[Andyman_1970]

aaahhhhh....the bible?

Also refferred to as the word of God....

Where does it say we are to place our faith in the Word of God (a book) also..............thanks.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Pointless question, or more accurately a loaded question per se since any answer tendered leads to circular logic, or illogical as it would appear.

So it doesn't say it's the Word of God?

 

[BurlyShirley]

So it doesn't say it's the Word of God?

I dont get your point here. Even if it did say it was the entire word of god, you say you dont believe all of it, so what does it matter what the book says if you have no faith in it?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Andyman,
Are you saying that you don't have to place faith in the Bible because it is something that you can physically experience, thus negating the "need" for faith? Or are you arguing against needing faith in the teachings of the Bible?

 

[Backpack1]

Ah "The Greatest Story Ever Told", the Bible, is made by man is it not?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I dont get your point here. Even if it did say it was the entire word of god, you say you dont believe all of it, so what does it matter what the book says if you have no faith in it?

Where did I say I don't believe all of it?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman,
Are you saying that you don't have to place faith in the Bible because it is something that you can physically experience, thus negating the "need" for faith? Or are you arguing against needing faith in the teachings of the Bible?

First, no where (that I’ve found) are follower of Jesus to have faith in anything other than Jesus. I would affirm your first comment, although as some would argue about the historical validity of the writing of the New Testament, for instance, a measure of faith is exercised in that respect. However as a follower of Jesus that faith is in Jesus.

What happens is that some Christians (Protestants, because of our Sola Scriptura stance about the Bible) end up making the Bible into something the authors, IMO, never intended it to be, making a narrative authoritative. This is taken to an extreme for instance with the idea the King James Onlyists have.

There is a great transcript of an NT Wright lecture on “how can the Bible can be authoritative”.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

This does a much better job articulating where I’m coming from than I do……..LOL

 

[Old Man G Funk]

First, no where (that I’ve found) are follower of Jesus to have faith in anything other than Jesus. I would affirm your first comment, although as some would argue about the historical validity of the writing of the New Testament, for instance, a measure of faith is exercised in that respect. However as a follower of Jesus that faith is in Jesus.

What happens is that some Christians (Protestants, because of our Sola Scriptura stance about the Bible) end up making the Bible into something the authors, IMO, never intended it to be, making a narrative authoritative. This is taken to an extreme for instance with the idea the King James Onlyists have.

There is a great transcript of an NT Wright lecture on “how can the Bible can be authoritative”.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

This does a much better job articulating where I’m coming from than I do……..LOL

But, Andy, you do have to admit that this creates somewhat of a problem. The only references to Jesus are contained in the Bible. So, you are placing faith in an entity that is only mentioned in a book that you do not place your faith in. All the teachings of Jesus that you ascribe to would have to be faithfully recorded in that Bible, else you have put your faith in something that derives from a dubious source. Would it not be fair to say that you have to have some measure of faith in the faithful recording of Jesus and his life and teachings in the scriptures?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I mentioned that in my first paragraph:

a measure of faith is exercised in that respect

All of us place our faith, if even by a little bit, in things every day. For instance, we have faith (of sorts) that the other drivers on the road won’t run into us, we have faith that they are doing what they should be doing.

Biblically however there is no mention of one needing faith in the Bible in it’s totality as a requirement to be a part of God’s covenant people.

This kind of meshes with how can a narrative be authoritative (the basic question posed in the NT Wright article). How can these inspired stories, letters and poems of people encounter with God be authoritative. Some people will say “we are just a New Testament church”, that’s nice, and a good thing, but the problem becomes, that makes the New Testament authoritative. Not touching the idea of how does one make letters written 2000 years ago to a specific people group in a specific time authoritative, the Bible is clear that God is the sole authority, not a book. Then comes the “chicken or egg” argument, without the Bible how can one know about God, without God how can one have the Bible.

It’s quite a messy concept for sure……………

 

[Silver]

All of us place our faith, if even by a little bit, in things every day. For instance, we have faith (of sorts) that the other drivers on the road won’t run into us, we have faith that they are doing what they should be doing.

That's not faith. That's knowledge of probability. Faith is closing your eyes on the highway and hoping that God will get you to your destination safely.

 

[Andyman_1970]

That's not faith. That's knowledge of probability. Faith is closing your eyes on the highway and hoping that God will get you to your destination safely.

Faith per Merriam/Webster:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

So I guess Silver you can 100% prove what every person on the road around you is doing and intending to do? I would argue you have faith (see #3) that there is no God, would you not?

 

[fluff]

That's not faith. That's knowledge of probability. Faith is closing your eyes on the highway and hoping that God will get you to your destination safely.

That would be blind faith, no? A particularly virulent form of faith seen in great evidence in election years.

 

[Silver]

So I guess Silver you can 100% prove what every person on the road around you is doing and intending to do? I would argue you have faith (see #3) that there is no God, would you not?

No, I fully know that a bunch of them are talking on phones, drunk or high, or are just bad drivers. I also know that my chances of dying in a wreck are sufficiently low that they aren't high enough for me to cancel my trip. So when I get into a car I'm making a risk assessment...the same thing every other mammal with gray matter does when they venture out for food. There's no faith involved.

I don't have faith that there is no God. I don't see any credible evidence for God, that's all. It's the same thing, a probability judgement. Having said that, in most discussions it's a lot easier to say I'm an atheist so that the clergy man doesn't jump out of the bushes and say, "Aha! You do have faith in God. You just don't know it!"

 

[Andyman_1970]

But you have

something that is believed especially with strong conviction

with respect to, for example but not limited to, your understanding of God. You have faith that your understanding of God is correct per Webster.

 

[Silver]

But you have with respect to, for example but not limited to, your understanding of God. You have faith that your understanding of God is correct per Webster.

Fine, call it small-f faith then. That only works if you snip out the second half of that one definition though...

I have a pretty strong conviction that I'm wearing sandals right now as well. If that's all faith is, then it's not really anything special.

 

[Changleen]

Webster is a stupid American dictionary anyway. You want a proper one like Oxford.

 

[fubar5]

Andy, how do you know you believe in God? What ever even made you aware of God?

 

[erikkellison]

Does anyone else find it odd that the biking community tends to be non-Christian? I find this annoying because young riders idolize some seriously lame people only because they can ride a bike, and along with that package seems to come the rock star lifestyle of many of the pros that is simply pathetic. Better role models need to be encouraged.
I just wish that there wasn't such animosity in this community towards Xtianity. I think a lot of you need to think about why you reject it, and what ulterior motives you might have in doing so.
And Old Man G Funk: you're misunderstanding something about Xtianity here. You seem to think that placing your belief in a being written about solely in a book implies that the faith in that being is based solely on that book. You're leaving out the fact that Xtians have a personal relationship with God that, while they learned about the possibility through Xtians the Bible and Tradition, it is not inextricably tied up with the veracity of say, the King James Version. That being said, Xtians do necessarily need to believe that the Bible is inherently true, or everything falls apart. As Burly Shirley put it: All or None. The people that pick and choose need to come up with their own name for the religion that they're creating - while it may have things in common with Xtianity, like Mormons, it is certainly not Xtianity. The popular Xtianity these days (it seems) is that NT Xtianity that Andy spoke of where the difficult stuff is never even touched on for fear of creating dissention between the congregationalists. Instead, they just sing songs and drink latte's over conversations about curtains. "Doctrine is scary, and over our heads," they say. If they only took the time to think that if you don't have your faith grounded in something, then it's kinda like that whole 'shifting sand' thing. Believing in something that means nothing is pretty similar to believing in nothing at all.

 

[SK6]

First, no where (that I’ve found) are follower of Jesus to have faith in anything other than Jesus. I would affirm your first comment, although as some would argue about the historical validity of the writing of the New Testament, for instance, a measure of faith is exercised in that respect. However as a follower of Jesus that faith is in Jesus.

What happens is that some Christians (Protestants, because of our Sola Scriptura stance about the Bible) end up making the Bible into something the authors, IMO, never intended it to be, making a narrative authoritative. This is taken to an extreme for instance with the idea the King James Onlyists have.

There is a great transcript of an NT Wright lecture on “how can the Bible can be authoritative”.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

This does a much better job articulating where I’m coming from than I do……..LOL

Dude, you should refrain from professing Jesus Christ, because you otherwise have NO proof, but your own convictions, and that my dear friend, is simply, not enough.

It is up to Jesus Christ (God) to secure a mans salvation. The bible is the doctrine of the teachings of Christ, and you have no faith in it.

That would make you a self proclaimed prophet. Since you put no faith in the bible, you then have NO idea what Christ taught, let alone proof he existed, or at a minimum, crucified.

Next you want to criticize my cursing, step back, take a deep breath, and look in the mirror. Dude, because of the scatterbrained response in this thread, you have essentially all but destroyed your biblical and Christian credibility.

I suppose next you are going to argue that Harry Potter is the second coming of Christ.....

 

[Andyman_1970]

Dude, you should refrain from professing Jesus Christ, because you otherwise have NO proof, but your own convictions, and that my dear friend, is simply, not enough.

Who said that’s no enough?

Where did you and I get off on such a bad foot on these topics?

It is up to Jesus Christ (God) to secure a mans salvation. The bible is the doctrine of the teachings of Christ, and you have no faith in it.

I have (as Silver put it “little f” faith) in the accuracy (understanding the historical “gaps” we have regarding the early manuscripts) of the Scriptures and that what they document about their encounter with God is in fact true. I have Faith in Jesus and Him alone. Please again share with me where followers of Jesus are to have Faith in the Bible as we have it today?

You have yet to provide me any “proof Text” of this requirement you think Christians should have. If this is you opinion, or a tradition you have that’s great, but understand it’s just that your opinion and/or tradition.

If you want to assert that a follower of Jesus should put their Faith in a book, please cite to me either from the Scriptures or some other source where the early church practiced such Faith?

I’m sincerely curious about this, so please know I’m not asking this with a tone of aggression or anything like that………if you’ve got some Texts that support your idea I’d be very interested to consider them.

Also, where does Jesus teach that His followers will be known by the “doctrine” they hold, since you mention that term?

That would make you a self proclaimed prophet.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Since you put no faith in the bible, you then have NO idea what Christ taught, let alone proof he existed, or at a minimum, crucified.

May I ask how Peter, John, James and the rest of the early Christians were in fact Christians? They didn’t have the Bible as we know it today, it wasn’t canonized until the 4th century. Using your idea that a follower of Jesus must have Faith in the Bible to be a Christian, how were Christians actually Christians before the 4th century?

But seriously, how do you reconcile you idea that a Christian must have Faith in the Bible, and passages like Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (also Mark 12:29-30)?

Next you want to criticize my cursing, step back, take a deep breath, and look in the mirror.

Where have I criticized anything you’ve said on this thread?

Dude, because of the scatterbrained response in this thread, you have essentially all but destroyed your biblical and Christian credibility.

How have I done that?

I suppose next you are going to argue that Harry Potter is the second coming of Christ.....

Seriously, if there’s something I’ve done to piss you off in the past please PM me about it or something…………..I can’t understand why we’ve always seemed to have this junk between us on these threads.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andy, how do you know you believe in God?

How do you know you're breathing?

What ever even made you aware of God?

Beautiful sunrises and sweet singletrack.............LOL.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Does anyone else find it odd that the biking community tends to be non-Christian? I find this annoying because young riders idolize some seriously lame people only because they can ride a bike, and along with that package seems to come the rock star lifestyle of many of the pros that is simply pathetic. Better role models need to be encouraged.

What makes them "seriously lame"? Is it because they aren't Xtian that they are "seriously lame"? I find your comment to be bigoted and "seriously lame".

I just wish that there wasn't such animosity in this community towards Xtianity. I think a lot of you need to think about why you reject it, and what ulterior motives you might have in doing so.

Ulterior motives? Like what? Do you think I secretly believe in god but hate her for some reason, so I outwardly say that I don't believe? When Xtians come up with some credible evidence for their god, I'll believe. And, when they can come up with a reason for me to worship the god that is depicted in the Bible (and no, power is not enough) then maybe I'll worship that god and not just believe in her existence.

And Old Man G Funk: you're misunderstanding something about Xtianity here. You seem to think that placing your belief in a being written about solely in a book implies that the faith in that being is based solely on that book.

Where did I say that?

You're leaving out the fact that Xtians have a personal relationship with God that, while they learned about the possibility through Xtians the Bible and Tradition, it is not inextricably tied up with the veracity of say, the King James Version.

Not with a specific version of the Bible, but you would have no idea what it is that you are worshipping without the Bible. Also, you'll note that I already mentioned in an earlier comment about how some Xtians would claim they have a personal relationship with god that does not come through the Bible, so I'm already aware of this.

(Note to Burly: See what I mean?)

That being said, Xtians do necessarily need to believe that the Bible is inherently true, or everything falls apart. As Burly Shirley put it: All or None.

Consistency is not your strong point I can see, but it's not really a strong point of religion in general, so don't feel too bad.

The people that pick and choose need to come up with their own name for the religion that they're creating - while it may have things in common with Xtianity, like Mormons, it is certainly not Xtianity. The popular Xtianity these days (it seems) is that NT Xtianity that Andy spoke of where the difficult stuff is never even touched on for fear of creating dissention between the congregationalists. Instead, they just sing songs and drink latte's over conversations about curtains. "Doctrine is scary, and over our heads," they say. If they only took the time to think that if you don't have your faith grounded in something, then it's kinda like that whole 'shifting sand' thing. Believing in something that means nothing is pretty similar to believing in nothing at all.

No True Scotsman?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So I guess Silver you can 100% prove what every person on the road around you is doing and intending to do? I would argue you have faith (see #3) that there is no God, would you not?

You are not using "faith" correctly in this instance. Silver is correct.

Also, lack of faith in god does not necessarily entail another faith in kind.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I mentioned that in my first paragraph:

Biblically however there is no mention of one needing faith in the Bible in it’s totality as a requirement to be a part of God’s covenant people.

This kind of meshes with how can a narrative be authoritative (the basic question posed in the NT Wright article). How can these inspired stories, letters and poems of people encounter with God be authoritative. Some people will say “we are just a New Testament church”, that’s nice, and a good thing, but the problem becomes, that makes the New Testament authoritative. Not touching the idea of how does one make letters written 2000 years ago to a specific people group in a specific time authoritative, the Bible is clear that God is the sole authority, not a book. Then comes the “chicken or egg” argument, without the Bible how can one know about God, without God how can one have the Bible.

It’s quite a messy concept for sure……………

A couple points here.

Xtianity generally holds that morality is absolute, so something written to a congregation 2000 years ago should certainly hold if it pertains to morality. I would think, also, that god's authority is absolute as well, so the same should hold. You once again bring up the twist of the movement of time and changing society/philosophy/etc. but the basic precepts of what were written should still hold, otherwise you can't chide today's Xtians for not following the original intent. It seems a bit hypocritical, no?

If you meant "faith in the Bible" when you mentioned your "measure of faith" then you should say that you DO have faith in the Bible. Your faith may not be as pronounced as some other people's, but you do have some faith in the Bible. How do you divine which part to have faith in and which to not have faith in? Certainly, all of it is provided as the words/teachings of god (either through god or through his vessel Jesus). So, either you would have to believe in all of it, or you would have to believe that something has been corrupted in the process.

 

[erikkellison]

And Old Man G Funk: you're misunderstanding something about Xtianity here. You seem to think that placing your belief in a being written about solely in a book implies that the faith in that being is based solely on that book.

Where did I say that?

You said it right here.

But, Andy, you do have to admit that this creates somewhat of a problem. The only references to Jesus are contained in the Bible. So, you are placing faith in an entity that is only mentioned in a book that you do not place your faith in. All the teachings of Jesus that you ascribe to would have to be faithfully recorded in that Bible, else you have put your faith in something that derives from a dubious source. Would it not be fair to say that you have to have some measure of faith in the faithful recording of Jesus and his life and teachings in the scriptures?

If I really need to give you some examples of what ulterior motives you have, then you really need to do some serious self-examination. Besides, how am I supposed to know what's in your heart and soul? People who tend to not believe in God seem to have a vested interest in doing so.

I feel bad having to clarify what I already thought was clear, but I guess you may not have read the same books as me.
God gave us the Bible so that more would come to know Him, but that's not to say that once we develop a personal relationship with Him we are limited to knowing more about Him solely through his written word. And to clarify, it'd be pretty coincidental for someone's self-enlightened "relationship" with Christ to be on par with what the Bible has to say about Him. The Bible is kind of like a guidebook in that sense. It helps us on our way, but we're not limited to it in learning, we just need to remember that what it says is true, but there's often more to the story.

And my statements are all consistent. If you can't see that, then I suggest that you read and re-read until you do understand this truth instead of spewing out useless dissention that aids no one. Propounding falsities as the truth helps no one, and hurts those who don't take the time to verify it themselves. Here's a hint: do some research on how the KJV was written.

And for the record, the only people using "her" to describe God are the people who aren't comfortable (read bothered) by the fact that since the dawn of time, the Christian God has always been given the male gender or none at all. Some people try to squabble over this, but it's really those with the ulterior motive of making God a "her" (because they are feminist to too large of a degree) that insist that he can't be a Him.

PS
Did you wake up in the middle of the night just to write that stuff, or are you on the East Coast?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You said it right here.

And you didn't get it.

To say that one derives all of their knowledge of the Xtian god from god while categorically denying the Bible would be a problem, because that knowledge of the Xtian god comes from the Bible. That does not logically entail what you wrote about my understanding of the situation, however.

If I really need to give you some examples of what ulterior motives you have, then you really need to do some serious self-examination. Besides, how am I supposed to know what's in your heart and soul? People who tend to not believe in God seem to have a vested interest in doing so.

So, you are willing to talk about my supposed ulterior motives, but you can't list them, nor can you say for sure that I have them.

I feel bad having to clarify what I already thought was clear, but I guess you may not have read the same books as me.

Now, after using logical fallacy you resort to insult?

God gave us the Bible so that more would come to know Him, but that's not to say that once we develop a personal relationship with Him we are limited to knowing more about Him solely through his written word. And to clarify, it'd be pretty coincidental for someone's self-enlightened "relationship" with Christ to be on par with what the Bible has to say about Him. The Bible is kind of like a guidebook in that sense. It helps us on our way, but we're not limited to it in learning, we just need to remember that what it says is true, but there's often more to the story.

And, you might have a point if I had argued against that, but I didn't. So sorry for you. Of course, you still have to admit that you have some measure of faith in the Bible, and if you don't believe in all of it you still have to come up with some way to figure out which parts are worthy of your faith and which aren't.

And my statements are all consistent. If you can't see that, then I suggest that you read and re-read until you do understand this truth instead of spewing out useless dissention that aids no one.

Of course you say that right after saying the Bible is merely a guidebook. Well, which is it? A guidebook or the infallible word of god? Perhaps you think it can be both? I'm not sure how.

Propounding falsities as the truth helps no one, and hurts those who don't take the time to verify it themselves. Here's a hint: do some research on how the KJV was written.

Here's a hint for you: don't presume to know my level of knowledge on a topic. What falsities have I "propounded"? I want details.

And for the record, the only people using "her" to describe God are the people who aren't comfortable (read bothered) by the fact that since the dawn of time, the Christian God has always been given the male gender or none at all.

Actually, I have no trouble with the history of male patriarchism. Using the pronoun "she" really only identifies me with feministist, which I consider myself one. Really, with no real way to come up with a concept of gender for the godhead, you should refer to god as "it".

Some people try to squabble over this, but it's really those with the ulterior motive of making God a "her" (because they are feminist to too large of a degree) that insist that he can't be a Him.

I'm not insisting on anything, I'm merely writing my preference. I don't insist that you use "her" nor am I squabbling over it. You seem to be the one that has the problem in this instance.

PS
Did you wake up in the middle of the night just to write that stuff, or are you on the East Coast?

East Coast. If I wake up in the middle of the night and just can't get back to sleep, there are much better uses of my time. (Like having fun with my gf.)

 

[fluff]

East Coast. If I wake up in the middle of the night and just can't get back to sleep, there are much better uses of my time. (Like having fun with my gf.)

(Just don't let MudGrrl find out...)

 

[Andyman_1970]

You are not using "faith" correctly in this instance. Silver is correct.

So how do you 100% prove what those other drivers are going to do?

Also, lack of faith in god does not necessarily entail another faith in kind.

I would argue it denotes faith that one's own understanding is correct vs. alternate understandings.

 

[Andyman_1970]

A couple points here.
Xtianity generally holds that morality is absolute, so something written to a congregation 2000 years ago should certainly hold if it pertains to morality.

Did you read that lecture from NT Wright I posted?

I would think, also, that god's authority is absolute as well, so the same should hold.

How do you make the “jump” from God’s authority being absolute to a letter being written 2000 years ago to a specific congregation being “absolute”? IMO, to take a letter written by a specific person to a specific group of people living in a specific culture in a specific time period and using blanket statements like “absolute” without first taking into account said culture and period of time in history is from my point of view misusing the Text. Granted the point of view you articulate is popular among Bible literalists and fundamentalist, but I’m neither of those.

You once again bring up the twist of the movement of time and changing society/philosophy/etc. but the basic precepts of what were written should still hold, otherwise you can't chide today's Xtians for not following the original intent. It seems a bit hypocritical, no?

I believe I stated on the first page of this thread that communally, it could be argued, Jesus gave His followers authority to “bind and loose” aspects of the Bible. That said, there are things and interpretations I disagree with regarding other Christians, as they disagree with me. If I didn’t believe my interpretation then I’d change it wouldn’t I…….LOL.

So I guess that makes me a hypocrite…………me, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson…..LOL.

If you meant "faith in the Bible" when you mentioned your "measure of faith" then you should say that you DO have faith in the Bible. Your faith may not be as pronounced as some other people's, but you do have some faith in the Bible.

I have faith that the original authors accurately recorded what they did in the manuscripts they wrote. That faith however does not get me into God’s covenant people, or make me a Christian, that Faith (with a nod to Silvers differentiation between the two “f”s)

How do you divine which part to have faith in and which to not have faith in?

I have “faith”, that is I believe all of it to be true, I don’t think I indicated there were parts of it I didn’t believe.

Certainly, all of it is provided as the words/teachings of god (either through god or through his vessel Jesus). So, either you would have to believe in all of it, or you would have to believe that something has been corrupted in the process.

Again, this concept of “all or nothing” with regards to the Bible…..where in the Bible is it said that one must have an “all or nothing” attitude about it to be a Christian? While there are a lot of (most in fact) Christian denominations that articulate this attitude in one way or another, this is not a concept I’ve been able to find in the Bible.

I’ve met scholars that believed the Bible, believed that the miracles documented happened and so fourth, but are in no way a Christian. I’ve met passionate followers of Jesus who don’t believe certain parts of the Bible, several Jewish friends of mine, for instance who are followers of Jesus full on reject Paul’s letters. I’ve yet to find in the teachings of Jesus where adherence, in this instance, to say Paul’s letters is mandatory to be His follower. Granted that’s something that was accepted several hundred years after the fact and is part of church tradition.

I wonder this all or nothing idea stems from our Greek thinking, we tend to be “one handed” (as one rabbi I studied with put it), we are “either or” kind of people. Where the Hebrew/Eastern mind is very comfortable holding two seemingly contradictory truths or ideas to be simultaneously true at the same time.

 

[erikkellison]

I was just reminded of why I don't post in these threads. I spend a lot of time trying to help someone see the truth, of which they are incapable. So, instead of wasting my time with people who don't know how to actually LISTEN, I am goint to bid you adieu. I hope you go to school soon so you can learn to read critically and understand flawed arguments. For your own sake, please re-read what I wrote again. If you do it enough, I'm sure you'll see that it's all legitimate.
And you're right, I do feel a bit bad for resorting to insult. I always feel bad after mentally looking down upon retards. It's not their fault, and maybe if I try hard enough, I can reach them on their level of understanding. But today, I just don't have the time. I have a playhouse to work on and weeds to pull in the garden.

 

[BurlyShirley]

And you're right, I do feel a bit bad for resorting to insult. I always feel bad after mentally looking down upon retards.

Is this post an example of how followers of god and the bible are supposed to talk to people?

Jesus just sent St. Peter a text on his sidekick to cross you off the list.

 

[DRB]

I bet this made Baby Jesus cry.

 

[SK6]

Andyman_1970, you asked me what is bothering me. To be quite frank with you this entire dialog.

For your fictional reading, I recommend John 1:14; and you can take your pick of which version. Of course, you need to have faith. Essentially, what it boils down to is this, if you do not believe the scriptures, you cannot believe in Christ, as Christ taught us, and teaches us.

ASV: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

BBE: And so the Word became flesh and took a place among us for a time; and we saw his glory -- such glory as is given to an only son by his father -- saw it to be TRUE and full of grace.

DBY: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth;

KJV: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

WEY: And the Word came in the flesh, and lived for a time in our midst, so that we saw His glory -- the glory as of the Father's only Son, sent from His presence. He was full of grace and truth.

WBS: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

WEB: The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

YLT: And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

Your continued banter is what is disturbing to me regarding the scripture.

 

[Andyman_1970]

<edit>

I too think I'm going to bow out of this thread as it seems I appear to be upsetting the applecart...........which is certainly not my intent.

 

[N8 v2.0]

what's going on in here...???

My ADD kicked in back on about the 3rd post...

 

[Changleen]

I was just reminded of why I don't post in these threads. I spend a lot of time trying to help someone see the truth, of which they are incapable. So, instead of wasting my time with people who don't know how to actually LISTEN, I am goint to bid you adieu. I hope you go to school soon so you can learn to read critically and understand flawed arguments. For your own sake, please re-read what I wrote again. If you do it enough, I'm sure you'll see that it's all legitimate.
And you're right, I do feel a bit bad for resorting to insult. I always feel bad after mentally looking down upon retards. It's not their fault, and maybe if I try hard enough, I can reach them on their level of understanding. But today, I just don't have the time. I have a playhouse to work on and weeds to pull in the garden.

Piss off you fvckwit.

 

[Silver]

I always feel bad after mentally looking down upon retards. It's not their fault

Damn straight. God made them retards. It's his fault. He's sort of a prick, isn't he?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So how do you 100% prove what those other drivers are going to do?

You don't, but it's a false dichotomy to say that one either has 100% certainty or one has faith.

I would argue it denotes faith that one's own understanding is correct vs. alternate understandings.

No, also incorrect. Rejecting the assertion of god does not entail having faith in anything. In fact, it is the rejection of faith.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Did you read that lecture from NT Wright I posted?

I have to admit that I didn't, because I didn't have time for it. Is there something in there that I'm missing? I'll probably have time to read it tomorrow.

How do you make the “jump” from God’s authority being absolute to a letter being written 2000 years ago to a specific congregation being “absolute”? IMO, to take a letter written by a specific person to a specific group of people living in a specific culture in a specific time period and using blanket statements like “absolute” without first taking into account said culture and period of time in history is from my point of view misusing the Text. Granted the point of view you articulate is popular among Bible literalists and fundamentalist, but I’m neither of those.

Honestly, I didn't think it would be a jump at all. I figured it was a given that god's authority was absolute. I still have to wonder if you are a moral relativist. You have argued with me before about that, but now you seem to be backtracking, or am I misreading you?

I believe I stated on the first page of this thread that communally, it could be argued, Jesus gave His followers authority to “bind and loose” aspects of the Bible. That said, there are things and interpretations I disagree with regarding other Christians, as they disagree with me. If I didn’t believe my interpretation then I’d change it wouldn’t I…….LOL.

You've stated that before actually (I don't remember it on this thread, but I do remember it.) The problem I have with you saying that is that you chide Xtians of today for not following the Bible as it was written 2000 years ago, which would negate all the binding and loosing that has been done since.

So I guess that makes me a hypocrite…………me, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson…..LOL.

Not trying to sound harsh, but it does come across as not consistent.

I have faith that the original authors accurately recorded what they did in the manuscripts they wrote. That faith however does not get me into God’s covenant people, or make me a Christian, that Faith (with a nod to Silvers differentiation between the two “f”s)

This is moving the goal posts, or we've been arguing across each other the whole time. I was under the impression that you stated earlier in this thread that you don't have faith in all the Bible.

I have “faith”, that is I believe all of it to be true, I don’t think I indicated there were parts of it I didn’t believe.

Again, that was not my understanding.

Again, this concept of “all or nothing” with regards to the Bible…..where in the Bible is it said that one must have an “all or nothing” attitude about it to be a Christian? While there are a lot of (most in fact) Christian denominations that articulate this attitude in one way or another, this is not a concept I’ve been able to find in the Bible.

You completely misunderstand me. I'm asking you how you differentiate between that which is accepted and that which isn't.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I was just reminded of why I don't post in these threads. I spend a lot of time trying to help someone see the truth, of which they are incapable.

You did no such thing. You came in with guns blazing and made accusations against me.

So, instead of wasting my time with people who don't know how to actually LISTEN, I am goint to bid you adieu. I hope you go to school soon so you can learn to read critically and understand flawed arguments.

I understand flawed arguments. In fact, I pointed out your flawed arguments to you. I even have names for your logical fallacies, but I don't usually use them because I usually get blank stares from people like you.

For your own sake, please re-read what I wrote again. If you do it enough, I'm sure you'll see that it's all legitimate.

What is all legitimate? That you used logical fallacy, or that I have ulterior motives that prevent me from seeing the Truth?

And you're right, I do feel a bit bad for resorting to insult. I always feel bad after mentally looking down upon retards. It's not their fault, and maybe if I try hard enough, I can reach them on their level of understanding.

Thus demonstrating that you really don't feel bad.

But today, I just don't have the time. I have a playhouse to work on and weeds to pull in the garden.

Your time might be better spent praying for Jesus to forgive your lies.