-
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!
How much is too much?
- Thread starter M O N S T E R
- Start date
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
Do you seriously think you're a real challenge? No offense, but you or anyone else here who attempts to challenge MY faith, don't even come close.
This is what I see in non-believers. They just don't get it. How do you understand sound, if you've never had hearing. Or any of the other senses. You never will completely understand any of them, until you've experienced them.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What about atheists who were once believers? "Experiencing God" could be contributed to psychological/emotional episodes.
M O N S T E R
Member
Well, obviously they weren't "true believers".
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
Faith can die. Happens all the time. Just like a plant, you have to keep watering and feeding it.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Perhaps, but you said that non-believers just don't understand or get it, but if they were believers in the past then wouldn't they have some insight into faith?
Fluffy
A fool
Leading question. If you can't be bothered to leave your own bias at the door then how can you possibly start a thread implicating bias in others?
If there are a variety of interpretations of the Bible, then we can reason that better interpretations will have less contradictions.
Therefore, it is very easy and completely worthless to take the weakest possible interpretation and then point out all of the contradictions in that interpretations. It is even worse to then accuse others who have stronger interpretations of attempting to wriggle out of accepting the flawed nature of the source of both interpretations. It is your interpretation that is flawed and not the source (or, at least, that should be your first assumption and not vice versa).
On the other hand, this does not mean that the strongest interpretation does not still contain flaws but there appears to be no effort here to cut to the chase and tackle that interpretation.
If there are a variety of interpretations of the Bible, then we can reason that better interpretations will have less contradictions.
Therefore, it is very easy and completely worthless to take the weakest possible interpretation and then point out all of the contradictions in that interpretations. It is even worse to then accuse others who have stronger interpretations of attempting to wriggle out of accepting the flawed nature of the source of both interpretations. It is your interpretation that is flawed and not the source (or, at least, that should be your first assumption and not vice versa).
On the other hand, this does not mean that the strongest interpretation does not still contain flaws but there appears to be no effort here to cut to the chase and tackle that interpretation.
But people who go deaf still understand what sound is. Therefore, atheists who deconvert, still understand what faith is.Starfish said:
Starfish
Please no sarcasm
Good point. But how do you measure faith? How much faith did they used to have? It's not like a light switch, that's either on or off. Along with my belief in God, I also believe in Satan. He can be very convincing and deceiving. He can convince us that it never was.
We all can fall out of love. We can convince ourselves that we were young and naive, that it was a mistake. Or even feel we never were in love at all. How do you measure it? It's hard to express or make understand to someone who has never experienced it. And those who have had faith, like love, if neglected, it will die.
Sola'lor
LDSUJC
Well considering the Bible was written as individual books those books themselves being translated as time goes on. Then some get put together. More tanslations, translations translations, and translations. Then put together, translated. Then eventually thousands of years later we arrive at what we currently call the Bible. There's no doubt there would be errors. So is the Bible perfect? No. What is written by the hand of men? Yes. Were those men inspired? I believe they were. Keep in mind I believe the original authors to be inspired, but not always the translators.
Does that mean we should reject the bible? Well it's as close as we can come to reading what the original authors wrote, I don't reject it. I understand the errors in it and so i get as many good principles as I can out of it.
Does that mean we should reject the bible? Well it's as close as we can come to reading what the original authors wrote, I don't reject it. I understand the errors in it and so i get as many good principles as I can out of it.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
You know, that's actually a pretty progressive way of looking at it compared to most. There are some who think the King James version is absolute perfection (more so than the original hebrew, somehow).
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
This brings up another question for me. If that's the case, and God knows that this will happen, why not give us some other direct inspiration at some point? How could he expect us to be completely convinced by something that has gone through a game of telephone? Send somebody else to update things, and correct any communication issues that have popped up.
cardero
Citizen Mod
This is a good question.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
that just means the earth revolves.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Around what, the not-yet-existant sun? Oh, wait. To be biblically accurate I should say the not-yet-existant sun revolves around the earth.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
It makes sense when taken on its own terms, Father Heathen. The order of days was symbolic. Try reading Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance.
jtartar
Well-Known Member
Monster,
Please point out to me some of these contradictions, for I hae studied the Bible for around 50 years, and have not found any, that cannot be explained by anyone who undersatands the scriptures.
The fact is: there is not another book ever written, wheter old or modern that is as up to date and accurate as the Bible.
Bible scholars have said that the Bible is so accurate, even after haing been translated thousands of times, that if all the mistakes ever found in the Holy Bible were put in one translation, there would be NO loss of the Message from God to man.
Some Bibles have errors, mostly of names and numbers, that do not change the word of God.
Almost one third of the Bible is prophecy, some fulfilled over thousands of years, some within a few years, all with unerring accuracy. There has never been a book like it and will neer be one written by any man.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
OK, that might be taking it a bit too far. I guess you get around some things by saying "anyone who understands the scriptures". I take that to mean anyone who understands the scriptures as you do. Taken logically at face value there several things that appear to be big contradictions. If you take them in a different way than people who don't already believe in Christianity, then that's fine, but it doesn't mean we don't understand it.
For instance, how do you explain the huge difference in the personality of the OT God and the NT God? That is the OT wrathful, angry, jealous God and the NT all-loving, perfect God. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but you have to rationalize some things in a way that requires more than logic, namely it requires faith.
cardero
Citizen Mod
The fact is that many have not read (or are even aware of) every book (old and modern) that is up to date or may be more accurate than the Bible.
But Bible scholars have not been able to authenticate the most important aspect of the Bible; whether the authors were inspired from GOD.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
And that's what the links were for. Click 'em.