Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Thumpalumpacus]

It was bound to happen eventually Thump, some of these guys just need a nudge to put them over the edge quicker.

As I said in his other thread, I clearly credited him with more intelligence than was warranted.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"So the bottom line is, when you're ready to drop the irrational anger and hate and finally come to God, who loves you, you have nothing to worry about."

Liar. If you are not baptized, your sins will not be washed away, and you will have no salvation.

http://www.equip.org/article/baptism-theology/

But b-- but -- that's not a core tenet!!!11!!

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, check your trolldar drivers..see if they're up to date.  Tell you what disappoints me, this "differences that make no difference" thing is fascinating in it's own right.  You won;t find a preist who thinks that the differences between catholicsm nd protestantism make no difference.  That they aren't core.  What you will find, however, are strategists who realized that airing their dirty laundry to the voting bloc was counterproductive.  Isn't that an interesting narrative?  Nope, taboo..apparently.  Not only are there no real differences...we're not going to discuss how and when we decided that this was so......

Fucking revisionists, lol.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I certainly gave him too much benefit of the doubt.

As for the no differences thing, that's exactly where I was going with my point about practices. Words written in a book mean nothing when the actions of men, all of whom claim to venerate said book, vary so widely.

At least we have the solace of knowing that he regards the WBC as fully Christian, because they adhere to the core tenets.

Until, of course, ole Delicate whips out his No True Scotsman card again.

[Losty]

Thump, you're you again

welcome back, love

[Athene]

Delicate
Baptism is not a core doctrine. People don't go to hell on the basis of their preferred method of baptism. And yes, this is after what's at stake for those who believe it.

Baptism is an integral component of salvation by grace, which is a core doctrine.

Delicate
The pathway to salvation would be a core doctrine, to the extent that there are people who hold a view that might cause them to lose their salvation.

Such as not believing water immersion is a requirement for salvation? Keep in mind there are many Christians who do not consider water baptism to be an optional expression. Instead, it's believed to be the very mechanism by which the baptism of the Holy Spirit is recognized.

Delicate
These differences are in fact relevant, and if an atheist wants to assert that there is soooo mucchhhhhh doctrinal diversity over this issue, my response would be "Well asserted. Now where's the evidence?"

Okay. Here's John 3:5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And here are two examples of the diversity regarding this issue:
http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religion...-salvation
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte...ticle=2748

Delicate
I might also stroke my chin and twirl my invisible moustache, but only because that's a peripheral doctrinal practise on my part.

As well as being oblivious to known facts and in very deep denial. 

You remind me of a former forum member who constantly attempted to control the dialogue on this forum, in an effort to follow his formulated apologetics spiel to the letter.

[robvalue]

I guess that's why people never reply when I ask why I should care about any of it at all. Not on their script.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm just astounded that this guy is enough of an asshole to think

1) That I don't know what a conditional or qualified statement is, or how to respond to it (especially since I DID respond - that's what the phrase "even if Christianity is true" means, asshole), and

2) That I cannot be angry at the adherents of a religion legitimately, and still have unemotional and unrelated reasons for rejecting the beliefs of those adherents.

I am a pretty calm and peaceful person, in general... at least, compared to the norm for males in my culture. That said, I'd have a hard time not choking a person who said some ignorance-plus-arrogance combination like that to me in person. Seriously, I'm not sure I could maintain control if one of these smug assholes ever whips out that "look at the Soviet Union, North Korea or Communist China to see what kind of view you're endorsing" bullshit in person. I would very likely stop bashing their skull into the table-top while screaming "ATHEISM AND COMMUNISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING YOU FUCKING NUMBSKULL!!!", over and over, only when pulled off the idiot by police.

[Neo-Scholastic]

---

A common claim about Christianity is "There are so many interpretations of the Bible! How can you know if any of it is true!"

What people who make this claim don't realize is that the differences over interpretation account for a minuscule fraction of what the Bible really says. So, while the Bible's stance on certain issues might not be wholly precise, the main claims are pretty clear. 

For instance, it's pretty clear, not just from the Bible, but from historical record, that there was a man named Jesus. The Bible is pretty clear about most of his claims, and the basic facts of his life, etc.

The problem with people who make this claim is the overly broad and inaccurate generalizations.

The vast majority of discovered Biblical texts are for the most part identical to each other, and the minor discrepancies that do exist are over things like grammar and prepositions (like "on" versus "upon").

What knowledgeable atheists can rationally affirm is that only certain parts of the Bible might be ambiguous. The others are more or less clear.

---

On top of the issue of 'errancy' in the bible, your position ignores the fact that many of those groups, based on different interpretations, have a history of violence towards others, using the interpretations as a pretext for that violence. These are not petty or trivial matters of distinction; people have died over them. These are not 'unified' groups, these are independently functioning cells of differing belief, not to be glossed over in an apologetic.

Care to put a number on that? Maybe one that cannot otherwise be more accurately attributed to geopolitical disputes?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, you're you again

welcome back, love