question about the bible

[thebigfudge]

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.

Its quite a convenient argument don't you think "everyone else was wrong, BUUUT I am right" based on the same criteria.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

[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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

Tell me about the two people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you still think that?

[The Grand Nudger]

What is that core belief again?

[thebigfudge]

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.

well not really. Women pastors not a small thing. How many people going to heaven not a small thing, Wither you require water baptism or not , wither saints exist or not. speaking in tongue's. Do you require physical confession. should you actually painfully punish yourself as repentance and many more
those are all big differenes. I could go to more extreme views. ie JW's etc

Except no one is saying that.

well you said they got it horribly wrong, based on your personal view and nothing more. They believed what they were doing was right.

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.

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.

obviously they were it was you who said that the church went back to their original roots in the reformist movement. How can both a works based AND a faith based religion both be right ? one must logically be wrong

Tell me about the two people.

Acts 5 1-11

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.

They were doing what God wanted as written through Paul. There is nothing secular about that

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
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.

From 1 Tim 2

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.

Ummm religion was the social norm. secularism did not exist. In fact for most of our history a secular view could get you excommunicated or killed.

Do you still think that?

Of course. denominations are split dramatically on numerous things you may equate these as small. some are. but small things add up. But then you get bigger divides such as the whole catholic/ protestant split. The logic of Christianity has changed throughout time.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know fudge, I want to point out, that in the case of faith/works, assuming that one or the other is correct is a false dichotomy. There is a third position. Neither. Perhaps they cannot both be true at once, but they can both be false simultaneously. This can be expanded to encompass the entirety of religious thought, of course. More for the lurkers than for you.

[thebigfudge]

You know fudge, I want to point out, that in the case of faith/works, assuming that one or the other is correct is a false dichotomy. There is a third position. Neither. Perhaps they cannot both be true at once, but they can both be false simultaneously. This can be expanded to encompass the entirety of religious thought, of course. More for the lurkers than for you.

Oh I know. I just fitted into the example I was using and how they are drastically opposed. they both can be wrong but one cant be right. lol

[Faith No More]

fr0d0, what are these core beliefs you speak of? I've seen you mention them before but you have yet to define them. Please avoid subjective statements like, "Correctly interpreting Jesus' teachings."

[Epimethean]

Unless those teachings are available in a PDF.

[Godscreated]

[Epimethean]

Wait-so a religion cannot be christian if it invents its own text-even if it is in the name of christ that they do this, guided by the sacred ouija and all that?