1. 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!

Featured RIght vs Left

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by rrobs, Aug 6, 2018.

  1. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,065
    Ratings:
    +2,177
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Ah I see, you're a loony. Anyone who thinks the churches are the number one tool of the devil in the world has to be nuts. :rolleyes:
     
  2. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,065
    Ratings:
    +2,177
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Where does it claim to be perfect? In what verse?
     
  3. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    You'll have to explain. I don't see what you mean.

    BTW, my premise is not my own. God is the one who said all that stuff about the devil. Perhaps you can explain what it means to say, "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19).
     
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,960
    Ratings:
    +9,419
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    if I may.

    Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
    2 Kings 8:26 (KJV)
    26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.


    Ahazizh was 42 when he began his reign.
    2 Chronicles 22:2 (KJV)
    2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

    42 22

    .
     
  5. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    I guess that's why the fine RC institution would have burned me at the stake a mere 500 years ago.

    Jesus' own friends (so-called) said Jesus was loony.

    Mark 3:21,

    And when his friends heard [of it], they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
    Thanks for including me in his company.

    Then there is this,

    2Tim 1:7,

    For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
    Hmmm...should I believe you or God?
     
  6. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,085
    Ratings:
    +2,193
    How about "I will open my mouth in parables" (Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:34-35)

    You are missing an awful lot - you are swallowing hook, line and sinker the church-sponsored idea that material blessings and worldly splendor were God's gift to Solomon when in fact these were forbidden to the King (that's why I asked you to compare Deuteronomy 17). When he let his materialistic wealth, military power and religious "promiscuity" turn his head his Kingdom was lost - but the root of his apostasy was clearly the belief that God was blessing him with material wealth and political power. (Read it again - and again and again if you have to).

    Which makes your dogged adherence to church teachings about Solomon (for example) all the more odd.

    Yep - that's called socialism. That's what I said and that's what Jesus was teaching in the verses I quoted.

    Really? Where else have you heard the explanation I gave? Here's what I said summarized (and with a little explanation for the sake of clarity):

    1. The Bible is not God's word
    2. There isn't really a God or a Satan (to fill that out a bit I think God and Satan are - perhaps - literary devices alluding to the prevalent "spirit" of a society or community - "God" when - and in the aspects in which - the prevailing "spirit" is deemed to be positive or in the favour of the overall good of that society or community and "Satan" when it is negative or opposed to the overall good of the society or community...)
    3. The Bible is a human work - a collection of writings in which a troubled bronze age agricultural society attempts to make sense of the ups and downs of its place in the world whilst still in the throes of a long and painful transition from pre-agricultural nomadic "savagery" in what it fondly (but unrealistically) remembers as a "garden" that provided all they required with little effort on their part to the great civilization they envisaged for their future
    4. It is valuable because if we read it carefully, we can get glimpses of what they had already discovered about what works and what doesn't work in terms of addressing our common human needs.
    5. But care is needed to filter out the outdated moral stupidity, the impossibly miraculous and the plainly bloody ridiculous - unfortunately, these are the key foci (that's the plural of focus) of the so-called Christian religions and Biblical literalists who insist that the Bible is the miraculous and verbatim word of the Almighty. That is the very idea you need to let go of if you really want to understand the Bible.

    Tell me who else teaches that? I'll join that church today if you can direct me to it.
     
    #46 siti, Aug 8, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  7. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    To you that makes the scriptures meaningless, and that's that. As I said, to me it means there is either a mistranslation or I'm not understanding something, so I need further research into the matter. Right now, I can't give you an answer.

    Maybe: Contradictions: Two Ages at Once
     
  8. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't know anybody who would fit the bill for you.
     
    #48 rrobs, Aug 8, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
  9. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    John 17:17,

    Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
    Ps 18:30,

    [As for] God, his way [is] perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he [is] a buckler to all those that trust in him.
    There are many more that say the same thing.
     
  10. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,065
    Ratings:
    +2,177
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Neither of those says anything about the bible being perfect.

    The John verse simply has Jesus saying that the word of the Father is truth. It does not refer to the bible at all, still less say that the bible is a perfect expression of the word of the Father.

    The psalm is simply saying the way of God is perfect. Again, that does not say anything about the bible. As a matter of fact the way of God is obviously not at all the same as the word of God, which presumably is what you claim the bible to be.
     
  11. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,085
    Ratings:
    +2,193
    That's what I thought - so why do you suggest I am only repeating what others have said about the Bible? Is it just because you don't have a more substantive response to my argument?
     
  12. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Why does it need to be solved? Why can’t the two thoughts stand side-by-side?
     
  13. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    My source is actually reading texts that tell the same story with differing details that contradict each other.
     
  14. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Your premise is how crappy the world is, then, in defending that position, you talk about how blessed we are.

    Here’s the problem: God didn’t say it. The writer said it. The texts are not infallible.
     
  15. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    24,960
    Ratings:
    +9,419
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Not meaningless, simply contradictory. One of which, I assume, is likely to be correct.


    Just keep in mind that whatever the reason for the contradiction, a copyist error or bad information from the outset, the contradiction still stands. If 2 Kings 8:26 is correct, putting Ahaziah's age at 22, yet I never read the passage, but I did read 2 Chronicles 22:2 I would go away believing Ahaziah was 42, erroneous as it is. Does this make any difference? Not to me it wouldn't; however, it does call into question the legitimacy of everything else that's written in the Bible. If there's one mistake in the Bible who's to say there aren't any more, and mistakes that could be far more substantial than just the age of some obscure ruler. What all this implies is that even the important stuff may include mistakes---no one has ever declared that the only errors in the Bible are small ones---so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but of a non-virgin. Or that in John 14:6 instead of saying “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," which happened to be a mistake, Jesus actually said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except me." The difference of a single word could make a huge difference in Christian theology. So, although one may firmly believe that verse X is correct, and base one's life on it, there is still the possibility that it's wrong.


    .
     
  16. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    It's not just you. As the scriptures themselves show, at any given time in history the vast majority of people believe what the religious leaders tell them. The scriptures also show that those leaders are quite off the mark when it comes to the things of God. For example, in Noah's day there was one and only one righteous man, that of course being Noah (Gen 6:8).

    As for the rest of society, and mind you history shows it was a very religious society, God says this,

    Gen 6:5,

    And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
    Every thought was evil. It didn't serve to improve society. Every thought all the time, went against the truth. That includes the clergy who were the ones who taught the people. Obviously they weren't teaching the scriptures. They looked reverent and holy on the outside, but the inside was death.

    With few exceptions the scriptures tell of a history when no more than a few people at any given time believed God.
    The Apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament, and look at what he said (inspired by God - 2 TIm 3:16),

    2Tim 1:15,

    This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.​

    All turned away from the truth of Paul's gospel. Nothing has changed. Phygellus, Herogenes, and others mentioned elsewhere in the NT, were hight successful at subverting the true Word of God, all with plenty of help from the devil. That's where we stand today. The devil's main tools include religion and the church.

    But fortunately for everyone, believer and non-believer alike, it only takes one to light up the darkness of the devil's world.

    That is why I said most of what you say about the Bible comes, not from an honest and sincere in depth study of the book itself, but from what others have said about it. Heck, almost everybody "knows" what it says despite the fact it's one of the least read books. I'm not sure how that works, but it is the case.

    No, I can't say I have a more substantive response.
     
  17. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    You hit the nail on the head! Absolutely, if it can't be trusted as to some king's name, how can it be trusted everywhere else? If I thought the problem was God's word and not me, I woudn't bother with it any more. The only reason I like it is because it claims to have the truth. By any working definition of the word truth, it can not contridict itself if it is truth.

    But the other option, and the one I choose, is that it is in fact perfect without contradictions. That is my starting point. Therefore I look to correct my understanding or the translation in such a way that the book is contradiction free.

    A major part of scriptural research is understanding that there are no documents in existence that contain the actual pen of Moses, Matthew, John, etc. All of the texts we have are second hand. But that doesn't make the whole thing worthless. The scribes were highly intelligent, sincere, and devoted to the task. Nonetheless, they were human and for any number of reasons they could make mistakes in copying the scrolls. For example, and I'm speculating, I've not researched it enough, but I could see a tired scribe writing 42 instead of 22. If that is not the case here, it still could happen other places. Hopefully it illustrates my point though.

    There is no Bible version that can properly be called "The Word of God." But that in no way hinders an honest scholar from getting closer and closer to the actual God inspired scriptures. It just takes a bit of discipline and investigation. We won't know it all until Christ appears the second time to set up the kingdom God promised Israel. That of course would be the subject of the Book of Revelations.

    Jesus saying only he would get to the father is in direct contradiction to many many other clear verses that say otherwise. Are you going to deep six the many clear verses in favor of one unclear verse? That would be very poor scholarship indeed. There are better options for anyone who sincerely wants to know the truth.
     
  18. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,085
    Ratings:
    +2,193
    At this point I think I'd settle for a slightly less confused response...

    For example, if, as you seem to believe, the entire world except those in the ark, were destroyed in Noah's flood - where do you get the idea that there is any surviving "history" that "shows it was a very religious society"? And where on earth do you get the idea that the Bible is one of the "least read books"? The Bible continues to outsell all other books even in the late 20th/early 21st century and is possibly the only book that has sold billions of copies.

    Anyway, all that apart, this...

    ...could not be further from the truth. I started studying the Bible independently when I was 9 years old - I argued at length about interpretations with the curate who took our Bible class when I was in my teenage years - so much so that I was ordered not to ask any more questions in the class at one point...I have been through various transformations including several years as a Jehovah's Witness and for the last couple of decades have been entirely "unchurched" during which time I have continued to study the Bible critically and honestly by myself because I came to the same conclusion as you seem to have done - almost nobody else seems to even know what is written in it - let alone understand it - despite it being the most widely read and translated book in the entire history of humankind.

    In a sense, that was (if we discount the other influences like King Henry wanting to get rid of a wife or two without necessarily having to chop her head off) the reason for the Protestant reformation in the middle ages - but that reformation simply didn't go far enough. It didn't abandon the trinity for one thing - which is both unscriptural and a completely preposterous idea anyway, and for another, it stuck rigidly to the version of "God's Word" bequeathed to it by the Roman Church that it had already denounced as apostate.

    If the "Devil" has blinded people's minds, I am suggesting that the very first means it used to do that was not religion - but the very idea that the "Word of God" could possibly be encapsulated in a disparate and contradictory array of 66 books and letters specially chosen by a sycophantic bunch of emperor-worshiping priests as the approved expression of a state-sponsored religion suitable for maintaining control of an already-declining-soon-to-crumble empire.

    "And the wonder of it all is that you just don't realize..." how woefully mistaken you are! (to misquote Eric Clapton)...that, and how the Dickens did this motley collection of mumbo jumbo mingled with quaint reflections of the human frailties of an ancient agrarian society struggling to come to terms with its transition from nomadic to "civilized" life styles amidst cultures that were already more "civilized" and nationalistic become accepted as the very "word" of the Almighty to fully a third of the human population in the globalized information age of postmodernity?

    I have no idea.
     
  19. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    The truth isn’t in the detail of the historic or scientific “facts.” The truth is found in the larger points the stories were written to make about the theological journey of the people involved. For example, there are two completely conflicting genealogies of Jesus; one in Matthew and one in Luke. Luke attempts to place Jesus as the historic ancestor of David — not because it is historic fact, but because it bolsters the claim Luke is making about the theological connection he’s drawing between David and Jesus. Matthew includes 3 women: a prostitute, a foreigner, and an unwed mother in the lineage — again, not because it was historic fact, but because it serves Matthew’s message, which is that salvation doesn’t come through the traditional, Judaic line, but from somewhere else. So he includes these outcast women to make his point.

    Which is “correct?” It doesn’t matter. They both serve the purpose of the larger truth to which each author points. They can’t (and shouldn’t) be reconciled through eisegetical gymnastics. They can stand side by side as-is, pointing to the much broader truth that the stories come to us via different paths, and each one emphasizes an equally important theological aspect of our faith. That’s the truth the texts have for us — not that “THE story” is factually corroboratively correct, but that we have a rich, deep and diverse spiritual heritage of many stories, from which a tapestry with different truth-strands is woven.
     
  20. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well, I just went with the odds. But you are part of a small minority who has actually looked into it for yourself.

    I agree about the trinity. How can any book make sense when the two main characters are mixed up, not to mention some nebulous 3rd character thrown in to make it even more unintelligible. The trinity makes a joke out of God's wonderful plan to redeem mankind on legal footing. A man got us into the mess and a man had to get us out. I think the scriptures are pretty clear on that. It also denigrates the work of Jesus. He obeyed God to the letter. What's the big deal if God obeyed Himself? But for a man to do that out of love is incredible. Trinitarians miss the greatness of God's plan and the discipline Jesus had in carrying out that plan by his own free will. Anyway, how in the world can someone be their own father? The trinity is nothing short of idolatry.

    I used to think that some committee made the canon. I've very recently changed my mind though. It was the early believers as a whole that received the letters from Paul and the other inspired writers that understood they were inspired by God. They saw to it that they would be preserved as such and passed down to the next generation. It was more by popular "vote" that we got the books. Israel never questioned the books Moses wrote. Everybody knew they were written by Moses as he had been inspired by God. The committees came much later and really did nothing more than rubber stamp what all believers as a whole already knew to be the word of Go. If you are interested:
     
Loading...