Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 14, 2016 at 10:00 am)Edward John Wrote: Because Sola scriptura is taught nowhere in the Bible its unbiblical and above all, The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century. So up to the 1400 every christian submited to the authority of the Catholic Church.
^^^
He's right, you know?
(I never thought I'd say this about this Edward John guy...)
Now ask why is he 'right?'
The 'church' in the 3rd/4th century called to have all manuscripts turned over to them in order to compile the first 'bible.' After it was compiled the church hung on to those manuscripts and issued a final draft which took decades, then as subsequent popes began to reign they began to add to scripture or rather add to the Septuagint (the Latin only bible) which it took a priest to decipher. (one bible per perish) That is why all Christians answered to the catholic church because they had they only symbolance of authority from God.
What's more if anyone challenged the church they were skined alived and they and thier families were burned at the stake for heresy. Until a monk who could read both the greek and latin did, and saw how corrupt the latin was from the original greek. Then one day that monk wrote out all the different contradictions and nailed them to the door of the cathedral in his parish. Which is where the reformation movement got it's start.
He is right, but only because the truth of God's word was suppressed.
Quote:In that Bible of yours, how do they refer to that god?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's often the God of Abraham (& Company™ ).
So, why not follow in the tradition taught by the bible you wish to follow?
Jesus was asked a similar question after he healed a man.
2 Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”
3 And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!”
4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” 7 And he arose and departed to his house.
8 Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled[a] and glorified God, who had given such power to men.
So I ask you which is easier to say? the God of Abraham which connotes all of the religious traditions I am trying to tell you is not necessary to have close relationship with God.. Or the God of the bible which has you stop and think what is different between the aspects of God I am speaking of and what religion has taught you?
The God of the bible is indeed the God of Abraham, but not the God of religion. (look at how jesus treated the most 'religious' of his day) However the term 'the God of abraham' has been adopted by religion and it automatically conjurers up the sterotypes of the religious version of God. Which again does not reflect the picture of God the bible draws. So to separate and try and get you guys to draw a line between the biblical version of God and the religious view I use the term the God of the bible or the God the bible describes.
For example the religious god is an omni max god. Omnipresent, omnibenovelent, omnieverything...
The problem with that? the bible does not make the claim for an omni max God. For one thing no where in scripture does it say God is omnibenovelent... It says God love is indeed boundless, but only for those who accept Christ. John 3:16 outlines the 'conditions' of God's love. which contradicts the idea of unconditional and limitless love.
No the God of the bible is the Alpha and Omega. Not omni max.
The difference?
An Alpha and omega can be whatever He wants when ever He wants. There are no rules or limits to his will. An omni-max God is plagued with paradoxes. For instance Can an omnimax God create a rock so big he can not lift it? or the epicurean Paradox...
Now can a Alpha and Omega do the same? Only if He wants to. If not then no, if so then yes.
Omni-max is man's limited understanding trying to describe attributes he does not understand to a God he is trying to worship. Religion is man's effort or attempt to worship and describe God in a way we can understand.
Alpha and Omega is a term God used to describe Himself. It is complete and without paradox.
November 15, 2016 at 10:56 am (This post was last modified: November 15, 2016 at 10:57 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
Ohmigaawwwd how did I miss this thread? This is better than Pixies vs Leprachauns vs Gnomes (spoiler: Leprechauns win)
It's got big bold multicoloured underlined fonts, it's got pages of copypasta, it's got fantasists carefully edging around each other occasionally hitting each other with their intellectual handbags.
It's like a cripple fight in mud.
I think the theists should be given encouragement. We need to say which denomination we'd go with if we were to become Christian.
I can't decide. Protestants sound more like free-form hippies so far while the Cafia can be extremely kinky. But they're also really oppressive. Protestants could be more fun. I need convincing!
(November 15, 2016 at 9:05 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Timothy 3:16 NASB
Well, that's the verse that believers typically trot out to justify Sola Scriptura, but it raises the question of what exactly the author of 2 Timothy had in mind. There was no "Bible" when that was written. How can we know what the author considered inspired Scripture? I doubt he was thinking, "This will all get hashed out in due course and decided on by a vote. Then they'll know."
Well the Author "paul" tells us what scripture is..
(2 Thes 2:15) 14 God chose you to have that salvation. He chose you by using the Good News that we told you. You were chosen so that you can share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So, brothers and sisters, stand strong and continue to believe the teachings we gave you when we were there and by letter.
(November 15, 2016 at 10:13 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Besides, I find 2Tim316 extraordinarily useful in other regards. I use it here more than the Christers do. To their everlasting horror.
I know what you mean, but Paul gave them the Get-Out-of-the-Law-Free card so they can disregard whichever parts of Torah they find inconvenient. The 'good' stuff? They're happy to quote it and consider it inspired. The more embarrassing stuff? Well, we're not Orthodox Jews. Doesn't apply!
<Imagines what Christianity might have been if James the Just had publicly bitch-slapped the hell out of Saul/Paul in front of a jeering crowd>
It's not a get out of jail free card. we are still bound by the law to identify sin.
However we no longer follow the law as our only means to righteousness.
(November 15, 2016 at 10:21 am)Crossless1 Wrote: I know what you mean, but Paul gave them the Get-Out-of-the-Law-Free card so they can disregard whichever parts of Torah they find inconvenient. The 'good' stuff? They're happy to quote it and consider it inspired. The more embarrassing stuff? Well, we're not Orthodox Jews. Doesn't apply!
<Imagines what Christianity might have been if James the Just had publicly bitch-slapped the hell out of Saul/Paul in front of a jeering crowd>
It's not a get out of jail free card. we are still bound by the law to identify sin.
However we no longer follow the law as our only means to righteousness.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I wasn't clear, but it was 'following the Law' that I had in mind.
(November 15, 2016 at 10:56 am)Mathilda Wrote: Ohmigaawwwd how did I miss this thread? This is better than Pixies vs Leprachauns vs Gnomes (spoiler: Leprechauns win)
Goddamn Irish.
Quote:It's got big bold multicoloured underlined fonts, it's got pages of copypasta, it's got fantasists carefully edging around each other occasionally hitting each other with their intellectual handbags.
It's like a cripple fight in mud.
Lol.
Quote:I think the theists should be given encouragement. We need to say which denomination we'd go with if we were to become Christian.
I can't decide. Protestants sound more like free-form hippies so far while the Cafia can be extremely kinky. But they're also really oppressive. Protestants could be more fun. I need convincing!
I'm not a pacifist so it's not a good fit for me, but it seems the Quakers are uniquely positioned to embarrass both sides in this cripple fight.
(November 15, 2016 at 10:33 am)vorlon13 Wrote: But Jesus fucked Paul's heresy with His I came to fulfill the law remark.
[snicker, that damn Jesus opening His mouth again and fucking things up for his spokesmen]
No, read what Jesus said:
17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them. 18 I assure you that nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. The law will not lose even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter until it has all been done.
17The law remains. 18 Nothing will change from the law UNTIL All Is FINISHED.
Now... What were Christ's Last words on the Cross?
"It Is Finished."
So again the law remains which mean it is still here to define what is sin.
And the old way of doing things WAS valid up until Christ died on the cross.
Now there has been a change A change Christ Himself pointed to. A Change that ALL THE APSTOLES saw and agreed upon as there was a very sharp divide between OT Judaism and NT Christianity from the very start!
(November 15, 2016 at 8:04 am)pocaracas Wrote: ^^^
He's right, you know?
(I never thought I'd say this about this Edward John guy...)
Now ask why is he 'right?'
The 'church' in the 3rd/4th century called to have all manuscripts turned over to them in order to compile the first 'bible.' After it was compiled the church hung on to those manuscripts and issued a final draft which took decades, then as subsequent popes began to reign they began to add to scripture or rather add to the Septuagint (the Latin only bible) which it took a priest to decipher. (one bible per perish) That is why all Christians answered to the catholic church because they had they only symbolance of authority from God.
What's more if anyone challenged the church they were skined alived and they and thier families were burned at the stake for heresy. Until a monk who could read both the greek and latin did, and saw how corrupt the latin was from the original greek. Then one day that monk wrote out all the different contradictions and nailed them to the door of the cathedral in his parish. Which is where the reformation movement got it's start.
He is right, but only because the truth of God's word was suppressed.
So you're saying that the Latin bible, used by the Catholic Church, had been changed to suit some purpose?
Isn't that very very similar to the bible you use?
Is the issue of "sola scriptura" addressed by that monk who managed to read both the Greek and Latin versions of the text?
Hey, weren't some of those texts written in Hebrew? Did he read Hebrew, too?
(November 15, 2016 at 10:48 am)Drich Wrote:
Quote:In that Bible of yours, how do they refer to that god?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's often the God of Abraham (& Company™ ).
So, why not follow in the tradition taught by the bible you wish to follow?
Jesus was asked a similar question after he healed a man.
2 Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”
3 And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!”
4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” 7 And he arose and departed to his house.
8 Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled[a] and glorified God, who had given such power to men.
So I ask you which is easier to say? the God of Abraham which connotes all of the religious traditions I am trying to tell you is not necessary to have close relationship with God.. Or the God of the bible which has you stop and think what is different between the aspects of God I am speaking of and what religion has taught you?
The God of the bible is indeed the God of Abraham, but not the God of religion.
(look at how jesus treated the most 'religious' of his day) However the term 'the God of abraham' has been adopted by religion and it automatically conjurers up the sterotypes of the religious version of God. Which again does not reflect the picture of God the bible draws. So to separate and try and get you guys to draw a line between the biblical version of God and the religious view I use the term the God of the bible or the God the bible describes.
For example the religious god is an omni max god. Omnipresent, omnibenovelent, omnieverything...
The problem with that? the bible does not make the claim for an omni max God. For one thing no where in scripture does it say God is omnibenovelent... It says God love is indeed boundless, but only for those who accept Christ. John 3:16 outlines the 'conditions' of God's love. which contradicts the idea of unconditional and limitless love.
No the God of the bible is the Alpha and Omega. Not omni max.
The difference?
An Alpha and omega can be whatever He wants when ever He wants. There are no rules or limits to his will. An omni-max God is plagued with paradoxes. For instance Can an omnimax God create a rock so big he can not lift it? or the epicurean Paradox...
Now can a Alpha and Omega do the same? Only if He wants to. If not then no, if so then yes.
Omni-max is man's limited understanding trying to describe attributes he does not understand to a God he is trying to worship. Religion is man's effort or attempt to worship and describe God in a way we can understand.
Alpha and Omega is a term God used to describe Himself. It is complete and without paradox.
The 'God of Abraham' is a omni-max
The God of the bible is an Alpha and Omega.
(my hide tags to bring out the bit I want)
Aren't you contradicting yourself a bit?
I think you want to say the "god of religion" (catholic religion... who knows about the Orthodox, huh?) is a omni-max.
The thing, as I see it is that the God of Abraham is the big guy. And you want to follow that big guy, but with all the caveats introduced by Jesus and the subsequent traditions, like the trinity and stuff like that. That's why you call it the "god of the bible".
Calling it "God of Abraham" feels incomplete, to you, huh? It's like you're just mentioning "God , the Father"... and leaving the other 2 out.
Catholics vs Protestants is the same as Tibet Buddhists vs Shinto Buddhists, is the same as Sunni vs Shiite is the same as Star Wars vs Star Trek.
Our species was around long before we stupidly made bad guesses as to the nature of reality. It was understandable when humans didn't know any better. But we know better now. There were no written religions or boarders 200,000 years ago much less 4 billion years ago. In 5 billion years from now, our species will long be extinct and our myths we call religions will be as remembered as we were 5 billion years ago.
Not calling for the forced end of any religion, but I do get tired of any one thinking it is a cure or unique or special. There has never been in the history of ANY religion, now dead religion, or still believed religion any such thing as a perfect umbrella label. Every religion, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Jews all each have sub sects that do not agree on how to follow their writings or their holy leaders.
The title of the thread is pointless, yes there are HUGE differences between Catholics or Protestants just as there are Sunnis and Shiites. Just like their are liberal Jews and right wing Jews.
Religion in every form, polytheism or monotheism at best may create local social order, but as a form of global unity it is the worst way of diplomacy even within the same umbrella labels. That is our species failure to understand WE ARE NOT DIFFERENT. It is our species failure to understand that morality does not come from old books, but our species morality that leads us to do good or bad, is in us, in our evolution as individuals. Religious people certainly are capable of doing good, but they need to understand that it isn't an old book or club that makes them do good, it is our empathy.
(November 15, 2016 at 11:24 am)Brian37 Wrote: Catholics vs Protestants is the same as Tibet Buddhists vs Shinto Buddhists, is the same as Sunni vs Shiite is the same as Star Wars vs Star Trek.
Sir... you have gone too far!
Star Wars is a typical story of good versus evil.
Star Trek is a commentary on social, political, economical and inter-species issues... if we forget about the movies and focus on the series.
