RE: question about the bible
June 30, 2011 at 7:58 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2011 at 8:15 am by fr0d0.)
Not christlike but in relation to God, who is to say who has the best grasp on life? Many Christians get it wrong too. It doesn't do you any good getting hung up on terminology. We're all after the same thing.
Theologically Dawkings is a joke of course. Absolutely his book was written to counter the ignorance he faced in opposition to his work, and it's credible for that. Ultimately he's doing religion as much a favour as anti religion.
Tell me about the two people.
Theologically Dawkings is a joke of course. Absolutely his book was written to counter the ignorance he faced in opposition to his work, and it's credible for that. Ultimately he's doing religion as much a favour as anti religion.
(June 30, 2011 at 7:45 am)thebigfudge Wrote:Not my view. The view of the mainstream church and teachings on Christianity back to year dot. All mainstream churches believe the same root thing. Small disagreements are acceptable within the core beliefs. I believe all those other denominations are followers of Christ. That's why I can accept their members as mainstream Christians.Quote:No never. People got it horribly wrong, as people have the ability to do. Jesus spent most of his time telling the religious how wrong they were getting it.well they got it wrong based on your personal view, I am sure their personal view was quite different. THe church is made up of personal views. thats why you have so many denominations. so many offshoots. all your beliefs are equally as valid. You may not believe that BUT then again they wont believe your right either.
(June 30, 2011 at 7:45 am)thebigfudge Wrote: Its quite a convenient argument don't you think "everyone else was wrong, BUUUT I am right" based on the same criteria.Except no one is saying that.
(June 30, 2011 at 7:45 am)thebigfudge Wrote:Those years weren't invalid at all. there were some people who got it wrong despite the massive power the church weilded. People protested to death at the anti christian rules of the christians in power.Quote:The reformists changed it back to what Jesus actually taught you mean. From the 3rd century Christianity was hijacked by the lust for power and profit. There were literal rivers of blood. What went on was the opposite of Christ like.
Oh yeah that's the first 1500 years of Christianity are invalid as "they got the bible wrong" Jesus didn't actually write the bible. most of the NT was written by paul. Who according to the bible was inspired by God. So surely you have to take the bible in context. When the couple in Acts witheld their tithes they were killed by God. That doesnt seem very faith based to me ?
Tell me about the two people.
(June 30, 2011 at 7:45 am)thebigfudge Wrote:As I said above, those are details that we can debate. It doesn't affect the core beliefs, no matter how much you or I might oppose such ideas. Are we following secular morals or doing what God wants? Our opinion happens to reflect the secular norm so we have to be careful there.Quote:Again... that's not what Jesus taught or did. We should try to interpret as exactly as we can what the original text says. The oppression of women is a secular moral thing. What you're opposing here are the secular morals of the time, and not Christianity. Christians went along with the societal norm, sure. But what they did against Christ wasn't 'Christian'.
Lol. what about the catholic church, quite a lot of churches that still exist today DONT allow woman pastors based on what scriptures say. Again The bible is made up of numerous authors. under the influence of God. ie Paul,Luke so surely thier letters and books are just as valid as the gospels, infact more so as they are direct instructions and not parables which can have numerous meanings.
(June 30, 2011 at 7:45 am)thebigfudge Wrote: Also the societal norm wasn't secular it was religious ( at least in the UK-) its only very recently that we have became secular. Church and state were intertwined.I don't think It's as simple as that. The social norm at the time was oppressive to women. The 'religious' state had the same position. Hmm.
(June 30, 2011 at 7:45 am)thebigfudge Wrote:Do you still think that?Quote:And the onus is upon you to demonstrate this. So far you've not made a single successful point.
I think my points are all successful. There are numerous denominations. all of which have different ideas. different beliefs etc. so the logic does change It ;changes dramatically. Unless you are saying that different denominations don't exist or that because your belief is slightly different they are all wrong.