• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Close Look At Truth

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
From your statement, I get the impression you believe that truth is relative to each individual.
If that is the case, then the information in the OP, or any post, for that matter, may be irrelevant to you, since you could say, "That is your truth, but it is not my truth."

In a case like that, there seems to be no room to reason, or be reasonable.
Am I being unreasonable?

I can only make short reply just now.
In the OP you told us all that most Christians are 'Christians' and not true Christians.
That was not a good start. OK?

Now. Yes. Truth is relative to each individual. The American Indians had a wonderful expression which they used before they made any statement of claim.
They started with ,'This is my truth.....'
So it was the truth as they saw it.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I can only make short reply just now.
In the OP you told us all that most Christians are 'Christians' and not true Christians.
That was not a good start. OK?
I recall saying this... According to Wikipedia
Christians are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

If we are going to use this definition, then we cannot turn a blind eye, or ignore ignorance concerning the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
In other words, we cannot refer to any person as Christian, regardless of if their religion and religious beliefs reflect the way Jesus lived - his actions and activities, and his teachings.


If that is wrong then I would be inclined to agree with you.

Now. Yes. Truth is relative to each individual. The American Indians had a wonderful expression which they used before they made any statement of claim.
They started with ,'This is my truth.....'
So it was the truth as they saw it.
Someone does a painting.
They use yellow paint to paint a yellow bird.
What is the truth... Is the bird yellow? Or is the bird pink... according to the color blind individual, who looks at it, and sees pink, because she has a defect, that interferes with normal vision? Or is the bird black, according to the blind individual who "looks" at it, and says, "Well all I see is black."?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I recall saying this... According to Wikipedia
Christians are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

If we are going to use this definition, then we cannot turn a blind eye, or ignore ignorance concerning the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
In other words, we cannot refer to any person as Christian, regardless of if their religion and religious beliefs reflect the way Jesus lived - his actions and activities, and his teachings.


If that is wrong then I would be inclined to agree with you.

And you wrote and pasted copy about 'Christians'! Now you try to pretend that you did not?

Hence, it is clearly evident, that the words Christian, and Christianity are being used lightly, and with frivolousness, thus incorrectly.
With such distortion, it is easy to overlook the clear distinction between Christian and "Christian"; Christianity and "Christianity", and thus fool oneself into thinking that the "Christian" knows what they are talking about... when evidently, they don't.
So now you remember?

Someone does a painting.
They use yellow paint to paint a yellow bird.
What is the truth... Is the bird yellow? Or is the bird pink... according to the color blind individual, who looks at it, and sees pink, because she has a defect, that interferes with normal vision? Or is the bird black, according to the blind individual who "looks" at it, and says, "Well all I see is black."?
So............ what?
I knew what you wrote.......... You denounce so many as 'Christians', just like I said.
A bit of Truth....
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And you wrote and pasted copy about 'Christians'! Now you try to pretend that you did not?


So now you remember?


So............ what?
I knew what you wrote.......... You denounce so many as 'Christians', just like I said.
A bit of Truth....
I am pretending nothing.
I don't believe you are here for any meaningful debate, or discussion.
I think you are trolling.
Not that that's acceptable, but it's understandable why.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
So, continuing with a closer look at truth...
On Christian, and Christianity, the definition contains the phrase... "Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion..."

What does that mean?
The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religions that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, with the term deriving from the patriarch Abraham (a major figure described both in the Tanakh and the Quran, recognized by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others). The three Abrahamic religions trace their origins to both sons of Abraham. For Jews and Christians it is his youngest son Isaac and for Muslims, his eldest Ishmael.

Perhaps that means different things to different people, but to the Christian, it means that Abraham was a central figure in God's arrangement resulting in the first century Christian congregation. Galatians 3:7-9, 14-19, 29

Just as original Christians viewed Abraham as a real figure, and the events surrounding him, as real events, Christians today, do not dismiss Abraham as a myth, nor do they view as allegoric the events surrounding him. Acts 7:16, 17, 31; Hebrews 11:8, 17

Needless to say, apostates, or "Christians", may do this, but understandably, this is expected, in the light of the fact that they deviate from the original Christian teachings.

Interestingly, Abraham's life is recorded in the book of Genesis, a book some "Christians" refer to as myth. Yet referred to as fact more than 30 times by Christians in the 'Apostolic Age'.

Another truth, worth considering.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It seems most here are not really interested in taking a close look at truth.
Either that, or perhaps many have made up in their mind that no one can say what truth is, with certainty.
There goes Jesus' three years of activity. :(

Although I did have in mind a number of truths, I don't think it would be much fun looking at them myself.
Aw.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
It is often said, that Atheists know the Bible better than Christians.
Some do, especially: (1) those who were once Christians and well versed in christian topics, or (2) scholars who have studied it from the perspective of believers.

I encountered many Christians who were very ignorant about their faith and the Bible, but I assume you wish to exclude these in your considerations.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Some do, especially: (1) those who were once Christians and well versed in christian topics, or (2) scholars who have studied it from the perspective of believers.

I encountered many Christians who were very ignorant about their faith and the Bible, but I assume you wish to exclude these in your considerations.
A Cristian... ignorant about Christianity? :)
That made me smile.

Imagine a company sends you a carpenter that's ignorant of the trade. What reaction do you think you might have?
I might be :laughing: because I'd be thinking, "Is this a joke?"
I'd say, they sent me a man, but a carpenter? No ma'am.

It's quite easy today for anyone to claim to be a Christian. Why, all that's necessary, is to go to a building, and cite the name Jesus Christ. One can even do so, while saying, "Women like it when you grab them by the :eek:.

The world is an interesting place tayla.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just because a person may go to a church doesn't automatically make them a Christian theologian.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Doesn't make them a Christian, period... does it.
Which is why I didn't list that separately as we see quite a different pattern with them.

And just a reminder that Jesus said in Matthew 7[16] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
[17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
[18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus you will know them by their fruits
.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Was God cursing a snake?
Evidently not. How do we know? The context.
When we consider the texts closely, from verse 1-15, we realize that there is an entity involved, that is not identified at this point in time, but is revealed much later.
Verse 15 however, sheds some light on a future revelation.
God said, "... I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

This is not a prophetic utterance regarding a slithery reptile.
For the Christian, this is clear. The Atheists however, is evidently in the dark.
In just that early beginning, is is clear, the Atheist does not know the Bible as the Christian does.
Is he willing to learn? Let's see.

It would seem to be an irrelevant splitting of hairs to try to draw a distinction between God not cursing that particular serpent but only cursing that particular serpent's offspring. Because the Hebrew word "zera" (seed) does means offspring or children.

It would also be reasonable to say your assertion is false. Because if a parent cares about the fate of their offspring then to curse their offspring is to effectively curse the parent as well. It has a negative effect on them as the parent.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Which is why I didn't list that separately as we see quite a different pattern with them.

And just a reminder that Jesus said in Matthew 7[16] You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
[17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
[18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus you will know them by their fruits
.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly.
What do you consider a different pattern?
Are you referring to pattern here as there being a difference between what we say, and what we do?
If so, yes there is a difference between words and actions, or beliefs and conduct. However, both are under the same umbrella when it comes to Christianity.

You used a good scripture. Along with that scripture, we can also consider these...
(Mark 7:6-8) 6 He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.8You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.. . .

(John 15:7-10) 7 If you remain in union with me and my sayings remain in you, ask whatever you wish and it will take place for you. 8My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples. 9 Just as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love.

In addition, as the scripture shows, it is not a matter of ones being able to identify the difference between those who profess to be Christian, from those who are, because not everyone will acknowledge that... but Jesus does.
Recall that Paul said, 'They do have a zeal for God, but it's not according to accurate knowledge.'
(Romans 10:2)
Jesus also said, that some would imagine that they are really doing the will of God. (John 16:2)
So, such ones are misled - deceived into thinking that they are Christian. However, Jesus pointed out that it is possible to know with certainty, if they are or not. (John 8:31, 32) Notice, he said, "if you remain in my word..."

I understand that the argument can be, and has been made, that there are different interpretations, hence no one can really know, but it seems to me, reasoning that way, is the same as saying no one can really be faulted for not knowing basic truths as taught by Jesus, so really Jesus failed to do what he came to do - teach the truth from God.
I don't think you really believe that though, do you?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It would seem to be an irrelevant splitting of hairs to try to draw a distinction between God not cursing that particular serpent but only cursing that particular serpent's offspring. Because the Hebrew word "zera" (seed) does means offspring or children.
That makes sense, and seems both reasonable, and accurate.

It would also be reasonable to say your assertion is false. Because if a parent cares about the fate of their offspring then to curse their offspring is to effectively curse the parent as well. It has a negative effect on them as the parent.
I don't think you understood what I said.
God is not cursing the slithering reptile, nor the offspring of the reptile.
The serpent is prophesied to bruise the heel of the woman's seed, and the woman's seed is prophesied to bruise the serpent's head.
Of course there are people... I assume, who will think that an offspring of Eve will get bitten in the heel by this snake, and will crush the serpent in the head, and there will be an ongoing conflict or war between man and serpent.
Some people read the Bible that way, because the don't think of it as more than made up tales, to tell one's children.
When the Bible is taken seriously, people don't make such mistakes.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
That makes sense, and seems both reasonable, and accurate.


I don't think you understood what I said.
God is not cursing the slithering reptile, nor the offspring of the reptile.
The serpent is prophesied to bruise the heel of the woman's seed, and the woman's seed is prophesied to bruise the serpent's head.
Of course there are people... I assume, who will think that an offspring of Eve will get bitten in the heel by this snake, and will crush the serpent in the head, and there will be an ongoing conflict or war between man and serpent.
Some people read the Bible that way, because the don't think of it as more than made up tales, to tell one's children.
When the Bible is taken seriously, people don't make such mistakes.

I haven't seen you post a single reason why you think we should read it any other way, or why we can't read it at face value for what it says.
Or why reading it that way doesn't constitute "taking the Bible seriously".

You can't just take for granted the assumption that your premise is true without first supporting it's truth with evidence and arguments in favor of it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I understand that the argument can be, and has been made, that there are different interpretations, hence no one can really know, but it seems to me, reasoning that way, is the same as saying no one can really be faulted for not knowing basic truths as taught by Jesus, so really Jesus failed to do what he came to do - teach the truth from God.
I don't think you really believe that though, do you?
The above has literally nothing to do with what I wrote.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I haven't seen you post a single reason why you think we should read it any other way, or why we can't read it at face value for what it says.
Or why reading it that way doesn't constitute "taking the Bible seriously".

You can't just take for granted the assumption that your premise is true without first supporting it's truth with evidence and arguments in favor of it.
I'm truly sorry, I did not see this post, up until now.

When you say 'read it that way', what do you mean? Do you mean read it in a literal, or figurative way?
That's a good point. I appreciate that.

Just think of it this way. How does a detective, or detectives go about solving crimes? They examine what they have, and draw conclusions from the evidence they piece together. ...and yes, detectives do disagree, or come to different conclusions. I could have referred to scientist, also.

It's the same with the Bible Canon we have before us. It's a collection of books that must meet a certain criterion.

To quote one reference...
"The Bible canon came to denote the catalog of inspired books worthy of being used as a straightedge in measuring faith, doctrine, and conduct."
Hence, we use this collection to come to a conclusion that would be logically, and coherently, correct... in keeping with the entire document.

So, for example, to read just one passage, and ignore all others, would be like a detective, or scientist, looking at one piece of evidence, while ignoring all the other.
Based on the other scriptures... yes, I did say that earlier, the entity God was speaking to, was made evident. Those scriptures show that God was not passing judgment on any slithering reptile.

As regard why the Bible is to be taken seriously, I did discuss that in the thread "The Bible - Why Trust It".
As mentioned here, we don't just look at one piece of evidence, and ignore the rest, so the thread does not contain one piece of evidence. Some have read the OP, and mistakenly concluded, that that was 'all she wrote'.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
I'm truly sorry, I did not see this post, up until now.

When you say 'read it that way', what do you mean? Do you mean read it in a literal, or figurative way?
That's a good point. I appreciate that.

I believe I can answer that question by readdressing your original post in some more detail:

I don't think you understood what I said.
God is not cursing the slithering reptile, nor the offspring of the reptile.

The Bible plainly says God is cursing the the reptile and it's offspring.

Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."


The enmity between them is, in context, also part of the curse.


Of course there are people... I assume, who will think that an offspring of Eve will get bitten in the heel by this snake, and will crush the serpent in the head, and there will be an ongoing conflict or war between man and serpent.
Some people read the Bible that way, because the don't think of it as more than made up tales, to tell one's children.
When the Bible is taken seriously, people don't make such mistakes.


You haven't given us any reason why it can't be literal.

In fact, we know that Scripture can be both literal, representative of higher spiritual realities, and prophetically symbolic of other things to come, all at the same time.

We see examples of references to OT Scripture being used this way throughout the New Testament. And other areas where Paul explicitly tells us that the historical reality of certain things in the Scripture is also a picture of a higher truth to come. One example is Colossians 2:16-17

Jewish tradition to this day still believes that Scripture has multiple levels of meanings such as the literal, allegorical, and prophetic, (Called "pardes").

They don't say it's just spiritual and not literal. They don't say it's just symbolic and not historical.
They say it's both literal, historical, and prophetic/symbolic/or allegorical at the same time.

This fits with the pattern we see in the Bible where God Himself establishes literal and historical things like the tabernacle, feasts and priestly service which are designed to reflect higher spiritual realities and are also a prophetic picture of what is to come in the future with Jesus Christ. Moses even built the tabernacle according to the pattern shown to him in Heaven of what was there.

God Himself is seen to encode things with multiple levels of meaning beyond just the literal. But that doesn't mean the literal isn't true or didn't happen.

Therefore, you have no basis for concluding that the account in Genesis did not literally take place as described, just because it also reflects other allegorical principles, prophetic things to come, or higher spiritual realities.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I believe I can answer that question by readdressing your original post in some more detail:
Thank you.

The Bible plainly says God is cursing the the reptile and it's offspring.

Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."


The enmity between them is, in context, also part of the curse.
What did the serpent do? "God said, Because you have done this..." So what did the slithering reptile do? Or was it the serpent?




You haven't given us any reason why it can't be literal.
Sorry, I thought I did. Let me be more specific. Revelation 12 You need to read the entire chapter, because it includes the woman.
John 8:44 The offspring... well, some of them, are identified. see 1 John 3:10. Also consider please Matthew 23:33

In fact, we know that Scripture can be both literal, representative of higher spiritual realities, and prophetically symbolic of other things to come, all at the same time.
Very, very true. is this not the case with Genesis 3:15?
Recall Paul's words. (Romans 16:20) For his part, the God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. May the undeserved kindness of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Who is the seed, or offspring that will bruise the head of the serpent? Is it not Jesus and the heirs of the kingdom? See Galatians 3.

We see examples of references to OT Scripture being used this way throughout the New Testament. And other areas where Paul explicitly tells us that the historical reality of certain things in the Scripture is also a picture of a higher truth to come. One example is Colossians 2:16-17
In this case, you are referring to patterns, which yes, can include prophecy, since physical things represent spiritual... at times. Not always.

Jewish tradition to this day still believes that Scripture has multiple levels of meanings such as the literal, allegorical, and prophetic, (Called "pardes").

They don't say it's just spiritual and not literal. They don't say it's just symbolic and not historical.
They say it's both literal, historical, and prophetic/symbolic/or allegorical at the same time.

This fits with the pattern we see in the Bible where God Himself establishes literal and historical things like the tabernacle, feasts and priestly service which are designed to reflect higher spiritual realities and are also a prophetic picture of what is to come in the future with Jesus Christ. Moses even built the tabernacle according to the pattern shown to him in Heaven of what was there.
Agreed.

God Himself is seen to encode things with multiple levels of meaning beyond just the literal. But that doesn't mean the literal isn't true or didn't happen.
Agreed.

Therefore, you have no basis for concluding that the account in Genesis did not literally take place as described, just because it also reflects other allegorical principles, prophetic things to come, or higher spiritual realities.
I did give you the basis, so we don't agree on this... unfortunately.
Perhaps your answer to my first question, may change that. We'll see.
 
Top