PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I guess you ignore the bible verses that literally claim it is the word of or directly inspired by god in some active way, such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was just checking to make sure. The Bible is of coarse a collection of 66 books that were agreed upon by the RCC and it's early councils. Then the books themselves suffered the same kind of sorting and sifting before that. There were other books that were important to first century Christians that were un-inspired by the councils.
The books of the bible were written by holy men, some more holy than others. They represent the extent of enlightenment and religious views of the age of their development.
The books of the bible do NOT claim to be the word of God.
But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see."UB 1955
I guess you ignore the bible verses that literally claim it is the word of or directly inspired by god in some active way, such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17
2 Timothy wasn't scripture at the time that the author of 2 Timothy expressed his or her opinion about the OT.
The concepts that "scripture" is the written word of God evolves within evolutionary religions. Its an idea that various religions have used to establish the authority of their respective institutions.
Biblical criticism is a relatively young field for this very reason, the church used to kill people who challenged the authority of the written word or at least excommunicated and shamed people who challenged the authenticity, content and teaching of the scripture.
Some of the biblical authors are anonymous and no one has a clue who wrote their works.
Given then that you yourself view the bible as a dubious source, why believe any of it?
Good question, its like the newspaper, one can glean something of "the news" bearing in mind the imperfection of the reporters reports.
also, a massive revelation occurred in the early 1900's that sheds light on much that occurred in the last 500,000 years of Earths history. I quote it often. So, some of the odd things in the scripture now make more sense in light of what actually happened regardless of the erroneous interpretations of those events.
Revelations have occurred in the distant past, but invariably those events were contaminated by previous beliefs and the limitations of the audience. A good example of that is what happened to the gospel after Jesus left.
Given the primarily vague and generic predictions in the bible, as well as the ones fulfilled (no historical proof to say they really were but the bible mentions them being fulfilled) within that same book of the bible, is this not somewhat effortfully trying to apply doctrine to real life on your part? You know, one could do precisely the same with religious texts of other religions.
Worse is the "witness" accounts. There is no worse evidence for an event than having 1 or 2 eyewitness testimonies, except perhaps having that many eyewitness testimonies go through decades of oral tradition before being written down.
I think Jesus liberated his followers from authoritarian religion, unfortunately even his liberated message became institutionalized and segregated. The idea was for people to have a genuine personal relation with God as they understood God, from there they would come together in a fellowship that gave full allowance to the diversity of understanding of our heavenly Father.
I live the religion of Jesus more so than believing something .
That doesn't make much sense in regards to why you believe some things in the bible and not others. It more or less seems as though you pick whatever verses you like and ignore what you don't
That's a fair critique, isn't that your approach to life? I thought you didn't believe a lot of the Bible yourself?
If one part of the Bible talks about God sending the Hebrew soldiers to kill everyone in battle, then the women and taking the virgin girl children for themselves then no, I don't believe that for a second! If another part of the Bible talks about God as loving and forging then yes, I'm more receptive to that. The problem with Biblical idolatry is that all things must be from God over all periods of time.
it is not hooey."My experience is so far beyond words that I can barely relate it" is hooey.
It's generally that we just don't share or support the assumptions you are making, and believers are used to talking to believers who do share a common set of rarely questioned assumptions.
That's a fair critique, isn't that your approach to life? I thought you didn't believe a lot of the Bible yourself?
If one part of the Bible talks about God sending the Hebrew soldiers to kill everyone in battle, then the women and taking the virgin girl children for themselves then no, I don't believe that for a second! If another part of the Bible talks about God as loving and forging then yes, I'm more receptive to that. The problem with Biblical idolatry is that all things must be from God over all periods of time.
To stir the pot a bit, aren't most religions like this to some degree? How many religions allow their adherents to openly question dogma in the congregation? One often hears stories of former Christians who felt that their questions were shut down by their pastors or other church members. Doubt was given the status of sin and strongly discouraged. Members expressing doubt were looked down upon as "weak" and were shunned. I'm not sure that this sort of environment is conducive to inquiry.
Aldebran said:You're right to say that this sort of environment is conducive to inquiry. That's one of the failings of the structure. You may be surprised to hear me say that. I'll even go further. I think the church and Christianity was strongest when it was smaller and more personal, with small congregations meeting in private homes rather than large church buildings and pews and a "church service" on Sunday. The "church" is actually the community of believers, but has been used more recently to describe a building that seems to be the center of their attention rather than Christ Himself. All this tends to divert peoples' attention away from what is important and towards the physical.
It seems you long for a very small period of time in Christianity. For over a thousand years, "the church" when to the cathedral.
Aldebaran said:Not necessarily. When I first started out, it was 25 years ago while I was attending a bible study at someone's house. It was very interactive, and we discussed things all the time.
Spend much time in Deuteronomy?
It's one sick book.
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." -- Deuteronomy
Now, that was a pleasant story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?