Dealing with People "Spreading the Word"

[Kain99]

I just learned something!

Originally posted by Frank


This is part of the reason why I do NOT believe it is literally inerrant.

One entry found for inerrant.

Main Entry: in·er·rant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inerrant-, inerrans, from in- + errant-, errans,
present participle of errare to err
Date: 1837
: free from error

You got me on that one but now I see the light! inerrant.

 

[Tonio]

I believe that faith is a very personal thing. I don't mean that people choose their religion from some sort of ecumenical buffet. I mean that everyone has a personal revelation. That's why I believe there are so many religions in the world.

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone that their own personal revelation is wrong. For one, it's downright rude. Second, it presumes that I have some monopoly on truth. Faith is about what cannot be proven empirically. Every Christian I've met has a different experience of God and Jesus, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Delilah903]

"All My Delusions"

Originally posted by vraiblonde
If we were to believe based on that, we would also believe that Vito Corleone was a real person. That the Cat in the Hat was a real animal. That some animals once took over a farm and turned it into a dictatorship, with the pigs as the leaders.


So what are you saying here? You mean the Cat in The Hat isn't a real animal??????

 

[jimmy]

Kain,

First off, I never made the claim that " ‘Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God’"; rather, I suggested that he may have not even been (in terms of the stories attributed to him in the Bible) one, singular person. Did such a person as Jesus exist? Sure. Was he a preacher of some kind? Most likely.

However, did he perform miracles, die on the cross, raise from the dead, ascend to heaven and is he waiting at God's right hand for us upon our dying? Of that, I'm not so sure. And really one cannot (outside the realm of faith of course) support any of those claims. And faith is not even worth arguing because it is the ultimate "out" so to speak---you can't prove it's false, so it might be true. That type of thing.

And, also to dispel something else you may believe of me, I'm not trying to "prove" that Christianity is wrong. I will go toe to toe with anyone who tries to claim any religion is infallable but I'm of the opinion that NONE of us is any closer to the "truth" than anyone else. Thus, I personally, cannot adhere to a religion which claims the opposite.

So, Kain, while your rebuttal to my argument is "educated seeming", it is in fact way off base.

My intention in joining this thread was to assert that another possiblity exists other than Hessians "3 possibilites" argument.

Frank,

Really astute insights and I've got some work to do but I definitely want to comment on them at some point.

 

[jimmy]

And Kain to your legal defense analogy--it doesn't really hold water.

When a person is asked to defend themselves, they have to do so under a certain, underlying context, eg. the "law" as it were. You can't simply defend yourself based on, say, your own internal moral compass.

Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge the Bible and reject defenses that use only passages from within the Bible itself as justification. This is, again, why the faith arguement doesn't work.

 

[Kain99]

A run for my money!

Originally posted by jimmy
And Kain to your legal defense analogy--it doesn't really hold water.

When a person is asked to defend themselves, they have to do so under a certain, underlying context, eg. the "law" as it were. You can't simply defend yourself based on, say, your own internal moral compass.

Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge the Bible and reject defenses that use only passages from within the Bible itself as justification. This is, again, why the faith arguement doesn't work.

Well then! What is the law based on? Could it be based on societies collective moral compass? Doh!

You are rejecting my defenses because I have used the Bible as justification???? Are you asking for me to spill my guts and pour my heart and soul out in an effort to convince you?

What exactly are you asking for?

 

[Ken King]

Re: A run for my money!

Originally posted by Kain99
Are you asking for me to spill my guts and pour my heart and soul out in an effort to convince you?

I don't think anyone is looking for convincing. The fact that you have faith is good, the fact that others have differing faith is equally good, and the fact that some have no religous faith does not mean that isn't good, just different. Can one believe in God and have their own brand of faith without believing in a particular churches beliefs? I say so and I say the path to Heaven is just as open to them as devout believers of the established religions.

 

[Kain99]

Bad usage of the English language

I feel strongly that religion is the #1 reason that people run and hide from God. In my opinion Doctorine divides. I wish that I had spent more time on my last post, I am not trying to convince Jimmy to think my way. I'm only trying to point out that I am right 100% of the time and sooner he realizes that the better!

My basic point is that "my" faith is based on the evidence I have obtained simply living life.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: A run for my money!

Originally posted by Ken King


I don't think anyone is looking for convincing. The fact that you have faith is good, the fact that others have differing faith is equally good, and the fact that some have no religous faith does not mean that isn't good, just different. Can one believe in God and have their own brand of faith without believing in a particular churches beliefs? I say so and I say the path to Heaven is just as open to them as devout believers of the established religions.

All well and good, Ken , except for one little minor
problem: Satan. I'm not sure if he's alluded to in other religions, but he sure is in the Bible. What I've been taught is that we've constantly got to be aware that: (1) he IS out there, (2) he means us no good, (3) his main objective is to destroy us, either singly or collectively. EVERY DAY he wants to add to his minions.
Moreover, reading Revelations, there WILL be a time that Christ and Satan come to battle, and it will be for our collective souls. So, without faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we will be doomed, Because Satan will surely devour us. Amen.

penncam

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Re: A run for my money!

Originally posted by penncam
All well and good, Frank , except for one little minor
problem: Satan. I'm not sure if he's alluded to in other religions, but he sure is in the Bible. What I've been taught is that we've constantly got to be aware that: (1) he IS out there, (2) he means us no good, (3) his main objective is to destroy us, either singly or collectively. EVERY DAY he wants to add to his minions.
Moreover, reading Revelations, there WILL be a time that Christ and Satan come to battle, and it will be for our collective souls. So, without faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we will be doomed, Because Satan will surely devour us. Amen.

penncam

Maybe the battle has already started for you as you quote me (Ken) and then call me Frank.

BTW are you implying that if I don't have faith in a Church I can't believe in Christ? If that is what you mean then I want to wave the flag.

 

[Hessian]

Frank...help me out here,
The philosophies exhibited by our faithless friends are as old as the hills.

These arguments are not innovative and their arguments against believing the Word have been catagorized and catalogued and refuted for centuries...
Now they are being rehashed by liberal professors and disallusioned universalists.

I believe we have Church history addressing a number of their objections....It just has been a number of years since I went through the arguments (sorry, no Jesuit training here).

Give me some names (labels) that fit their "new" insights.

Also, your referencing the broadly spread early gospels is excellent.
We must remember that certain Codex's were NOT exposed for comparison to others for centuries and finally when they were either exposed (Siniaticus) or revealed (Vaticanus)...we find them being written hundreds of years apart and hundreds of miles apart and....

the translations are identical: thus attesting to the purity of the original sources.

This weird myth that Jesus is some sort of composite defies Tacitus and several others.(Heroditus?) -they complain of the disturbance in Palestine of the new believers.
Herod, Pilate, and Agrippa have all been verified by the archaeological record too.

The doubters have actually not dug too deeply and therefore are comfortable with the haze of "it was a long time ago and nobody really knows"..those who pursue the documentation, records, and archaeology ask the more pointed, more defining questions.

 

[Frank]

Also, your referencing the broadly spread early gospels is excellent.
We must remember that certain Codex's were NOT exposed for comparison to others for centuries and finally when they were either exposed (Siniaticus) or revealed (Vaticanus)...we find them being written hundreds of years apart and hundreds of miles apart and....the translations are identical: thus attesting to the purity of the original sources.

I thought of saying this - but I have never read anything on it. Consider that, in the assembly of the various canons, such as the Muratorian Canon, the argument for what belonged in the New Testament depended on a few criteria, one of them being, how wide the use was across the Roman Empire. Thus books like the Shepherd of Hermas might have made it, and Hebrews might NOT, because it is anonymous. Since that was true as early as 325 AD, my guess was, there had to be SOME comparison of texts.

Similarly - some of the Synoptics have so much similarity, they MUST have been used as sources for each other (but enough differences to lead me NOT to believe in utter inerrancy). Again, a case for comparison.

This weird myth that Jesus is some sort of composite defies Tacitus and several others.(Heroditus?) -they complain of the disturbance in Palestine of the new believers.
Herod, Pilate, and Agrippa have all been verified by the archaeological record too.

There's really no doubt in my mind that the Josephus and Tacitus (or is it Suetonius? Heroditus is too early for Jesus, and was often regarded as a bit of a liar even by his contemporary peers) references are spurious - in fact, the insertion of the Josephus text is so obvious, it doesn't fit, and the narrative makes more sense when it is removed.

See, this doesn't bother me - that first century historians are far and few between. There's just a few that I know of - Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus, and the first two basically wrote what we'd call today "yellow journalism" - they were the Enquirers of their era - they wrote gossip and crap. All of the others came either later, like Dio, or before, like Polybius and Livy. So if there's not a lot of historical material about Jesus, there's not that much about a LOT of people whom we're sure did exist.

 

[jimmy]

Hessian,

Well I wasn't suggesting that no such person as Jesus existed. You are right; it's faulty logic to assume the "we weren't there, we can't know" stance because there are plenty of historical figures for which there are conflicting stories or sparse records which we take for granted as having existed.

However, I'm not sure that the evidence you, put forward establishes the truth of every statement made about or attributed to Jesus in the Bible.

THere are consistencies in the biblical text over time, yes, but there are also inconsistencies, omissions and the like between the texts that you seem to gloss over in assuming that the texts all match up, historical records are all in order, and, ultimately, every word of the Bible can be trusted as truth.

I'm NOT supposing anything new here and I'm not claiming too so don't come at me like I think I'm pioneering some new approach. And that's exactly my point. Many have taken this approach, continue to take this approach and use it to counter your supposition (as I have done here) that Jesus was ONLY either a liar, mentally unstable, or the son of God.

 

[Frank]

I've never been of the opinion that the "liar, lunatic or Lord" premise is of any value. It's so FINAL. And it leaves out so many possibilities - that he didn't say those things, that he DID, but out of context, that he did, but actually was going crazy towards the end of his life

 

[Penn]

A run for my money!

Originally posted by Ken King


Maybe the battle has already started for you as you quote me (Ken) and then call me Frank.

BTW are you implying that if I don't have faith in a Church I can't believe in Christ? If that is what you mean then I want to wave the flag.

I'm sorry Ken, I was thinking one name, and spelled another. I apologize to Frank too.
I am trying to zero in on just one comment: that having no faith might not necessarily be a bad thing. Man, you have to have SOME kind of Faith, but that's just my opinion. What I think is, you really have to believe because with no particular set of creeds, you are not gonna make it thru the Pearly Gates. You can wax eloquently all you like, and dance around the issue, but as Jesus said" I am the way" and "no man knows my Father without knowing me first". I could be wrong, but that's how I feel about it.
penncam

 

[Penn]

A run for my money!

Originally posted by cariblue


I agree.

I believe in people.

They will either let you down, or lift you up.

I don't need a "mythological" being to tell me that I'm a good or bad person. Or if the guy popping off innocent people from 500 yds is good or bad.

Good and bad is within all of us. I think a lot of people hide behind a "god" because it makes them feel better about the bad things that they do.

Your point is taken, however remember that many of our laws were "fashioned" after the Ten Commandments. In agreement with your philosophy, I will say that you have to look in that mirror each morning as you ready yourself for the day; do you like what you see?
penncam

 

[Ken King]

Re: A run for my money!

Originally posted by penncam
I'm sorry Ken, I was thinking one name, and spelled another. I apologize to Frank too.
I am trying to zero in on just one comment: that having no faith might not necessarily be a bad thing. Man, you have to have SOME kind of Faith, but that's just my opinion. What I think is, you really have to believe because with no particular set of creeds, you are not gonna make it thru the Pearly Gates. You can wax eloquently all you like, and dance around the issue, but as Jesus said" I am the way" and "no man knows my Father without knowing me first". I could be wrong, but that's how I feel about it.
penncam

What I was saying is that those that have no faith might not be any worse off then those that believe. Who knows? Certainly not me. I believe that there is a Father, a Son, and the Holy Spirit. Do I need a Church to pray in? No, but I do go sometimes. Do I need a Church to guide my understanding of this? No, but I will listen to others to enhace my understanding. Do I need a church to read the Bible? No, but will read it if inclined. Am I content in my beliefs? Yes and I am surprisingly happy as compared to how some people complain about their lives. Do I believe that we are all here for a purpose? Yes, as I think all of us have some reason for existing. Do I know what my purpose is? No, not looking either as I believe it will become apparent eventually. Does any of that bother me? No, as I am grateful to be alive and enjoying life. I am simply a man not willing to judge others on their religious beliefs. I do unto others as I would have them do unto me. All of this without the Church. Does that mean that I can’t get into Heaven? No and I don’t think God looks at it that way either.

Faith comes in many forms and I just don’t think any specific religion has a monopoly on life or is better or worse then another.

 

[Christy]

I think a lot of people hide behind a "god" because it makes them feel better about the bad things that they do.

I believe it is quite the opposite. Believing in God and being a Christian (Or Budhist etc.) demands we not hide and make excuses for the "bad things they do". We all are called to task to look deeper into ourselves "to face our demons" in order to come to God. We are also called to task to be decent people. I believe a lot of folks who choose to be atheist are fearful of doing just that.

We will all be judged by our actions not our words. God is not a mythical being. I am no religious scholar, however I have felt his power and seen his power enough times to make me a believer, despite all of my attempts to the contrary (to not believe).

 

[Penn]

You Gotta Have Faith

No real arguement on your last, KEN, But I recall during a class called Disciple I took at my church, In order to gain entrance to the Gates of Heaven, you have to(1) acknowledge Jesus as your Savior,(2) believe he died on the cross for all of us, (3) believe He arose from the dead, and (4) that he ascended into Heaven where He dwells with His Father.
The last thing He told His Disciples was to go out into the world and preach His message; that most likely has some significance too. The Protestant Religion maintains we will not enjoy a happy afterlife merely by doing good deeds. We gotta have Faith!
penncam

 

[SxyPrincess]

Re: A run for my money!

Originally posted by penncam
you have to look in that mirror each morning as you ready yourself for the day; do you like what you see?

Personally, I'd like bigger puppies.