Scripturally Based or Scripturally Sound

[LovebirdsFlying]

JoshButler, I must ask, no disrespect intended, but--why are you here?

Do you have the idea in your head that liberals automatically are not Christian, and you're trying to bash us into submission? I don't think that's going to work.

I for one don't take kindly to sarcasm. Speak the truth in *love.* Ephesians 4:15.

Understand this is not a Mod Hat. I'm not assigned to this forum. This is me posting as a regular member.

But please, cool it with the sarcasm. I'd appreciate it.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I think the word you're looking for is "Christian."

Since you're good with generalizations, I guess you'll be good with being generalized in with all the good Christians who owned slaves, burned alleged witches at the stake, killed indians, and all manner of other killings, genocide and suppression of cultures and people groups done in the name of Jesus over the centuries. They believed and got their examples right out of the same book you do.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Did you miss the part where He went up to the cross for the sins of the whole world, that we might be rectified to Him?

So you finally got around to telling me Jesus died for my sins. I thought that was the first thing Christians did when encountering sinners. I guess my initial post insulted your book so you were busy first defending the authority of Biblianity. Jesus taught his disciples just fine without ever writing anything down, so I don't know why you need a book just to spread the good news that He died for sins, unless it's to add a bunch of arbitrary rules. Look but don't touch. Touch but don't eat. Eat but don't enjoy. Enjoy but don't swallow.

I think the word you're looking for is "Christian."

Actually the word that comes to mind is "Biblian".

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

JoshButler, I must ask, no disrespect intended, but--why are you here?

Do you have the idea in your head that liberals automatically are not Christian, and you're trying to bash us into submission? I don't think that's going to work.

I for one don't take kindly to sarcasm. Speak the truth in *love.* Ephesians 4:15.

Understand this is not a Mod Hat. I'm not assigned to this forum. This is me posting as a regular member.

But please, cool it with the sarcasm. I'd appreciate it.

I second LBF's comments. Also not a Mod Hat, just me as a poster.

But Josh, I get the impression you're sincere and mean well. Welcome, and I look forward to many good conversations here with you. But please, listen to LBF.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Scripturally Based or Scripturally Sound

Ye shall not surely die....(where have we heard that before ?)
Applies at the second death!.... according to the promoters and defenders of the Doctrine of Eternal Torment....

It was only in recent times I have come to relise just how much of a Cult Christianity has become.

Programing members of the Cult to believe, that the first lie ever told....

Ye shall not surely die!..... occurs, at what the word of God describes as the second Death!

Then totaly ignoring this contradiction they teach, they will argue till they are blue in the face that it is Scripturally Based and Scripturally Sound.....

Wow! how is that for programing ? I think Christianity would have to be the worst offender by far when it comes to being a Cult that programs members on what to believe!...and what not too believe...

Peace

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Wow! how is that for programing ? I think Christianity would have to be the worst offender by far when it comes to being a Cult that programs members on what to believe!...and what not too believe...Peace

Well, it's a problem associated with this concept of "revealed religion" where you are expected to assent to absolute truth filtered through somebody else who supposedly gets a supernatural revelation. It's not like everybody gets their own burning bush. God doesn't show up on your doorstep with a choice between heaven and hell. There is no personal revelation tailored specially for each individual. Instead you have to pick up what's on God's mind through hearsay. You have to swallow somebody else's propositional truths as if they were your own. You are expeced to suspend your disbelief and self-validate the words of whoever shouts the most convincingly that they are God's visible representative on earth.

Is this chosen vessel of truth someone who can prove their credentials? I personally don't see any miracles being performed or parting of the red sea. There is no halo appearing above anyone's head on Christian television, in church pulpits or in cathedrals. No one possesses a set of glowing tablets dropped from heaven autographed by the finger of God Himself. No one gets caught up in a chariot to heaven and then comes back down to earth like an astronout with a special message from the mind of God.

What I do see are men who use threat and reward to coerse and bribe. I hear solmen pronouncements which ring hollow once you get over the goose bumps and emotionalism. I see a religion that breeds selfishness because its prime motivation is saving one's own miserable hide, with no real demonstrable mental anguish over those who end up in God's microwave. I see a religion with a conversion technique based on instinctive animal fear of punishment and a natural fear of the unknown in order to round up converts and keep them in line. It's a relgion that is so hypocrytical it rails against moral decay, then excuses unwed teen pregnancy just as long as it's within a rich Christian family who doesn't have to pay for children born to the sinful poor. Whether it is bibliolatry, ecclesiolotry, orthodolatry, the bottom line is that far too often, what Christianity produces is a bunch of non-questioning, submissive authority-worshipers who can't tell the difference between real inward change and shallow, superficial outward behavior modification. That is the problem of so-called revealed religion.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Well, it's a problem associated with this concept of "revealed religion" where you are expected to assent to absolute truth filtered through somebody else who supposedly gets a supernatural revelation. It's not like everybody gets their own burning bush. God doesn't show up on your doorstep with a choice between heaven and hell. There is no personal revelation tailored specially for each individual. Instead you have to pick up what's on God's mind through hearsay. You have to swallow somebody else's propositional truths as if they were your own. You are expeced to suspend your disbelief and self-validate the words of whoever shouts the most convincingly that they are God's visible representative on earth.

Is this chosen vessel of truth someone who can prove their credentials? I personally don't see any miracles being performed or parting of the red sea. There is no halo appearing above anyone's head on Christian television, in church pulpits or in cathedrals. No one possesses a set of glowing tablets dropped from heaven autographed by the finger of God Himself. No one gets caught up in a chariot to heaven and then comes back down to earth like an astronout with a special message from the mind of God.

What I do see are men who use threat and reward to coerse and bribe. I hear solmen pronouncements which ring hollow once you get over the goose bumps and emotionalism. I see a religion that breeds selfishness because its prime motivation is saving one's own miserable hide, with no real demonstrable mental anguish over those who end up in God's microwave. I see a religion with a conversion technique based on instinctive animal fear of punishment and a natural fear of the unknown in order to round up converts and keep them in line. It's a relgion that is so hypocrytical it rails against moral decay, then excuses unwed teen pregnancy just as long as it's within a rich Christian family who doesn't have to pay for children born to the sinful poor. Whether it is bibliolatry, ecclesiolotry, orthodolatry, the bottom line is that far too often, what Christianity produces is a bunch of non-questioning, submissive authority-worshipers who can't tell the difference between real inward change and shallow, superficial outward behavior modification. That is the problem of so-called revealed religion.

You forgot the most important part.....Satan is the head of this religion!

Peace

 

[JoshButler]

You've yet to prove that your scripture is relevant enough to argue with.

Meh.

No offence, but your opinion of scripture isn't relevant enough to argue with. If you want wisdom, you're going to have to look to the Word of God; if you don't, that's your mess, not mine.

"If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it."- Proverbs 9:12

 

[JoshButler]

Since you're good with generalizations, I guess you'll be good with being generalized in with all the good Christians who owned slaves, burned alleged witches at the stake, killed indians, and all manner of other killings, genocide and suppression of cultures and people groups done in the name of Jesus over the centuries. They believed and got their examples right out of the same book you do.

That's between them and God. My life belongs to Christ.

 

[JoshButler]

So you finally got around to telling me Jesus died for my sins. I thought that was the first thing Christians did when encountering sinners. I guess my initial post insulted your book so you were busy first defending the authority of Biblianity. Jesus taught his disciples just fine without ever writing anything down, so I don't know why you need a book just to spread the good news that He died for sins, unless it's to add a bunch of arbitrary rules. Look but don't touch. Touch but don't eat. Eat but don't enjoy. Enjoy but don't swallow.

Man, have you read the bible?

"My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste: So shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul: when thou hast found it, then there shall be a reward, and thy expectation shall not be cut off."- Proverbs 24:13-14

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"- Matthew 7:7-11

Actually the word that comes to mind is "Biblian".

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak."- John 12:48-50, emphasis mine.

 

[JoshButler]

JoshButler, I must ask, no disrespect intended, but--why are you here?

Do you have the idea in your head that liberals automatically are not Christian, and you're trying to bash us into submission? I don't think that's going to work.

I for one don't take kindly to sarcasm. Speak the truth in *love.* Ephesians 4:15.

Understand this is not a Mod Hat. I'm not assigned to this forum. This is me posting as a regular member.

But please, cool it with the sarcasm. I'd appreciate it.

I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Man, have you read the bible?

No, I have not read the Bible. The Bible consisted of orginal inspired apostolic autographs, none of which still exist. If you are referring to translations of copies of manuscripts, yes I have read those. However, as you and every Christian should have figured out by now, such writings are NOT self-interpreting. Someone "must" both translate and interpret. Whoever translates and interprets becomes your master for it is they who write on behalf of God. The glaring problem is, nowhere does Scripture say anyone but the original writers would be infallable and inerrant enough to translate from the originals. In order for your book to be inerrant, copyists and translators would have to be gifted with the same infallability and inerrancy as those who penned the autographs. Are Biblians willing to say that modern scholars are supernaturally inspired in the same way as the apostles? If they are, then why have none of them heard something new from God in 2000 years? Why was the Bible not left open for new revealed truths and as the need arose. Surey if the copyists, translators and interpreters of the book possess the same gift of apostolic inspiration for hearing God so as to inerrantly reproduce the same words and meaning as the original authographs, then Christianity would not have split into hundreds if not thousands of varying denominional branches all claiming to know God's absolute truth better than the others. Those claiming to have authority started multiplying and it has yet to stop. Even Luther realized he had opened up a pandora's box by putting Scripture in the hands of just any Joe who thinks he hears the whisper of the Spirit. Don't point me to a Bible unless you are willing to give ME the authority over myself to interpret it for myself according to what "I" believe the Spirit says through personal revelation. No Biblian has any right to shove that book in my face and tell me to bow to their relevation on Scripture, whether conservative, moderate or liberal. Again I say "somebody" is going to have to interpret that book because it is not self-interpreting. If it was, Christianity would not be so fractured. Of course, I don't expect the believers in Biblianity to admit such an inconvenient truth. Now, go ahead and ignore all the things I wrote about copyists, translators, interpreters, autographs and manuscripts. I'll just expect a Bible verse instead of a real answer.

 

[AzA]

Tube, modern scholars have heard lotsa new stuff in the last 2,000 years -- but orthodoxy has tagged most of it with the H-word, lol!

The lesson, as you say, is that the question is not what words are written in the book, nor what sounds they make when spoken or what stories they tell, but how a group interprets those sounds and stories, and what foot-to-ground meaning the group ascribes to those interpretations.

"The Bible and the Bible only [as interpreted by my faith group, my grandpa, and my favorite pastors]." Protestants do understand this, really. This is why Peter's phrase about "private interpretation" is so readily called up. (Except when Protestants are talking to Catholics and EOs. )

We humans are such fun.

 

[Im_A]

No, I have not read the Bible. The Bible consisted of orginal inspired apostolic autographs, none of which still exist. If you are referring to translations of copies of manuscripts, yes I have read those. However, as you and every Christian should have figured out by now, such writings are NOT self-interpreting. Someone "must" both translate and interpret. Whoever translates and interprets becomes your master for it is they who write on behalf of God. The glaring problem is, nowhere does Scripture say anyone but the original writers would be infallable and inerrant enough to translate from the originals. In order for your book to be inerrant, copyists and translators would have to be gifted with the same infallability and inerrancy as those who penned the autographs. Are Biblians willing to say that modern scholars are supernaturally inspired in the same way as the apostles? If they are, then why have none of them heard something new from God in 2000 years? Why was the Bible not left open for new revealed truths and as the need arose. Surey if the copyists, translators and interpreters of the book possess the same gift of apostolic inspiration for hearing God so as to inerrantly reproduce the same words and meaning as the original authographs, then Christianity would not have split into hundreds if not thousands of varying denominional branches all claiming to know God's absolute truth better than the others. Those claiming to have authority started multiplying and it has yet to stop. Even Luther realized he had opened up a pandora's box by putting Scripture in the hands of just any Joe who thinks he hears the whisper of the Spirit. Don't point me to a Bible unless you are willing to give ME the authority over myself to interpret it for myself according to what "I" believe the Spirit says through personal revelation. No Biblian has any right to shove that book in my face and tell me to bow to their relevation on Scripture, whether conservative, moderate or liberal. Again I say "somebody" is going to have to interpret that book because it is not self-interpreting. If it was, Christianity would not be so fractured. Of course, I don't expect the believers in Biblianity to admit such an inconvenient truth. Now, go ahead and ignore all the things I wrote about copyists, translators, interpreters, autographs and manuscripts. I'll just expect a Bible verse instead of a real answer.

great post.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

This is why Peter's phrase about "private interpretation" is so readily called up. (Except when Protestants are talking to Catholics and EOs. ) We humans are such fun.

You have a good point about Protestants, Catholics and EOs respresenting the three main species of Christianity. I also break it down another way. When I was with the Pentecostals, they filtered Scripture and authority through the lens of their "experiences". When with the Baptists, they lifted high a collection of graphe and gramma printed on paper as if it were the logos, rhema and sophia incarnate. In the apostolic churches, everything revolved around the person of the bishop whose office it is was to visibly stand in for Christ. I ran from one brand of Christianity to another looking for an authority to arbitrate truth for me. Upon close investigation, I found experiences, the Bible, and the Bishop all three to be fallible and errant. Mene mene tekel upharsin.

And as for those other individuals who quote Scripture at me like it backs you up as God's representative, may I remind you that your quotations may indeed be Biblically based, but you have no authority to proclaim your interpretation as being any more biblically sound than mine or anyone else's. That is, unless you care to back up your claims by using a source of authority external to yourself, such as a church denomination, preacher or bible scholar. The problem is, once you go in that direction, you have conceded that you got your truth not directly from God as a supernatural personal revelation, but from somebody else who acted as a middle-man to pass on propositional hearsay.

 

[JoshButler]

No, I have not read the Bible. The Bible consisted of orginal inspired apostolic autographs, none of which still exist. If you are referring to translations of copies of manuscripts, yes I have read those. However, as you and every Christian should have figured out by now, such writings are NOT self-interpreting. Someone "must" both translate and interpret. Whoever translates and interprets becomes your master for it is they who write on behalf of God. The glaring problem is, nowhere does Scripture say anyone but the original writers would be infallable and inerrant enough to translate from the originals. In order for your book to be inerrant, copyists and translators would have to be gifted with the same infallability and inerrancy as those who penned the autographs. Are Biblians willing to say that modern scholars are supernaturally inspired in the same way as the apostles? If they are, then why have none of them heard something new from God in 2000 years? Why was the Bible not left open for new revealed truths and as the need arose. Surey if the copyists, translators and interpreters of the book possess the same gift of apostolic inspiration for hearing God so as to inerrantly reproduce the same words and meaning as the original authographs, then Christianity would not have split into hundreds if not thousands of varying denominional branches all claiming to know God's absolute truth better than the others. Those claiming to have authority started multiplying and it has yet to stop. Even Luther realized he had opened up a pandora's box by putting Scripture in the hands of just any Joe who thinks he hears the whisper of the Spirit. Don't point me to a Bible unless you are willing to give ME the authority over myself to interpret it for myself according to what "I" believe the Spirit says through personal revelation. No Biblian has any right to shove that book in my face and tell me to bow to their relevation on Scripture, whether conservative, moderate or liberal. Again I say "somebody" is going to have to interpret that book because it is not self-interpreting. If it was, Christianity would not be so fractured. Of course, I don't expect the believers in Biblianity to admit such an inconvenient truth. Now, go ahead and ignore all the things I wrote about copyists, translators, interpreters, autographs and manuscripts. I'll just expect a Bible verse instead of a real answer.

What does the bible say?

 

[geekgirlkelli]

What does the bible say?

You're joking, right? Please tell me that was meant to be funny.

 

[AzA]

Outside of Disneyland, objects do not speak.
They do have a nonlinguistic testimony, and even that must be interpreted to be understood.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

What does the bible say?

The Bible says that females have just as much authority as males, that homosexuality is okay if practiced in a non-abusive manner between consenting adult humans, and that everyone will be saved in the end. That's what the Bible says.

 

[JoshButler]

The Bible says that females have just as much authority as males, that homosexuality is okay if practiced in a non-abusive manner between consenting adult humans, and that everyone will be saved in the end. That's what the Bible says.

Can you back that up with scripture?