Divine Inspiration

[Mystic]

why do you not know what part of the bible to trust?

Because whatever mechanism that would make the whole of Bible reliable has failed, and so if we don't know the whole bible is reliable, we naturally won't know which parts are reliable.

[Drich]

[/quote]

For those of you who are slow to reason and comperhend:

The Bible is the inspired word of God and is complete.

Therin lies the problem; only christians think this. If it were true, you would have a strong argument. Alas, the evidence strongly suggests that it isn't. There is nothing in the bible that could not have come from the mind of someone of that era, from archaic scientific beliefs (flat earth, etc.) to archaic morals (slavery, rape, child abuse, and the killing of non-believers are all perfectly okay).

actually i was thinking the oppsite. In that if the bible was man's idea of God it would reflect a picture a 'morality' you would be able to identify with. as it is it seems as if you do not have the most basic understanding of the Law or attonement. even though you have identified yourself as a moral person.

---

why do you not know what part of the bible to trust?

Because whatever mechanism that would make the whole of Bible reliable has failed, and so if we don't know the whole bible is reliable, we naturally won't know which parts are reliable.

what mechanism are you speaking of?

[FallentoReason]

For those of you who are slow to reason and comperhend:

The Bible is the inspired word of God and is complete. that said 'we' are not required to understand all of it nor are we held to what we can not comperhend or reconsile. we are only responsiable to what we have been entrusted with. whatever little peice of God's word you have been given the capasity to understand over the course of your life, that is what God will hold you accountable to.

So what happens when someone decides to extend Mark by 12 verses and make it finish at 16:20? What then? I don't understand how you can assert that the Bible is without error.

[Darkstar]

actually i was thinking the oppsite. In that if the bible was man's idea of God it would reflect a picture a 'morality' you would be able to identify with. as it is it seems as if you do not have the most basic understanding of the Law or attonement. even though you have identified yourself as a moral person.

---

No, it does not reflect a picture of morality that I can identify with. That is the whole point. It reflects a warped picture of morality that only people of that time period would identify with. If god had written it, then the moral laws laid down would all still be applicable now. I don't know what 'Law" you are referring to and I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't know what atonment is, especially since I didn't say anything about atonement. (or are you referring to atonment for original sin? I could easily discredit the validity of original sin if need be...)

[FallentoReason]

In that if the bible was man's idea of God it would reflect a picture a 'morality' you would be able to identify with

Do you identify with Paul's sexism then? Because I can't... and that makes me the immoral one supposedly?

[Drich]

For those of you who are slow to reason and comperhend:

The Bible is the inspired word of God and is complete. that said 'we' are not required to understand all of it nor are we held to what we can not comperhend or reconsile. we are only responsiable to what we have been entrusted with. whatever little peice of God's word you have been given the capasity to understand over the course of your life, that is what God will hold you accountable to.

So what happens when someone decides to extend Mark by 12 verses and make it finish at 16:20? What then? I don't understand how you can assert that the Bible is without error.

we've had this discussion several times now. It does not matter when mark ends. The bible is a tool, and in it's role it is the complete inspired word of God. Now if we are only responsiable for what we have been given to understand. Which can only ever be a small portion of all the bible contains. Meaning we will have cut the bible short in our own capasity to comperhend it. Or in our studies if we have been given over to insight and explaination that goes beyond the written words of a given translation in a particular passage, then we in effect have extended the message, and again are responsiable to share it.

The Bible is complete in the purpose in which God intended. Your question suggests that you are looking to worship or deify the bible itself as a means to worship God.(In that the bible needs to be perfect as you imagine God to be perfect) Almost like a reliquary/item or a sort of idol worship. This is yet another 1000 year old false concept of worship. Because again the bible is a tool. We are not to worship the hand tools of the Master Builder. We are to Worship the Master Builder Himself.

---

No, it does not reflect a picture of morality that I can identify with. That is the whole point. It reflects a warped picture of morality that only people of that time period would identify with.

No it didn't! Have you not heard of the marytars of the first century church? Or the any of the ones that followed? Saul/Paul himself identified and slaughtered Christians. Christianity was not welcomed into the mainstream until the church leaders saw how it could be used to exploit the population. Which is why we call that period the Dark ages.

If god had written it, then the moral laws laid down would all still be applicable now.

"You shall have no other God's before me. Keep the sabbath day, You shall not commit adultry, If you look at a woman with a lustful eye it is the same as commiting adultry. If you have anger in your heart it is the same as murder."
So your saying these So you are saying these OT and NT laws would be apart of man 'moral code' ( you said moral) even if God did not command them?

I don't know what 'Law" you are referring to and I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't know what atonment is, especially since I didn't say anything about atonement.

The complete law of God that points to the need for attonement as the only means of righteousness. The law that tells us that we can not ever possiably hope to be 'moral' enough to warrant eternal life with God.

(or are you referring to atonment for original sin? I could easily discredit the validity of original sin if need be...)

So can I

---

[quote="Drich"] In that if the bible was man's idea of God it would reflect a picture a 'morality' you would be able to identify with

Do you identify with Paul's sexism then? Because I can't... and that makes me the immoral one supposedly?

Nope. But that does not mean I ignore it either.

Also stop using morality as any kind of standard. It not. We are all 'immoral' all of the time. to say you or I are 'moral' is foolish. Because neither of us can possiable be up to par with God righteous standard. That means we have to default our 'morality' to the ever declining standards of the pop culture. which is completely meaningless.

[Waratah]

Also stop using morality as any kind of standard. It not. We are all 'immoral' all of the time. to say you or I are 'moral' is foolish. Because neither of us can possiable be up to par with God righteous standard. That means we have to default our 'morality' to the ever declining standards of the pop culture. which is completely meaningless.

That is bullshit. Because the god you talk about from the bible was a murdering control freak. Fuck even I am better than that, I not a control freak.

[FallentoReason]

we've had this discussion several times now. It does not matter when mark ends. The bible is a tool, and in it's role it is the complete inspired word of God. Now if we are only responsiable for what we have been given to understand. Which can only ever be a small portion of all the bible contains. Meaning we will have cut the bible short in our own capasity to comperhend it. Or in our studies if we have been given over to insight and explaination that goes beyond the written words of a given translation in a particular passage, then we in effect have extended the message, and again are responsiable to share it.

I still don't understand how you can accept errors as being a part of "God's plan" in making the Bible. That makes no sense.

Interesting what you say here. How exactly are you doing people a favour by preaching to them in that case? You're making them aware of more things where they need to be in line. Of instead you never introduced the Bible to someone then they have less to 'live up to'.

The Bible is complete in the purpose in which God intended. Your question suggests that you are looking to worship or deify the bible itself as a means to worship God.(In that the bible needs to be perfect as you imagine God to be perfect) Almost like a reliquary/item or a sort of idol worship. This is yet another 1000 year old false concept of worship. Because again the bible is a tool. We are not to worship the hand tools of the Master Builder. We are to Worship the Master Builder Himself.

I think this misses the point I'm talking about.

Nope. But that does not mean I ignore it either.

Also stop using morality as any kind of standard. It not. We are all 'immoral' all of the time. to say you or I are 'moral' is foolish. Because neither of us can possiable be up to par with God righteous standard. That means we have to default our 'morality' to the ever declining standards of the pop culture. which is completely meaningless.

Ok, so you don't endorse Paul's sexist views but at the same time you assert that the Bible is what tells us what's right and wrong? Contradiction.

[Drich]

I still don't understand how you can accept errors as being a part of "God's plan" in making the Bible. That makes no sense.

I haven't found one yet, but if one such example should exist I would say that it is their to help facilitate the reasonable doubt you all need to justify your seperation from God. Again this life is about Choice. If we have undoubtable proof then 'we' no longer have a choice.

Interesting what you say here. How exactly are you doing people a favour by preaching to them in that case? You're making them aware of more things where they need to be in line. Of instead you never introduced the Bible to someone then they have less to 'live up to'.

Eternal life is not the Only goal. a life worth living eternally is. we are given tasks and reward in balance to our faithfulness to what we have been exposed to. Neither are possiable if one is has not been exposed to the truth of God's word.

Ok, so you don't endorse Paul's sexist views but at the same time you assert that the Bible is what tells us what's right and wrong? Contradiction.

One does not have to like the difference between 'right and wrong' to submit to it.

[Darkstar]

I still don't understand how you can accept errors as being a part of "God's plan" in making the Bible. That makes no sense.

I haven't found one yet

I have.
And here too.

but if one such example should exist I would say that it is their to help facilitate the reasonable doubt you all need to justify your seperation from God. Again this life is about Choice. If we have undoubtable proof then 'we' no longer have a choice.

So you are saying that god deliberately obscures his existence to see if we will 'choose' to believe in him? That doesn't make any sense.

Eternal life is not the Only goal. a life worth living eternally is. we are given tasks and reward in balance to our faithfulness to what we have been exposed to. Neither are possiable if one is has not been exposed to the truth of God's word.

Just after you got done saying that god is hiding himself, you say it is impossible for you to follow him unless he exposes the 'truth of his word' to us. If we cannot know that he exists, then how do we know his word is true? As I said earlier at some point (maybe not this thread): If god wanted to test us he would reveal himself and ask who would follow. He would know if we only followed for self-preservation, so that wouldn't be an issue.

Ok, so you don't endorse Paul's sexist views but at the same time you assert that the Bible is what tells us what's right and wrong? Contradiction.

One does not have to like the difference between 'right and wrong' to submit to it.

So you are sexist because god says so? Also, that answers the question: does god command what is right, or is it right because god commands it? (You claim the latter, so much for objective moralty, then...)