Why do you NOT believe the Bible?

[Hockeycowboy]

Thanks. Good analogy!



It's like purchasing furniture and finding out the instructions that you thought were based the original person who designed it to market and the people who helped him is actually based on and compiled by the marketed company trying to sell it by putting their own instructions together and tell everyone these instructions are the words of the designer.

Then the reformers come in to try and pick a part the same instructions to keep the ones they think are best but regardless of which instructions and pages they keep or add, the content though well-written wasn't correct in order for them to put the furniture together in one piece. So, they go in an uproar against the furniture company.

Then a group of people (and another group of people) decide, "hey, let's look at what the designer written" but not realizing that the designer did not write anything but told people what to write. So, basically, everything each group and company (who knows more than the groups afterward) are getting is second hand knowledge to which they think is first hand.

What happens then, when things don't work out as plan, people split up into groups and either one, create their own instructions, two, add commentary to the instruction that didn't work, or three toss out part of the pages saying they know which is right.

The problem isn't the person. The company got the instructions from the designer. The groups got the instructions from the company. Then you have individual people who don't want to be part of any contract company nor the company corporation who wrote the instructions.

Yet, all of these cases, everyone is still going by the same instructions the company wrote unless each person can read the designer's language which wasn't English nor French nor German.

Then, you think?

Ah ha! I got it, I don't need the instructions from the company, I can find it out myself. So, without knowing the language of the designer, you study what you think is the right interpretation into your langauge not realizing that languages do not translate one hundred percent from one to another.

Then you have those who chuck the instructions and try to build the furniture herself. Which sounds like a good plan for people who don't follow the Book. Nothing wrong with that.

What I like about this idea is, one, if a screw is in the wrong spot, the person, say Jane, takes responsibility for it. She doesn't have to throw the instructions in the trash thinking it or the designer had something to do with her construction of it. Then she can have positive feelings of building the furniture on her own as things are more authentic when you do it on your own.

But after all this:

The only things that's needed for this whole analogy is the designer (god) and the company (The Church/Apostles).

Take the designer out, you'd have no furniture. Take the Apostles out, you'd have no New Testament or in other words, the designers' words would be only oral messages floating in the wind and ears of the Apostles without them writing a thing.

Then we get mad at The Church saying they add things to the instructions.

I think, wait, what! THEY are the ones that put the instructions together in the first place.

Then others say, no we should look to the designer first!

I think, wait, you can't do that with the instructions (has the designer's name, by the way. Though copyrighted by The Church) -that's put together by the Church.

If you want to get to know the designer, chuck the instructions and learn about the furniture itself. Learning about the furniture and putting together is the same as knowing the designer who built it.​

That's what ritual is and how I practice. It's not easy but learning to build things on your own in life is well worth the effort than taking 2,000th person's word for it.

--

Haha. I'm a writer so this gave me a good chance to tell a little story.

It's a great story!

I think I follow you, but I'll tell you something: if we show love to others, regardless of race, culture, or national -- or, maybe even because of their difference -- then we're acting the way God wants us to, we're following the Scriptures.

That may require us to experience some discomfort at times...doing things for others might cause some sacrifice on our part, as I'm sure you're well aware, but putting others ahead of ourselves is God-like.

Check out this: 1 John 3:10-15. Real serious counsel! Have many follow this? I'll tell you something....nationalism makes this counsel hard to obey at times, especially during a war, but obedience to our Creator far outweighs obedience to any other.

As Jehovah's Witnesses, we get subjected to harsh treatment by some governments during times of war. Hitler killed many of us. Stalin (of the USSR) did the same. But loving God requires some sacrifice at times.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's a great story!

I think I follow you, but I'll tell you something: if we show love to others, regardless of race, culture, or national -- or, maybe even because of their difference -- then we're acting the way God wants us to, we're following the Scriptures.

That may require us to experience some discomfort at times...doing things for others might cause some sacrifice on our part, as I'm sure you're well aware, but putting others ahead of ourselves is God-like.

Check out this: 1 John 3:10-15. Real serious counsel! Have many follow this? I'll tell you something....nationalism makes this counsel hard to obey at times, especially during a war, but obedience to our Creator far outweighs obedience to any other.

As Jehovah's Witnesses, we get subjected to harsh treatment by some governments during times of war. Hitler killed many of us. Stalin (of the USSR) did the same. But loving God requires some sacrifice at times.

That makes sense. Maybe because these two JW were good friends more than people who knock at your door, but to tell you honestly JW (and two other ladies) are the only Christians out of my whole life who genuinely wanted to know what I believed and, contrary to popular belief, never judged me on it. So, I respect the views and all.

On the other hand, my therapist gave me his experience. He said JW were talking to him for an hour not once asking him what he believed. So, in other words, if you notice that people you speak with do not use the bible as their authority and you want them to understand you on similar terms, ask them about their belief and use their belief to find mutual understanding.

That way the other party doesn't feel pushed to believe nor defensive and you may leave feeling you still have helped others even if they do not come to Christ.

Not everyone reads from the same instructions; and, repeating page 4, section 3a of the same book will not change that. Maybe ask what book they are using or if they don't use a book, ask what method they use to build the furniture.

If Jesus really meant thinking of others, he would have took other people's words into consideration. He did not. He said the only way to learn about the father is through him; and, there was no discussion and mutual understanding with people he disagreed with.

If that's the example people want to follow, then that is their boat. I don't find it healthy for evangalization. Bugs the mess out of me. In person I can forgive a bit more because we don't always think before we speak. However, online! We have time to read over our words, edit, and ponder. Write a rough draft if need be.

There isn't much excuse.

 

[Glaurung]

Serious study? Not at all, but as for my knowledge far exceeding yours, quite possibly.

Even if granted, that's the point. Your attacks on the Bible are polemical, not informed.

ecause your sources---what were they again?---are far superior because

Why won't you answer the question? I reject your notion of "denomination" because not only is your instance on the number again polemical, it is absurd on the face of it. Do you really think it's fair to classify the Roman Catholic Chruch in the US as a distinct denomination over the same church in Canada? Again, answer the question.

But if you wish to insist that any organised group of Christians constitutes a distinct denomination, fine but you're basically saying that every Baptist Chruch is in fact a distinct denomination.

I'm sorry this has gone over your head, but here:

I know what fragmented means. Also you can stop with the condescension.

So what? The when and why make no difference. The fact remains that today the Christian religion is fractured ("divided" or "split" if these terms are more palatable) into thousands of denominations.

That isn't denied. What is rejected is the polemical number you insist upon. How many distinct theological traditions (what people usually mean by denomination) with a notable following is hard to ascertain, but it is not in the thousands. There many be thousands of independent "churches" but most of them are probably some variant of Baptist if you're in the US.

You do realize that other Christian denominations claim many of the exact same things you just did? For example, the Baptists would similarly say:

No they really can't as there is such a thing as historical reality. The reformation began in the sixteenth century, and almost all of the subsequent ideas that it gave rise to were alien to Christian thought before that date. Not only that, but many of the major Protestant sects have definite founders.

The only other Churches that can claim historical continuity with the early Chruch are the Orthodox, because they do in fact possess it. As in, they possess apostolic succession and thus, valid orders.

BTW, John the Baptist did not found the Baptist denomination. The Baptist denomination is just another Protestant offshoot of the sixteenth century.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For the same reason by which I do not believe in 'Aladdin and his wonderful lamp'.

 

[Skwim]

Even if granted, that's the point. Your attacks on the Bible are polemical, not informed.

Don't you wish. And why do you consider pointing out the facts of the Bible to be an attack? Oh, never mind. It's a matter of preserving the inviolability of the source of your belief, isn't it.

Why won't you answer the question? I reject your notion of "denomination" because not only is your instance on the number again polemical, it is absurd on the face of it.

Do you really think it's fair to classify the Roman Catholic Chruch in the US as a distinct denomination over the same church in Canada? Again, answer the question.

Pretty much depends on the definition. Take "These “denominations” are defined in terms of being separate organisations, not necessarily separate beliefs." (source) which relies one one's concept of "separate organizations."

I know what fragmented means. Also you can stop with the condescension.

Then you fooled me.

That isn't denied. What is rejected is the polemical number you insist upon. How many distinct theological traditions (what people usually mean by denomination) with a notable following is hard to ascertain, but it is not in the thousands. There many be thousands of independent "churches" but most of them are probably some variant of Baptist if you're in the US.

There's that word again---I suggest you look it up. In any case, take up your dispute with those asserting the number. All I'm doing is passing along the information, which, believe it or not, carries much more weight than your mere opinion.


.

 

[buddhist]

No they really can't as there is such a thing as historical reality. The reformation began in the sixteenth century, and almost all of the subsequent ideas that it gave rise to were alien to Christian thought before that date. Not only that, but many of the major Protestant sects have definite founders.

The only other Churches that can claim historical continuity with the early Chruch are the Orthodox, because they do in fact possess it. As in, they possess apostolic succession and thus, valid orders.

BTW, John the Baptist did not found the Baptist denomination. The Baptist denomination is just another Protestant offshoot of the sixteenth century.

They can say the exact same things about your denomination, that your denomination is a fourth century reformation offshoot of what came before.

BTW, some Baptists do believe that John the Baptist founded the Baptist tradition.

 

[Glaurung]

They can say the exact same things about your denomination, that your denomination is a fourth century reformation offshoot of what came before.

If you're talking about the Council Of Nicaea, it was mostly a response to Arianism, formally articulating Chruch doctrine on the nature of Christ and establishing the Creed. It had nothing to do with forming anything unless you've been reading specious conspiracy theories.

BTW, some Baptists do believe that John the Baptist founded the Baptist tradition.

I'm sure many do, but not all claims have historical value. We have the Chruch Fathers, we have the Ecumenical Councils, we know what orthodox Christianity is because Christians started writing about it within a mere generation of the Apostles. The teachings are overwhelmingly Catholic and Orthodox.

As much as some Protestants may claim that Catholicism is a medieval corruption of true Christianity, the historical record just doesn't bare that out.

 

[buddhist]

If you're talking about the Council Of Nicaea, it was mostly a response to Arianism, formally articulating Chruch doctrine on the nature of Christ and establishing the Creed. It had nothing to do with forming anything unless you've been reading specious conspiracy theories.

I'm sure many do, but not all claims have historical value. We have the Chruch Fathers, we have the Ecumenical Councils, we know what orthodox Christianity is because Christians started writing about it within a mere generation of the Apostles. The teachings are overwhelmingly Catholic and Orthodox.

As much as some Protestants may claim that Catholicism is a medieval corruption of true Christianity, the historical record just doesn't bare that out.

Yes, they could say the majority voice of the Council of Nicaea was an offshoot reformation from the earlier "true Christianity" of Arianism, or even of the Gnostics or Essenes. After all, they might point to the fact that Christ was recorded as stating that the minority, not the overwhelming majority, would find the true gate:

For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. - Matthew 7:14 (RSV)​

 

[jbkoleen23]

I look at the bible as I look at any other book. Just a good story. Nothing but fiction. You can pluck good things out of it, as well as bad things. Man wrote the bible, it is not God's word.

 

[Glaurung]

Yes, they could say the majority voice of the Council of Nicaea was an offshoot reformation from the earlier "true Christianity" of Arianism, or even of the Gnostics or Essenes. After all, they might point to the fact that Christ was recorded as stating that the minority, not the overwhelming majority, would find the true gate:

Ah, Baptists believe in the divinity of Christ. So to attack Catholicism with such a tactic wouldn't even make sense. Further there's no reason to assume (but for your say so) that Arianism predates orthodoxy, otherwise it would be hard to imagine how (if such beliefs had currency pre-Nicaea) they would suddenly become controversial enough to the point of an ecumenical council. Ironically Arianism gained massive ground after being condemned.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that Christian Gnosticism predates orthodoxy. The Canonical Gospels predate the Gnostic texts by centuries.

Thirdly, the Essenes were a Jewish sect.

Finally that Gospel passage you're talking about has nothing to with being part of some minority sect. (Which was basically the main Gnostic claim). It's about living one's life in accordance with the teachings of Christ, which is the narrow path. And have a look around you, many people (if not the majority) live in either implicit or even active rejection of those teachings. Even if some of these may call themselves Christians. Matthew 7:23

A serious Christianity is one of the hardest things to take upon yourself. So it is no surprise that very few are willing to do it because it means becoming aware of a moral law and your final accountability before God. The wide path is essentially the path of the world, to live for one's own desires. But the best the world can offer is an ephemeral gratification, and no worldly gratification is worth the loss of one's soul. Mark 8:35-37

 

[buddhist]

Ah, Baptists believe in the divinity of Christ. So to attack Catholicism with such a tactic wouldn't even make sense. Further there's no reason to assume (but for your say so) that Arianism predates orthodoxy, otherwise it would be hard to imagine how (if such beliefs had currency pre-Nicaea) they would suddenly become controversial enough to the point of an ecumenical council. Ironically Arianism gained massive ground after being condemned.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that Christian Gnosticism predates orthodoxy. The Canonical Gospels predate the Gnostic texts by centuries.

Thirdly, the Essenes were a Jewish sect.

Finally that Gospel passage you're talking about has nothing to with being part of some minority sect. (Which was basically the main Gnostic claim). It's about living one's life in accordance with the teachings of Christ, which is the narrow path. And have a look around you, many people (if not the majority) live in either implicit or even active rejection of those teachings. Even if some of these may call themselves Christians. Matthew 7:23

A serious Christianity is one of the hardest things to take upon yourself. So it is no surprise that very few are willing to do it because it means becoming aware of a moral law and your final accountability before God. The wide path is essentially the path of the world, to live for one's own desires. But the best the world can offer is an ephemeral gratification, and no worldly gratification is worth the loss of one's soul. Mark 8:35-37

They can say they're the orthodox, and you're the fourth century breakaway sect, and that you misinterpret the scriptures. See how easy it is?

 

[Glaurung]

They can say they're the orthodox, and you're the fourth century breakaway sect, and that you misinterpret the scriptures. See how easy it is?

Sure you can say almost anything. But sophistry is still sophistry.

 

[buddhist]

Sure you can say almost anything. But sophistry is still sophistry.

Hey, I'm just using the same arguments you're using to support your position!

 

[McBell]

I would love to have a conversation with some people about why they do NOT believe the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but am looking for the arguments against the Bible.

the only "argument" I have is that the Bible does not convince it it is from a deity.

 

[Glaurung]

Hey, I'm just using the same arguments you're using to support your position!

Except that you're not taking into account the paper trail of Chruch history. So no, you're not.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Far too often, preachers go by tradition instead of what the Bible actually says.

.

The bible is of course an even earlier "Tradition" When it come down to it, Religion depends on tradition. Preachers have little else to work with, unless they make it up.

The Bible contains generations of wisdom, as well as vast amounts of less useful, even harmful advice.
there are no known "Facts" about God, only suppositions.
Nevertheless Jesus teaching make a strong foundation on how we should live our lives for the benefit of all.
The more magical aspects of the bible are a mixture of wishful thinking and bribery, and a way to instil belief in those who require external discipline to encourage them to do the "Right" thing.
Sin is basically Bad behaviour that harms others and nature. Sin and bad behaviour can not be undone, but behaviour can be changed for the better.

It take a belief in God to understand the forgiveness of sin.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So where is this fracturing?

Well, this "fracturing" that you think is so ubiquitous, is largely among those who cling to the assertions of a sixteenth century schism. (Who happen to be predominate in the part of the word where the loudest atheists tend to come from) but regardless, they do not hold my faith.

"Christians are unified in their belief... as long as you only count the Christians who agree with me."

 

[Glaurung]

"Christians are unified in their belief... as long as you only count the Christians who agree with me."

Let me put this simply, the charge that Christianity is hopelessly fragmented isn't actually true for the majority of Christians worldwide. The Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and even (with reservations) the traditional Protestant sects largely agree on what "historical Christianity" is as summed up by the Apostle and Nicene creeds. There are of course major and serious differences in these traditions, but those differences are nonetheless details if we're talking about what the central claims of Christianity are.

The trouble is that when you make the Protestant move in regards to the authority of tradition, and enthrone personal interpretation as the rule of faith then there can only be one logically inevitable result. Which is why the Protestant world (and its offshoots) are the source of most of this "fragmentation". And why you now have groups so heretical, that they are forced to claim that everything up until 18XX was an "apostasy".

Regardless, it's not a compelling argument against the faith. Because historical, orthodox Christianity is still here. And the majority of those who call themselves Christian still hold to it. It's an argument against the theological chaos caused by a sixteenth century revolt and the novel assumptions it ingrained in a large part of the Christian world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me put this simply, the charge that Christianity is hopelessly fragmented isn't actually true for the majority of Christians worldwide. The Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and even (with reservations) the traditional Protestant sects largely agree on what "historical Christianity" is as summed up by the Apostle and Nicene creeds. There are of course major and serious differences in these traditions, but those differences are nonetheless details if we're talking about what the central claims of Christianity are.

IMO, if a difference was big enough to kill people over, then I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it as a "detail".

And you claim that all these denominations agree on the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, but disagreements over the Nicene Creed were central in the East-West Schism.

The trouble is that when you make the Protestant move in regards to the authority of tradition, and enthrone personal interpretation as the rule of faith then there can only be one logically inevitable result. Which is why the Protestant world (and its offshoots) are the source of most of this "fragmentation". And why you now have groups so heretical, that they are forced to claim that everything up until 18XX was an "apostasy".

Do you think that giving reasons for why Christianity is so fragmented somehow negates the idea that Christianity is fragmented?

Regardless, it's not a compelling argument against the faith. Because historical, orthodox Christianity is still here.

Yes... you have many "orthodox Christianities." Everyone from the Catholics to the Pentecostals to the Mormons claims the mantle of "historical, Orthodox Christianity".

And the majority of those who call themselves Christian still hold to it. It's an argument against the theological chaos caused by a sixteenth century revolt and the novel assumptions it ingrained in a large part of the Christian world.

That's what you see. What I see is that the denominations that have authorities who endorse "orthodoxy" and condemn "heresy" are the only place where you see relatively homogenous beliefs, and among the billion or so people led only by the Bible and God, they can't agree on what the Bible says or what God wants.

The fact that a few of the larger chunks of Christianity have managed to mostly stave off further fracturing through - AFAICT - nothing more than sheer human will and bureaucracy says nothing about the issue that the fragmentary nature of Christianity puts the spotlight on: if the Bible really was God's communication to humanity and the Church really is guided by God, Christians would be expected to generally agree on core issues.

 

[buddhist]

Except that you're not taking into account the paper trail of Chruch history. So no, you're not.

Sure I do. There's a paper trail that shows that your denomination broke away in the 4th century from what came prior.