[quote]OTS1 wrote:
Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?
[/quote]
I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
all Christians deep down know and fear that Christianity is bullshit, they just supress those feelings.[/quote]
really? I guess that counts me out as a Christian, because I am a Christian and don’t know or fear that . . . wait . . what?
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Then you must damn your Deity more than mine. [/quote]
Why do you say that? My concept of a Deity that might possibly exist (and I’m saying one way or the other) doesn’t pretend to love humans yet makes all 6 billion of them live in some form of suffering because of something that two people did on the advice of a talking snake. Oh, I don’t damn your Deity - I just don’t believe your Deity exists.[/quote]
Well my God has not condemned 6 billion people because of the actions of 2 . . . so now what?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So, sloth, which denomination of christianity actually uses the “right” version, do you think? And why?[/quote]
As to why, I’d rather not. Feel free to look through Catholic sites, but I foresee a sectarian 20 page debate I have no interest in starting. The history, the claims, the counterclaims would involve a whole lot more time than I’m willing to give on this forum. My protestant cousins can feel free to have a one sided debate over my offering of a Catholic bible. I’m just not going to put that kind of time into this forum, on one singular subject.[/quote]
So that version of the Bible contains not one single error in translation or mistake?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey wait. Fuck you.
Your “literal” translation uses the word water, REPEATEDLY. Now, when I call that to task, suddenly you want to play the “Well, um, they just mean liquid of some sort.”
If the bible is -word for word- infallible, there should be no need for creative interpretations such as “Well, by water they actually meant matter which includes water, and other liquids, and solids, and gasses, etc.”
So, is it water, or were they incorrect in calling it water? [/quote]
LMAO seriously? read what I wrote . . . the water is a liquid, water is a fluid . . . what’s your problem? by simply pointing at the next verse (and he divided the water from the land) the implication is that the water contained more than just itself. One of water’s chracterestics is that it can contain many things, yet remains water . . . soooo . …did you have a point or you just arguing for argument’s sake?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Actually, the firmament IS a dome that does divide the waters into two. There’s no abuse of text. It’s a cosmological view reflective of the times. [/quote]
Oh I love this part.
Even Christians can’t agree on how to interpret their “perfect” book.
Brings me to another point: How can a christian of one sect be ok with a christian of another sect which is substantially different?
Crucify me if I’m wrong, but don’t catholics use a bible with several books that don’t appear in the bibles used by other denominations of christianity?
If the bible the catholics use is perfect, then the bible the others use is imperfect for its omissions. If the bible the others use is perfect, then the ones catholics are using is imperfect for its additions.
No, it makes no logical sense that two groups are using a “perfect” book, even though the books are not identical. [/quote]
and how can two economists look at the same data (facts) and come to different conclusions . … how can two juries look at the same evidence (facts) and come to different judgements . . .How can two scientists look at the same expirement and come to different theories . . . you’re mistaking the influence of individual judgement for the negation of the underlying truth. Just because two people can disagree on what the facts mean, this doe snot change the truth of the facts on which they base their conclusions . . . thus endeth the lesson . .
[quote]weby wrote:
serious question i was asked by a atheist i had no answer-Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers. So when Jesus died and was resurrected who looked after the world in the period in between?[/quote]
Since you said, “serious question” I guess I will try and answer.
If you look at the crucifiction of Christ you will see Jesus, the Son, talking with God, the Father. “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” The Father also turns his back on Jesus. This is when Jesus states, “Father why have you forsaken me?” The triune God having three parts are all still God. So when Jesus was dead in the grave the Father was still looking over the Earth. The Holy Spirit as of now is the only being connecting us with Heaven. The Holy Spirit can only relay what he hears in heaven and nothing more. God is everywhere and for all time. I may have made this more difficult than it needed to be.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Because if the bible is wrong about anything, than we cant use the circular, tautological argument that “The bible is right because the bible says its right and the bible is right about everything because the bible is perfect and it says its perfect and it must be right because it’s always right…” Ad nausem.
[/quote]
see my prior post
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thats why christians dont join the armed forces or go to war. Thats why america, a nation comprised mostly of christians, doesn’t have the most wars for a country its age. Because christians disagree in peace.
Oh, wait, they disagree with other christians in peace. Others, they bomb. Gotcha.[/quote]
right . . . because Amrerica is a Christian nation . . . . uh huh . . . wow . . .
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]StrawmanAndPlanIt wrote:
Which just serves to discredit all of you.
If it was “The truth” like you’re saying, then all the christians would agree on it.
Since your “truth” has no more firm ground than Tiribs “truth”, I see no reason to believe either.
But…but… MY bible says this… and mine is the right one…NO MY bible says THIS and MINE is the right one…[/quote]
My Church created the Bible, I win. My Bibles inerrancy comes from the fact that the Holy Ghost is with my Church, same for it’s doctrines. Happy? Stop using Straw-man and know who you are talking to.
Just because their is absolute truth, and some people might not believe it does not mean that we are all wrong.[/quote]
Didn’t realise you were Orthodox, thought you were Catholic…
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’ve stated my case enough and all you’ve done is proven me right: Christians aren’t good at being right, they’re good at forcing evidence to fit predetermined conclusions.
If I flip heads…[/quote]
fail . . . .
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
So now I need evidence for the non existence of something. How about you put up one piece of credible evidence that the Jews were taken into bondage by the Egyptians and then freed. One single piece.[/quote]
I do believe that Jewbacca and I both responded to this already . . .
[quote]weby wrote:
serious question i was asked by a atheist i had no answer-Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers. So when Jesus died and was resurrected who looked after the world in the period in between?[/quote]
Trinity . . . a-whole-nother thread on this one . … actually several
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]NAUn wrote:
I know some of this has probably been covered throughout this thread, and I’ve read a lot of it, but the bickering and pointless arguing tires me…
So do the christians participating in this thread believe we have evolved from single-celled organisms over a few billion years? And if so, why did God only reveal Himself as He did in the bible during that extremely microscopic interval of our history?
Also, if you guys could be kind enough to entertain another question sincerely and with an open mind: How would you feel if you found out there was no God and your life was essentially meaningless and the influence of all of your good works and sins would eventually die out into irrelevance? I know that you know that’s not true, but try to imagine that for me with as much conviction as you can to give me an answer.
Can you give me a general summary of what Christianity accepts as fact/what is metaphorical in the bible and the evolution of those differences, as well? I assume you see this evolution as a clearer understanding of what God revealed in the bible in the same way a child doesn’t always understand his father’s advice until he grows older?
One more if you’ll be so kind… as for the makeup of the bible: If everyone can agree that the bible (their version) is inerrant, then that means that over a period of time God revealed His Truth to a select group of people who recorded this Truth without fault. The fundamental difference lies in 1)the period of time this covers 2) who those people are. If God didn’t reveal which scriptures were the Truth, but it was instead determined by some form of church, does anyone think it’s possible that some of God’s Truth was omitted from the bible or that something was included which shouldn’t have been? If so, why do you think that, and what gives you conviction over your human beliefs in that sense compared to what someone else thinks does or doesn’t belong in the bible?
[/quote]
Idk how to split your post into sections so I will try my best.
To your first question, no but I do not know what position other Christians here hold on that issue. If I “found out” God doesn’t exist and had to live out the rest of my life I believe the only honest outlook one can have on life is nihilism, if this happened at the end of my life I would have been happy with how I lived my life more than another way.
What Christians accept as literal vs metaphorical depends on their hermeneutics I happen to lean on the literal side of that scale while others are in between or lean to the allegorical side. Those on the literal side will take a certain passage (for example genesis) as casually having happened while those on the allegorical side will say that while it didn’t happen literally it, it has some other purpose(moral values/lesson etc…).
As for the scriptures I view them in awe as great evidence of God preserving his message throughout the centuries and are the best preserved historical documents that I know of. For example a silver scroll of Numbers from the time of Jeremiah or about 700-800 BC even older than the DSS and is basically the same book of Numbers we have today so that is a big gap in the documentary hypothesis. I accept the autographs as inerrant even though there may be small translation errors throughout the century, and even a few books it mentions that aren’t here anymore to my knowledge(i.e. the book of Jasher). This isn’t a big deal because Truth is found in Jesus Christ.
John 16:12-15 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.[/quote]
You should do a bit more reading if you think the Bible is the oldest preserved historical document. There are numerous examples of better preserved and older documents throughout the world. Check out the Rig Veda at 4,000 BC for instance.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My Church created the Bible, I win. [/quote]
I beg to differ. Brother Chris you always forget about the Eastern Orthodox Church. This was the first Church because Paul’s first Missionary Journey was in Asia Minor, which encomposses the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Chruches were one Church and bishops from both churches were there at the councils that set the cannon. The Roman Catholic Church became more political over time while the Eastern Orthodox Church, IMO, stayed more true to the early church roots. The early church were Jews, and not so much Gentiles. The Eastern Orthodox Church’s calendar and festivals follow the Moon and not the Sun just like the Jews.
I have never studied in depth on why the apocrapha was taken out or added to the Bible. I do know that the Protestants followed the Jewish Cannon of the Old Testament which does not include the Apocrapha. The Jewish Bible was cannonized before the Christian Bible so this might be the reason the Protestants went this direction. Please correct me if I am wrong on what I am about to say. The Apocrapha was not officially cannonized, but continued to be used, because it was in the Septuagent the first translated Jewish Bible out of Hebrew to Greek.
The New Testament for all Christians is the exact same.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
<<< a long post >>>
[/quote]I (and others) have addressed all this already elsewhere in this thread. If you are interested in Christian views please peruse. If not then why are you here? Not that I’m sorry in the slightest that you are, but I’m curious. I have to say again that it’s been like a couple decades since I’ve heard a new argument against the Christian faith. They’re all the same argument in different packages anyway.
[/quote]
You’re right, I don’t get what a person in the modern world would still believe in any of the Abrahamic religions. I could see how a person could be a Deist. For a while I had somewhat of a Deistic belief based mainly on the cosmological argument that the universe required some sort of prime mover. But I never understood the Jesus story. If God wanted to forgive humans, why not just do so? Why the need for what was essentially a human sacrifice of his son no less? I could also see how the Abrahamic religions fulfilled a need to impose law, order, and a sense of morality during the Bronze Age and into the Middle Ages. But why these beliefs survive into the 21st century is a mystery.[/quote]
Because the Jesus story is a made up story taken from a collection of stories and was designed to ‘fulfill’ various conflicting prophesies.[/quote]
I’m sure you know how arguments go, you have to premises AND conclusions with evidence to back up your premises.[/quote]
So now I need evidence for the non existence of something. How about you put up one piece of credible evidence that the Jews were taken into bondage by the Egyptians and then freed. One single piece.[/quote]
So, you’re dismissing Irish’s post completely?[/quote]
Sorry I may have missed it amongst the multitude, which one?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
all Christians deep down know and fear that Christianity is bullshit, they just supress those feelings.[/quote]
really? I guess that counts me out as a Christian, because I am a Christian and don’t know or fear that . . . wait . . what?[/quote]
I don’t really believe that, it was just as ridiculous as what was posted about atheists.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sorry I may have missed it amongst the multitude, which one?[/quote]
Easy to do. I went to bed last night, and woke up with 5 more pages on this thread.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
So now I need evidence for the non existence of something. How about you put up one piece of credible evidence that the Jews were taken into bondage by the Egyptians and then freed. One single piece.[/quote]
I do believe that Jewbacca and I both responded to this already . . .[/quote]
No you haven’t. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the story of the Jews being in bondage to the Egyptians. It simply didn’t happen.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
So now I need evidence for the non existence of something. How about you put up one piece of credible evidence that the Jews were taken into bondage by the Egyptians and then freed. One single piece.[/quote]
I do believe that Jewbacca and I both responded to this already . . .[/quote]
No you haven’t. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the story of the Jews being in bondage to the Egyptians. It simply didn’t happen.[/quote]
I gave you a laundry list of evidence . . . ignore if it you like