Human Reason and Christian Denominations

[The Grand Nudger]

Gee, I wonder.  What possible reason could paul have for coopting a religious movement and asserting himself as the indespensible man....assuming there actually was a "paul", ofc.

Must have been real belief.  No one has -ever- done that for any other reason.  

[John V]

See the bolded stuff. Yes, I can read. Seems like just doing stuff "in Jesus' name" isn't important as actually doing the will of the father. I take that to mean you should humbly obey what is laid out in the sermon in which this verse is found--not make a big show of your deeds while ignoring what Jesus has commanded.  Seeing the state of modern Christianity it's no wonder people simply fail to read verse 21 and use verse 22 to refute the content of verse 21. Wowsers indeed!

First, you're assuming that everyone who cries "Lord!" has saving faith, when the next verse, and other passages such as the parable of the sower, refute that.

Second, you're ignoring the passage I gave, which explicitly says that the work of God is to believe on Jesus.

[RoadRunner79]

That sounds silly to me too!   We all have different backgrounds, different biases, and different understandings about a number of things.  I wouldn't expect Christianity to be any different.  I don't think that any of us, are above reproach;  I've been wrong on things before, I changed my mind on things, and I've had to eat crow on occasion.   I'm still growing, still learning, and I'm sure still screwing up.

I do disagree, however, that any of this means that people are just making things up (perhaps some are).  But some of us, don't believe that we are free to just make things up, or that thins are subjective.   Some believe that there is an objective truth, that we are trying to achieve.

So the fact that Christians claim that the "bible is the infallible word of God, means nothing? 

So many Christians come here and preach that atheists don't understand the word of god (the bible), accusing us of having never read the bible, or that there are theists who aren't True Christians© because they don't understand the bible. We have one theist who claims he never mis-translates the bible. That it is everyone else who does it. 
This is quite simple. If your religion is making the claim that the bible has been translated from translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of original manuscripts (that no one has ever been able to prove exists), then the bible can only be interpreted in one way. And that way would be the way that those who have transcribed the document, intended for it to be read. 

Unless you're all just making this shit up and can't prove in any way that your particular type of Christianity got it right.


I'm gonna go with that. Yeah. It's definitely that. What the bible is, is a fictional work of literature that, just like any other novel, has flaws and gaps and some holes in the story. Problem is, it probably could have been written better had editors and other people in the book business been around back then to check facts, spelling and grammar.

I don't think that a conclusion of it is fiction follows from any of what you presented here.

[Joods]

So the fact that Christians claim that the "bible is the infallible word of God, means nothing? 

So many Christians come here and preach that atheists don't understand the word of god (the bible), accusing us of having never read the bible, or that there are theists who aren't True Christians© because they don't understand the bible. We have one theist who claims he never mis-translates the bible. That it is everyone else who does it. 
This is quite simple. If your religion is making the claim that the bible has been translated from translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of original manuscripts (that no one has ever been able to prove exists), then the bible can only be interpreted in one way. And that way would be the way that those who have transcribed the document, intended for it to be read. 

Unless you're all just making this shit up and can't prove in any way that your particular type of Christianity got it right.


I'm gonna go with that. Yeah. It's definitely that. What the bible is, is a fictional work of literature that, just like any other novel, has flaws and gaps and some holes in the story. Problem is, it probably could have been written better had editors and other people in the book business been around back then to check facts, spelling and grammar.

I don't think that a conclusion of it is fiction follows from any of what you presented here.

That's your opinion. However, you have failed to present anything to the contrary. I stand by my statements.

[vorlon13]

Even important stuff is ambiguously penned.

James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.      

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 You throw that out as if there's a contradiction between the two, I do not see it want to give me an explanation.

GC

---

Looks like we should defer to the Southern Baptists on this; John 3:16 is clearly the correct one.  Thanx for making me look.  I'll x out the erroneous James verse in my Bibles.




The Bible clearly teaches that all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and that the penalty for sin is eternal death. However, God by his grace has provided a way for sin to be forgiven, hell avoided and heaven gained. That way is faith in his Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23).
Salvation, according to the Bible, is solely by grace and faith, not by human effort or works (Ephesians 2:8-9). While not denying the value of good works, throughout our history Baptists have proclaimed the truth that salvation is only by grace through faith.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that a conclusion of it is fiction follows from any of what you presented here.

That's your opinion. However,  you have failed to present anything to the contrary. I stand by my statements.

You don't have to present something to the contrary to show that the reasoning, and thus the conclusion does not follow.

The copies of copies and translations line is old, and quite bad.    For most things of that age, we only have copies (a historian shouldn't be surprised by this).   And the errors in the copies of Biblical manuscripts instead of showing that it is ever changing and full of errors, instead shows quite the opposite.  It shows that a vast majority of the discrepancies are things like spelling errors, transposed words, or using a slightly different although equivalent word.   No major doctrine is in question because of the number of copies or errors in those copies.   When someone brings this up, you should ask them for specifics.   What are the errors, and what is the significance?

It simply doesn't follow that because someone mis-interprets something; that the original was false.  Atheists I am told don't always agree, are not a hive mind that does not mean that there is not an objective truth to any particular subject. 

Why do you think that people should not be able to have differing opinions?

[Bahana]

Why would a supernatural being want so many disagreements among his followers and thousands of different factions? The point is that there is no supernatural being making the message more clear and the followers must use their own reason to try to figure out how to properly interpret ancient writings.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many differing opinions does this supernatural being have, anyway? The implicit assumption in criticism regarding continuity is that a god would have consistent presence of mind. Why assume that? Might be insane. That it would communicate clearly. Why assume that? Might be malevolent. Maybe...maybe, it doesn't give a single fuck.

Or...you know....maybe it's just plain stupid.

[John V]

Why would a supernatural being want so many disagreements among his followers and thousands of different factions? The point is that there is no supernatural being making the message more clear and the followers must use their own reason to try to figure out how to properly interpret ancient writings.

Maybe being engaged in the process is more important than getting the answer exactly right.

[vorlon13]

Gambling on an eternity of being burnt in the fiery lake there.