

Pookie, it seems to me that this gives more evidence that the Bible IS the inspired word of God. Why would Paul take time to say something on the order of “this is from me” if everything else he was stating was NOT from God?

In other words he is making an exception by his own admission.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Pookie wrote:

Paul is saying that on some particular subject, he has no pronouncement from the Lord, so instead he gives what he thinks is the correct course of action. Would he need to explicitly give this disclaimer if he knew his view was “inspired?”

Pookie, it seems to me that this gives more evidence that the Bible IS the inspired word of God. Why would Paul take time to say something on the order of “this is from me” if everything else he was stating was NOT from God?

In other words he is making an exception by his own admission.

[/quote]

I don’t think Paul can be considered an unbiased witness.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

I don’t think Paul can be considered an unbiased witness.[/quote]

What human being who witnessed an act of God would be “unbiased” after that point? That’s like finding an “unbiased” witness that there is a sun.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

I don’t think Paul can be considered an unbiased witness.

What human being who witnessed an act of God would be “unbiased” after that point? That’s like finding an “unbiased” witness that there is a sun.[/quote]

Well said Professor.

And on top of that no one is claiming that he is “unbiased.”

This is the man who wrote the bulk of the New Testament.