(July 11, 2014 at 12:15 am)Purplundy Wrote: I feel this fits the topic of this thread.
Has anyone noticed that the Bible doesn't claim infallibility, like, at all?
That makes sense. The Bible doesn't talk about itself because not a single writer expected to have his text copied down next to the words of some other guy in a different place at a different time, bound in leather, and shaken vigorously at gay people.
Unless the Holy Spirit magically possessed each author like in some sort of horror movie, the Bible is incapable of giving a coherent opinion on quite a few things.
I just think it's weird that both Christians and atheists begin arguing from the assumption that Christianity is, or should be, dictated by the words in the Bible.

The Christian doctrine is specified in the Bible so therefore the Bible is the ultimate standard of what Christianity is and what it's supposed to be.

---

(July 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote:

---

(July 11, 2014 at 12:15 am)Purplundy Wrote: I feel this fits the topic of this thread.
Has anyone noticed that the Bible doesn't claim infallibility, like, at all?
That makes sense. The Bible doesn't talk about itself because not a single writer expected to have his text copied down next to the words of some other guy in a different place at a different time, bound in leather, and shaken vigorously at gay people.
Unless the Holy Spirit magically possessed each author like in some sort of horror movie, the Bible is incapable of giving a coherent opinion on quite a few things.
I just think it's weird that both Christians and atheists begin arguing from the assumption that Christianity is, or should be, dictated by the words in the Bible.

The Law (the first 5 books of the OT) and the Prophets (the second half of the OT) were stated to be inspired by writers in the NT. NT books contain historical accounts (Gospels, Acts), theological letters (from Paul, Timothy, Peter John, etc.) and the eschatology book of Revelation at the end. By the early 200s the current 27 books were treated as a group.

The writers of the NT did not claim their writings were inspired. They were given their status by others based on author having seen the risen Christ, theologically consistency, etc.

Most Christians believe that the various books of the Bible were inspired as well as inerrant in their original form.

Christian does mean follower of Christ. Christ is pretty much the centerpiece of the Bible. It follows that Christians pretty much have to follow the Bible to claim the title.

You are right. The Bible does not give an opinion on many things. It is however useful for instruction in a number of areas including history, religious, ethics, nature of God, nature of man, plan of salvation, how should we live, and where we are going.

Before the very clever comments come flooding in, I would like to make an observation. For all the massive amount of time you people take to bash Christianity, most you know so little of what it actually means or teaches (there are probably some exceptions). Your concepts of Christianity do not come from its source (or even people that will explain it properly), but through anti-religious forums, books or articles. You accuse me of only looking at articles that have a Christian biased toward evolution. It seems most of you have done the same when it comes to Christianity.

---

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

The whole New Testament can be summed up with these verses:

1. Matthew 10:5 (ERV) = Jesus sent the twelve men out with these instructions: “Don’t go to the non-Jewish people. And don’t go into any town where the Samaritans live.

2. Matthew 15: 24 (ERV) = Jesus answered, “God sent me only to the lost people of Israel.”

3. Matthew 19:28 (ERV) = Jesus said to them, “When the time of the new world comes, the Son of Man will sit on his great and glorious throne. And I can promise that you who followed me will sit on twelve thrones, and you will judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

4. Matthew 13:10-13 (ERV) = 10 The followers came to Jesus and asked, “Why do you use these stories to teach the people?”
11 Jesus answered, “Only you can know the secret truths about God’s kingdom. Those other people cannot know these secret truths. 12 The people who have some understanding will be given more. And they will have even more than they need. But those who do not have much understanding will lose even the little understanding that they have. 13 This is why I use these stories to teach the people: They see, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really hear or understand.

5. Revelation 21:10-12 (ERV) = 10 The angel carried me away by the Spirit to a very large and high mountain. The angel showed me the holy city, Jerusalem. The city was coming down out of heaven from God.
11 The city was shining with the glory of God. It was shining bright like a very expensive jewel, like a jasper. It was clear as crystal. 12 The city had a large, high wall with twelve gates. There were twelve angels at the gates. On each gate was written the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Simply stated: Jesus doesn't give a damn about Gentiles. He said so.

(July 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The whole New Testament can be summed up with these verses:

1. Matthew 10:5 (ERV) <snip>
2. Matthew 15: 24 (ERV)<snip>
3. Matthew 19:28 (ERV) <snip>
4. Matthew 13:10-13 (ERV) <snip>
5. Revelation 21:10-12 (ERV)<snip>

Simply stated: Jesus doesn't give a damn about Gentiles. He said so.

You seem to have picked the one Gospel of the four most blatantly addressed to Jews only and left out the Epistles.

Besides, even in Mathew, the risen Jesus says:

Quote:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Mathew NIV 28:18-20

@SteveII: Even an atheist can quote scripture. Doesn't make the scripture true though.

(July 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

Yes.
And no, the vitriol was more or less borne from observing a world utterly damned and confused and realizing that the memorization of Scripture and worship of an imaginary deity that I was forced to partake in multiple times per week for the first 17 years of my life largely explains the reason why.

Quote:Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

Yeah, actually a good point Stevie. The OT reads like political propaganda but as such it has a certain coherence if put into the context of the late 2d century BC.

The NT, on the other hand, except for the occasional warning to do what you are told, STFU and you'll get your "reward" in the NEXT life, reads like a pile of pious blather.

Quote:15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Abraham by a promise.

Absurdist shit.

But, when you have the power to burn someone at the stake for saying "WTF?" it tends to hang around as if it means something important.

Those days are gone.

(July 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

Of course. The "hate and vitriol" is an effect of having read the narrative. It (and narratives like it) are the only thing standing between me and a very generous view of humanity. Before I read the NT, I assumed that christians (and humans beings in general) were relatively decent. After having read it, I realized that I was mistaken. Thanks, I guess.

(July 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The Christian doctrine is specified in the Bible so therefore the Bible is the ultimate standard of what Christianity is and what it's supposed to be.

Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

(July 11, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Purplundy Wrote: Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

Does he? I doubt that very much.

(July 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Simply stated: Jesus doesn't give a damn about Gentiles. He said so.

While I'm not particularly invested in whatever Steve's argument is, I can't just let you take your false argument to a new thread. The last one is still awaiting your response.
Jesus helped out a Roman centurion and told a story about a good Samaritan. There are plenty more citable counterexamples available upon request.
Jesus was Jewish and is the founder of Christianity, a religion that stems from Judaism. He spent more time with Jews because it would be easier to explain himself to them. He then gave his disciples the task of spreading the movement to the Gentiles and Samaritans, which they did (also citable).
But if not being able to listen to a 30 year-old hippie babble about religion to you strikes you as some sort of disadvantage, then I wonder why you're an atheist.

(July 11, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Purplundy Wrote: Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

Yeah. But how would you determine just what he said and did?---Assuming of course that there is a historical Jesus that is anything like the one worshiped by Christians.

The Jesus Seminar took a pretty serious wack at the problem, but they hardly came up with definitive results. And if you take their results as gospel, there's not much gospel left:

Quote:*Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
* His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
*Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
*Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
*Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
* He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
*Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
* He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
*The empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
*Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.

(July 11, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 11, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Purplundy Wrote: Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

Does he? I doubt that very much.

You can't write a claim that Jesus has resurrected if he isn't even dead yet.
Jesus allegedly lived before the Bible was complete, and much longer before it was composed.