The Bible

[Sciwoman]

People have fought and died over these supposedly small differences. Families have been torn apart over them. Communities shattered because of them. So how do you decide who is correct? By whoever kills more of the 'heretics?' By which point of view has the most supporters left after the violence? By who has managed to take the reigns of power? By which set of 'scholars' screams the loudest? Are the christians in the West lesser christians than those in Africa because Western christians no longer burn witches? The same book that gave rise to the Quakers also gave rise to the Westboro Baptist Church - and everything in between.

You say 'mainstream christianity' is the correct version. For all time? 'Mainstream christianity' is constantly changing. A 'mainstream christian' from 500 years ago would be appalled at what is called 'mainstream' today. You might as well say that whatever current christian fad has the most followers is the correct version.

[Undeceived]

People have fought and died over these supposedly small differences. Families have been torn apart over them. Communities shattered because of them. So how do you decide who is correct? By whoever kills more of the 'heretics?' By which point of view has the most supporters left after the violence? By who has managed to take the reigns of power? By which set of 'scholars' screams the loudest? Are the christians in the West lesser christians than those in Africa because Western christians no longer burn witches? The same book that gave rise to the Quakers also gave rise to the Westboro Baptist Church - and everything in between.

You say 'mainstream christianity' is the correct version. For all time? 'Mainstream christianity' is constantly changing. A 'mainstream christian' from 500 years ago would be appalled at what is called 'mainstream' today. You might as well say that whatever current christian fad has the most followers is the correct version.

Who fought and died? What differences? Be specific so I may know you aren't generalizing. I don't believe 'mainstream Christianity' is constantly changing. In fact, Christians still say the same creeds they did in the 2nd century (such as the Apostles' and Nicene). If you agree 100% with those creeds, you are a Christian. If not, you aren't. I'd like you to tell which issues not addressed in the creeds have caused the civil wars you claim.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Who fought and died?

Ever heard of the Reformation and counter Reformation ?


I don't know what you mean by "mainstream'; it's a pretty vague term .For me it means the Catholics,Orthodox,Church of England and possibly the Lutherans. I specifically exclude the evangelicals and young earth creationist loonies.

Not sure how many of them, apart from the Catholics, still say the Nicene Creed in its original form.I doubt the Lutherans do.


The Church of England (Catholic lite) is most definitely mainstream and ordains women and admits gays.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I would like to address the comments of the OP with respect to discerning which works are symbolic vs. historic vs. poetic. The current canon of the bible is a collection of 66 very different books. Generally its really not so difficult to determine the nature of each. Some books, like the Apocalypse, are clearly 100% symbolic. The works of the Torah are largely symbolic as well, though the symbolism overlays legends that may or may not have happened as recorded. Books like Numbers mostly relate historical details (although I believe inner meanings are hidden there as well) recorded in the manner of other ancient historical works. Proverbs, the Psalms, and the Song of Songs are essentially poetic works. The Gospels are simultaneously historical and symbolic. The Epistles of Paul are his own exegesis and not revealed, despite the fact that he proclaimed himself to be an Apostle, which he was not (scriptural support upon request). Obviously, I do not fall in with the crowd that claims inerrency. Such a position is both unreasonable and untenable.

[Forsaken]

I would like to address the comments of the OP with respect to discerning which works are symbolic vs. historic vs. poetic. The current canon of the bible is a collection of 66 very different books. Generally its really not so difficult to determine the nature of each. Some books, like the Apocalypse, are clearly 100% symbolic. The works of the Torah are largely symbolic as well, though the symbolism overlays legends that may or may not have happened as recorded. Books like Numbers mostly relate historical details (although I believe inner meanings are hidden there as well) recorded in the manner of other ancient historical works. Proverbs, the Psalms, and the Song of Songs are essentially poetic works. The Gospels are simultaneously historical and symbolic. The Epistles of Paul are his own exegesis and not revealed, despite the fact that he proclaimed himself to be an Apostle, which he was not (scriptural support upon request). Obviously, I do not fall in with the crowd that claims inerrency. Such a position is both unreasonable and untenable.

The language bible uses to describe God has to be symbolic. God can't be described literally because we can't see him and he does not exist (99.999999% chance, that is).

[Undeceived]

Who fought and died?

Ever heard of the Reformation and counter Reformation ?

The Reformation happened because the Catholic church had strayed from true Christianity. The church had become political. It was ruled by a pope and cardinals who cared more about power than following the Word. Rather adhering to the fundamental salvation by grace, they offered indulgences--meaning you had your sins forgiven if you gave the church enough money. In this case, it was the political non-Christian authorities killing reformers who undermined their power. The Reformation had nothing to do with varying interpretations and everything to do with keeping the hard scriptures from the public (hence why services remained in Latin).

Not sure how many of them, apart from the Catholics, still say the Nicene Creed in its original form.I doubt the Lutherans do.

Almost every church has the Nicene at least on their statement of faith. If they don't they're hiding something. Lutherans definitely do (they're the more catholic-like of the protestants), although ELCA is becoming increasingly secular. The question is not whether they say the creed every week, the question is who is in accordance with it.

The Church of England (Catholic lite) is most definitely mainstream and ordains women and admits gays.

Those are probably the largest non-creed issues right now. Luckily, neither has any bearing on means of salvation or the inerrancy of the the Bible.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Nice way to quote mine you fucking piece of shit inhuman scum. I said you're a fucking Hitler wannabe just like your fucking made up sky warrior. You ever fucking quote me you do so fully asswipe.

Oh dear. I guess I need to give you the same reminder as I did to Min; there really is no need to be quite so obtuse. Perhaps have a go at expressing how you really feel.

He did.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Correction to my earlier post: Numbers is part of the Torah. I was thinking about Kings 1 & 2 but wrote Num instead. Sorry.

[NoMoreFaith]

Those are probably the largest non-creed issues right now. Luckily, neither has any bearing on means of salvation or the inerrancy of the the Bible.

It depends on whether you think Jesus lived and promoted the Law of Moses or not.
These are big issues that the bible does not give a clear answer about. It depends entirely on what you want to hear and therefore define the bible in that manner.

Again, what does "means of salvation" even mean, its more than just accepting Jesus. Its about a change in the rules, a new way to salvation. We must assume there was one way before Jesus, and a new way afterwards. This is a fundamentally unfair way to play the game, since it means that someones grandfather and grandson, one may have hell inflicted upon them and one does not, despite no real change in the way they live their life.
Just a thought.

If he shoved the truth down our throats, we would not love Jesus for his sacrifice, we would grudgingly say sorry for sins without meaning it just to get in to heaven. Coincidentally, not meaning it means we wouldn't be allowed in heaven anyway--therefore being more obvious produces no more believers.

Ouch, I think I heard something crack while you twisted on that one.

Let's ignore the fact that a sacrifice of life, when Jesus would have been the one person who knows he doesn't matter in the long run and had a golden ticket home.. was not much of a sacrifice anyway.

The non-sequitor of only grudgingly saying sorry is blatantly apparent. There is no reason to think that a clear account would be less effective.
If a laymans book of science makes people more interested in science, and helps them recognise the wonder of the universe, how would that be less effective than a scholarly text written in scientific jargon?

Does this mean, that if it was even more obscure, you'd believe it more? Is it at the perfect point of unintelligible nonsense for you to have faith without being grudging about it right now?

Nonsense.

[FallentoReason]

Again, what does "means of salvation" even mean, its more than just accepting Jesus. Its about a change in the rules, a new way to salvation. We must assume there was one way before Jesus, and a new way afterwards. This is a fundamentally unfair way to play the game, since it means that someones grandfather and grandson, one may have hell inflicted upon them and one does not, despite no real change in the way they live their life.

People at my church talk about that all the time. The new and old covenants.

If a Christian denies that the rules of the game changed after Jesus then they're either a closet Jew or just looney.