Holy Book Battle

[Arainach]

Yes I know about the times, but I was just noting that people should follow the Bible but realize that it's as well written back in the day. They had limits on what they can and can not do... And I don't see how it is a problem that making something more of one fabrics.

The only reason I am stating this much is cause of Ary's comment. Then again, I guess I'm bad cause I follow bits and pieces of it cause I feel some of the laws only apply to their times cause of their limit abilities to create things.

And the only reason I follow the one main rule. Act like a Christian and as well believe in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and let God sort of the rest. Is the sheer fact the Bible is so old, how do you not know that by the translations and other bits and pieces were omitted or even added.(Split from the other thread since it's not supposed to have debate).

That's the problem, KM. You think the cloth thing is absurd. The pope thinks the not eating pork part is absurd. I think the condemnation of homosexuality is absurd. Who do we call right? Suddenly, it's 100% human interpretation and 0% divine inspiration (if it even was in the first place, but that's not this thread). I hate fundamentalists as much as anyone, but if you pick and choose random parts of the bible to follow, ignore the rest, and claim to be doing God's work you're just a hypocrite.

[Seegtease]

So you're saying you think its better to believe all or none than to believe partial? This is not a challenge, but just trying to understand.

[Arainach]

What I'm saying is that if you're going to claim that the Bible is God's word, then to pick any option besides following all of it seems absurd.

[Seegtease]

I agree. That concept is actually biblical. Rev 3:15

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot." (KJV)

[Bloodcinder]

Eek, KJV. That one's definitely got a lot of undeniable translation problems.

And do I think any of those problems corrupt the intent of the passages? No. Arguments such as KM's that mistranslations could so drastically alter the meaning of the Bible are kind of silly. I know what Mydra is saying in chat even if the translation is imperfect.

Ary, the problem for people who want to believe in the Bible but don't want to believe in all of it is kind of an artificial one. I'm all for the right of people to line-item veto individual compilations in the Bible. (I say "compilations" because the books aren't homogeneous in authors within themselves.) If people don't want to care about the Torah, fine. Don't. If people do want to care about the passages that give us Jesus' teachings, good.

Towards the end of my (recognized) Christianity I started trying to look at it as a big picture. I'm not going to get into the Councils which recognized which writings are Scripture, but I think it's up to the individual, not possibly enlightened others, to seek whatever it is that God wants us to know. If a person thinks that's the whole Bible, part of the Bible, or none of the Bible, fine. Let them think what they will.

Rabble rabble rabble.

[Gio Takahashi]

i don't think and believe that we HAVE to follow the Bible up to the word. The Bible was written based on the time period when it was written, so laws were written by then.

Now the way I see it, it's mostly "the History" of biblical times, and what we can learn from it.

[Seegtease]

i don't think and believe that we HAVE to follow the Bible up to the word. The Bible was written based on the time period when it was written, so laws were written by then.

Yes and no. If you believe the Bible is God-breathed, you say a great lie to assume that God did not know how the future would be when writing the Bible.

However, He did not need to consider the distant future (AD) when guiding the authors to write much of the Old Testament, because we would have a new covenant and many of the covenental laws would become obsolete, since we wouldn't be under that promise anymore.

So yes, there are OT laws that New Covenant believers don't need to follow because they were tied to Abrahamic Covenent promises, but it's not because of the change in times, as if God didn't know we'd be changing.

But we should still hold to what is said in the New Testament, because we're still held to all of that, even 2000 years later. Saying otherwise is saying God could not see the future, which as a believer would be considered blasphemous.

Maybe you don't care, personally, but this is just meant to be informative. I also need more synonyms for covenant that are accurate.

[Gio Takahashi]

Yes and no. If you believe the Bible is God-breathed, you say a great lie to assume that God did not know how the future would be when writing the Bible.

While I do believe that the Bible would be "God-Breathed" as you said, and there's no doubt (of course) that God could look to the future.

However, He did not need to consider the distant future (AD) when guiding the authors to write much of the Old Testament, because we would have a new covenant and many of the covenental laws would become obsolete, since we wouldn't be under that promise anymore.

I don't believe so either. While the Bible is very likely to be God-inspired, keep in mind of the people who wrote it, especially in the society, especially in the Deuteronomy. Those were the basic "Laws" for the society at the time. Some people still believe most of it, others as not.


So yes, there are OT laws that New Covenant believers don't need to follow because they were tied to Abrahamic Covenent promises, but it's not because of the change in times, as if God didn't know we'd be changing.

That's pretty much what I was referring to.

But we should still hold to what is said in the New Testament, because we're still held to all of that, even 2000 years later. Saying otherwise is saying God could not see the future, which as a believer would be considered blasphemous.

I agree 100% with this.

Maybe you don't care, personally, but this is just meant to be informative. I also need more synonyms for covenant that are accurate.

I do care ;)

I was referring to several points in the Old Testament. I'm pretty sure that the Catholic generally says that you do not need to take the Bible literally. Chef Tengu will know more about that.

[Seegtease]

Well I think the stuff about mixing fabric was very much meant to be taken literally, but it's old covenant stuff.

chef and I don't agree on some things. I personally, and very strongly, believe in a literal Genesis. But that's a whole discussion on its own.

[Killer_Man_]

As I stated before, I believe in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and I'll let him sort things out later. I am God fearing and more so worry about my life as a Christian than I do about others. I'll let him sort out what is right and what is wrong.

(I'm still buzzed btw, sorry if my posts are incorheant.[Sp?])

[Gio Takahashi]

When are they not?

sorry, I couldn't resist

[Bloodcinder]

By the way, when I read the thread title this morning, all I could think was...

MOR TAL KOM BAAAT!

[SomaticCorpse]

My conflictive stand-point on this, is that it was written by man, edited by man, and solely regulated by 'holier than thou' men, for hundreds of years.

I'm assuming that we're referring to the Bible, in general, and not the specific King James version... ...but what about The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible_and_the_Forgotten_Book s_of_Eden)? If you are to assume that the Bible is of "God's Breath", then why not read the entire thing!?

The other issue that bugs me, is the whole spear thing... In the four, great books of the bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), only John references the Holy Lance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_of_Longinus). Why?

Yes, I understand the intent and reasoning for his death... ...but isn't how he died, just as important as why? For, what can a martyr be, without a proper description of his death?

Also: Psalm 137 where we learn about smashing the skulls of infants.

I don't think the book is infallible... ...but it's a good read :)

[Arainach]

Isn't it usually more important what a martyr did while alive than while dying?

[SomaticCorpse]

Yes, but to be taken as infallible truth, shouldn't all corresponding stories verse the same truth? This is the fundamental argument I have against the Bible being "God Breathed"; for a divine being would not, so callously, leave an important facet out...

While it is important for what he died for and why, shouldn't it also be important that the Crucifixion didn't kill him, directly? After all, if a spear killed him, then he died at the direct hands of another, and not through the voicings of those who condemned him. (This is in premise, and semantics, of course.)

For example, if you had four children telling you almost the same story, with only one having an added detail, would you assume that that one child was lying or that the other three were forgetful?

[Bloodcinder]

Soma, Jesus was supposed not to have been killed but rather to have given up his spirit by choice. That is, he was physically incapable of being murdered. Rather, he evacuated his own body.

[Seegtease]

As I stated before, I believe in Jesus Christ as my Saviour and I'll let him sort things out later. I am God fearing and more so worry about my life as a Christian than I do about others. I'll let him sort out what is right and what is wrong.

Actually, God requires us to care more about others than about ourselves. That's exactly what Christ did, and if you want to follow Christ, this is one of the most important points to follow. Live self-sacrificially and try to help others more than yourself.

Also:

Soma, Jesus was supposed not to have been killed but rather to have given up his spirit by choice. That is, he was physically incapable of being murdered. Rather, he evacuated his own body.

QFT. You beat me to it.

[Killer_Man_]

Yes, but I do live in self-sacrifice. I show that I am a follower by my actions. That and I am talking about people going out preeching and telling people oh your a sinner cause you are gay! and all that other jazz.

[Bloodcinder]

That and I am talking about people going out preeching and telling people oh your a sinner cause you are gay!
If they do that, it's because they're trying to save souls, which is what Jesus tried to do. In their mind, they are also following the actions of Jesus.

[Seegtease]

Evangelizing to a gay person through the fact that they are gay is horrible technique, whether one considers it a sin or not. If you want to bring somebody to conviction of sin, you need to find common ground, such as convicting them over lying, stealing, or lusting, something both you and the person you're evangelizing to have likely committed. That way, you don't make it sound like they're a worse sinner than you were (they aren't) and they can take what you're saying as being compassionate instead of aggressive and judgmental.

[Bloodcinder]

Evangelizing to a gay person through the fact that they are gay is horrible technique, whether one considers it a sin or not. If you want to bring somebody to conviction of sin, you need to find common ground, such as convicting them over lying, stealing, or lusting, something both you and the person you're evangelizing to have likely committed. That way, you don't make it sound like they're a worse sinner than you were (they aren't) and they can take what you're saying as being compassionate instead of aggressive and judgmental.
FTW

Nevertheless, I'm just defending as not inherently stupid or bad a type of Christian that KM referenced.

[Killer_Man_]

I never ment to refer to them as stupid or bad, it's just not my type or personilty to do what they are doing.

The only time it annoys me is the hardcore ones who seem to aim to make people feel bad, like their worthless and etc.

[Bloodcinder]

I never ment to refer to them as stupid or bad, it's just not my type or personilty to do what they are doing.
I know. I didn't say you did.

[Killer_Man_]

My bad then.