Is the bible reliable?

Setanta,

I'm not having a good day here at all! I should not have used the word "again" but I did think we had discussed this before, my bad.

I have posted before how we are not under the Mosaic Laws anymore. I will post that here also.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/lawAndGraceControversy.htm

http://www.solagratia.org/Articles/The_Christians_Relationship_to_the_Mosaic_Law.aspx

Like I said, I'm not having a good day and I don't want to confuse anyone (especially me!) anymore than I already have.

I don't think gay bashing is funny either, Setanta. I think it is absolutely atrocious behavior. I only meant it as a joke in the sense that "hey, I don't do that!" Like I said, small and very BAD attempt at humor.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

I am sorry that you cannot understand my stand on this. Like I have said before, if my two friends who are lesbians don't have a problem with the way I feel about this, treat them, and how I would vote if I could, then I sure don't understand why you do when you only know me on this forum.

The extent of my lobbying is talking on this forum and discussing it with my friends. I think you are taking this way too seriously. I could understand it if I was out there carrying signs or something, but I am not.

Oh but I can understand your stand on this. The fact that you blame your homophobia on the Bible is immaterial to me. I know nothing about your two friends so I cannot comment other than I would consider it wise for a lesbian couple living in rural La. to not make waves. Did you bother to read the example of the Soterwoods? Did you see the stats that one in three lesbian couples nationwide are raising children?

I am the one that gets to decide what I take seriously and the intrusion of religious dogma in any form into the governance of this nation is one that I do happen to take very seriously.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Must I remind you again that the Constitution of the United States says absolutely nothing about how I MUST or MUST NOT consider any certain thing in deciding my vote? Must I remind you again that we have the exact same rights?

If you understood my position, you would not call me homophobic. Hey, I don't call you religiophobic because you don't seem to like religion, do I? As far as my two friends go, this is a small town Mesquite. Very little goes on around here without nearly everyone knowing it. These two women are treated with love and respect around here. They are welcome anywhere they go here. And yes, they go to church here too.

I do not get to vote on this issue! It's not on the ballot here in Louisiana. I sincerely ever doubt I will get to vote for this. And even if I did get to, the way I vote is actually none of your business just as how you cast your vote is none of my business. Unless of course we both decide to make our votes public.

0 Replies

What is fascinating to me about the anti-Christian position which proclaims there are 'contradictions' in the Bible is that this group so often holds contradictory views of it's own.

On one hand they claim that there was a small group of crafty and powerful church scholars who thoroughly 'edited' the Bible to conform to their own beliefs.

So thorough is this process of editing supposed to have been that, they tell us, you cannot know what the books of the Bible originally said because these clever conspirators streamlined the Biblical texts to suit their own views and enhance their own power over the churches of the day.

On the other hand, they claim that the Bible is rife with contradictions, similar to the lame collection of supposed 'contradictions' between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that Sozobe posted.

So thoroughly contradictory are the texts, we are told, that even a child can see that they are not to be trusted.

My question has always been that if a powerful and clever group of scholars are supposed to have streamlined and edited the texts of the Bible, then how is it that we are told that the Bible is full of contradictions so glaring that a child would recognize them?

Were these ecclesiastical editors idiots? Could they not see that the product of their labors was supposedly shot through with inconsistencies?

So, skeptic friends, tell me you believe the original Bible was edited to conform to the dogmas of a sect.

Or tell me you believe that it is contradictory.

But don't tell me you can possibly believe both at the same time.

0 Replies

Quote:

So, skeptic friends, tell me you believe the original Bible was edited to conform to the dogmas of a sect.

Or tell me you believe that it is contradictory.

But don't tell me you can possibly believe both at the same time.

You honestly can conceive of no middle ground?

Hint - Revision isn't mutually exclusive to perfection.

By the way, whos position is it that the entire bible was edited at one time to conform to a 'sect'? Sorta seems like a strawman in it's infancy..

0 Replies

MA,
How many times must I tell you that I have not claimed you have no right to consider your religious views when voting.

I also have the right to argue in opposition. If you choose to make your position on an issue known in a public forum you can expect to have it critiqued. Since you are the only one currently defending that view here, you are catching the flak.

I do not keep up on La. politics so whether or not you will get to directly vote on the issue is an unknown and of little import to me.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

My point is this, you keep making statements like:

Quote:

I am the one that gets to decide what I take seriously and the intrusion of religious dogma in any form into the governance of this nation is one that I do happen to take very seriously.

Though you may not like this personally, it is my legal right to consider my religious views when I vote. If you consider that intruding then I am sorry. You have the same right I do.

0 Replies

so... the evidence is clear... No one is willing to lay what they believe about the bible being contradictory on the line...

ya'll are a bunch of chickens!!!!

BAWK BAWK BAWK!

Kidding... only kidding... LOL I crack myself up...

Ok seriously now though, I'm taking a leave of absense to look at some of these things for myself. I don't know when I will be back. It's been a tough decision for me whether I am willing to just let this go or not. I'm not, but don't worry, I won't do it here so as to not shove the bible down anyone's throat. Take care you guys. I'll be thinking of you.

0 Replies

Yes, that is what I said, that I take it seriously. I did not say that voting should be restricted to non believers.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Then why are you so miffed about what my vote would be?

0 Replies

If I may, MA...
Your vote powers a machine that would impose what you believe onto everyone.
Therein lies the problem

0 Replies

Doktor S,

Well Mesquite's vote powers a machine also, no? If not, then I suggest y'all start building one.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

If I may, MA...
Your vote powers a machine that would impose what you believe onto everyone.
Therein lies the problem

And so does your vote.

If your side wins, they begin governing with their agenda, right?

Why do you act as if this were not the case?

Oh yeah I forgot , it's because you define yourself as god, so everything YOU are in favor of is OK. But not for everyone else, right?

Therein lies the problem. You are not god.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Doktor S,

Well Mesquite's vote powers a machine also, no? If not, then I suggest y'all start building one.

Well, no, not really. I'm not sure if you are following.
Your vote, along with the votes of everyone else under the sway of that theology, power a political machine fueled and driven by that theology.
Once that machine gains sway our rights become endangered by way of precedent every time one of their beliefs hits legislation. Even if shot down, it does damage.
There is a reason church and state must be kept separate.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Well, no, not really. I'm not sure if you are following.
Your vote, along with the votes of everyone else under the sway of that theology, power a political machine fueled and driven by that theology.
Once that machine gains sway our rights become endangered by way of precedent every time one of their beliefs hits legislation. Even if shot down, it does damage.
There is a reason church and state must be kept separate.

Then you had better not vote for anything that is favored by your church , right?

Just to be consistent, please vote against everything that your church would be in favor of. Can you do that? Good. You'll be happy and so will I.

Win-win.

0 Replies

Haha, that was good.

0 Replies

Eeek. I'm still on page 7 and can't get back for almost another day. It's 11.50 PM Pacific right now.

I'll try to catch up. I promise.

Till then, have fun.

0 Replies

"real life's" rant about "anti-christians" (a term not authorized by the demeanor of anyone here) is silly on the face of it. He posits a straw man about the editing and correction of the gospels by Origen and Eusebius. That is a term used by sources, many of which i have linked in these fora, which are themselves religous organizations. Then he jumps on Soz's questions about Genesis. Apples to oranges. The four gospel canon was edited by Origen and Eusebius (and incidentally, Origen is now known to have been using a flawed copy of the septuagint when looking for references to the law and prophecy), not any books of the old testament.

As usual, "real life" doesn't even deserve a "nice try" for his effort.

0 Replies

Actually, Real Life was clearing up my exact point. I understand what Dok was saying about the machine. I understand he means that to be the Fundamental Christian Machine (?). Is that right, Dok?

So, if others vote against the Fundamental Christian Machine then they are voting for whatever Machine they agree with. It's a very black and white issue. I do not understand why there seems to be so much discourse over the simple fact that we all have the exact same right.

Whatever law you want you get as many as you can to vote for it, no matter what that vote would be. So, it's an equal right.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

The OT agrees with the NT and letters of Paul agree with the Gospels.

...

There are not many on this board who have put more effort into bible study than I have; and I would certainly match myself against any preacher in christendom when it comes to basic bible understanding.

I would not argue that you understand the Bible as well as most preachers. The problem is that people are incredibly good at blocking out things that do not fit in with their preconceived notions and twisting the meanings of words and passages into whatever they want it to say.

Quote:

I feel that, when talking about the bible, it is well to let the bible speak for itself. You have posted many objections. Allow me to take what appears to be your principle one - that of the 'rejection' of the laws given to Moses. Have you read this?

"Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith. 23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor." (Galatians 3:19-25) Do you see how the Mosaic Law is referred to in this case?

It explains Jesus' contention in Matthew 5: 17,18. "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place"

And that is a prime example. Jesus quite clearly said he was not here to change the Law. Many of the disciples agreed that converts must be circumcised and follow Mosaic Law, but the Gentiles Paul talked to had understandable objections. So Paul came up with a new theology that said faith in Jesus superceded the Law.

Why would anyone believe Paul over Jesus? Because Jesus was not there to defend his words, and since he had never written anything down, anyone could - and many did - make any claims they wanted about what he said, did, and died for.

God killed people for the slightest violation of the Sabbath, but Jesus said that the Sabbath was created for man, not vice versa. That is a pretty significant change from the old to new testament.

God considered pigs such an abomination that the Israelites were forbidden even to touch the carcass, but then decides that he does not care if they eat bacon, shellfish, rabbits, horses, or other animals that they were previously told were detestable. (IMO, eating ham on Easter and shrimp on Christmas Eve is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.)

God wrote:

Leviticus 11:24-25 You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

God micromanaged the lives of his Chosen People with 600+ Laws that were absolutely enforced (often by stoning violators to death) - but then decides that all those laws could be ignored as long as there was Love in their hearts.

God's rules changed completely in the NT, and in a way that was completely out of character and unexpected by his Chosen People, who did just as they were told and rejected Jesus as a false prophet. Can a God who broke his covenant with the Jews be trusted to keep his promises to Christians?

0 Replies

Is the bible reliable?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know