Members banned from this thread: zaangalewa


Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 300
Thanks Tree58Thanks

Thread: Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

  1. #251
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,373
    Thanks
    17649

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    You spent 25 years studying christianity????? You probably have a doctorate in divinities by now, if you weren't held back for at least 15 years. What's astounding is that in that 25 years, no one bothered to explain to you what exactly biblical inerrancy means.
    The problem Kingrat, is that it seems to depend on to whom you are speaking. The vast majority of Christian evangelicals are Bible literalists - the Bible means exactly what it says, how it says it. After that, what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are figurative seem to vary from denomination to denomination, as does what parts, if any, of the Old Testament are relevant to Christians. See, this is kind of part of the problem; The Bible is a constantly moving target, so that no one who is not a Christian ever seems to be able to tie a Christian down about what it actually says, and what it actually means.

    This problem, quite frankly, is great part of what caused me to come to the realisation that it was all bullshit, and the bible is nothing more than a book of man-made mythology.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  2. #252
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,373
    Thanks
    17649

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Science says nothing about god, fyi. Or did you miss that in your 25 years of studying christianity?
    Actually, I did miss that in my 25b years of studying Christianity, because Christians want you to miss that. What science does have something to speak about is the nature of the universe, and the universe as science demonstrates it to be is not the universe that the bible claims that it is. The Bible presents numerous events as "actual events" (ignoring entirely the Flood) that science dictates simply can not happen. But, I'm sure that you agree with Peter LaRuffa when he said, "If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it,"

  3. #253
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,373
    Thanks
    17649

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Christianity has always been a patron of science.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_technology
    Except when scientists said things they didn't like:

    Galileo to Turing: the persecution of scientists throughout history | WIRED UK
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #254
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,909
    Thanks
    5138

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Okay. So, my next question for you is who gets to be the arbiter of what parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and which parts shouldn't? And by what authority?
    I, God, will tell you. Just ask, my child.

  5. #255
    HayJenn Fan Boi knight's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,405
    Thanks
    7652

    From
    Galaxy ZRF
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Lot offered his young daughters up as sexual toys for his house guests.
    I'm offensive, and I find this Christian.

  6. #256
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Okay. So, my next question for you is who gets to be the arbiter of what parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and which parts shouldn't?
    The individual (with copious help from reason).

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    And by what authority?
    By the authority of his own conscience.

  7. #257
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    The problem Kingrat, is that it seems to depend on to whom you are speaking. The vast majority of Christian evangelicals are Bible literalists - the Bible means exactly what it says, how it says it. After that, what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are figurative seem to vary from denomination to denomination, as does what parts, if any, of the Old Testament are relevant to Christians. See, this is kind of part of the problem; The Bible is a constantly moving target, so that no one who is not a Christian ever seems to be able to tie a Christian down about what it actually says, and what it actually means.

    This problem, quite frankly, is great part of what caused me to come to the realisation that it was all bullshit, and the bible is nothing more than a book of man-made mythology.
    Christian evangelicals do not make up the majority of christians. And even if they do make up the majority of christians, their beliefs have no power over my own conscience.

    Quite frankly, I'm not sure what problem it is that gets your panties in a knot.

  8. #258
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Actually, I did miss that in my 25b years of studying Christianity, because Christians want you to miss that. What science does have something to speak about is the nature of the universe, and the universe as science demonstrates it to be is not the universe that the bible claims that it is. The Bible presents numerous events as "actual events" (ignoring entirely the Flood) that science dictates simply can not happen. But, I'm sure that you agree with Peter LaRuffa when he said, "If somewhere within the Bible, I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I'm reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it,"
    Science is the systematic study of the PHYSICAL WORLD, so, yes, what science describes as the universe is not the universe the bible is describing. In fact, many systematic studies do not necessarily conform with science -- arts and politics to name a few.

    Didn't anybody bother to tell you this in 25 years of studying christianity?

  9. #259
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,963
    Thanks
    300

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Except when scientists said things they didn't like:

    Galileo to Turing: the persecution of scientists throughout history | WIRED UK
    I don't know if you are aware of the millenium apology because at some point, you sound like a petulant child.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_John_Paul_II

    Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years.[1] Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:[2][3][4][5][6]

    The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).[3][4][5][6][7]

    Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).[3][4][5][6]

    The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).[3][4][5][6]

    The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a "letter to women").[2][3][4][5][6]

    The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998).[3][4][5][8][9]

    For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.[3][4][5][6]

    For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).[3][4][5][6]

    For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?".[3][4][5][6]

    On 20 November 2001, from a laptop in the Vatican, Pope John Paul II sent his first e-mail apologizing for the Catholic sex abuse cases, the Church-backed "Stolen Generations" of Aboriginal children in Australia, and to China for the behavior of Catholic missionaries in colonial times.[10]

    An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.

     Pope John Paul II [11]

    In December 1999 at the request of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who would later become Pope Benedict XVI, the International Theological Commission presented its study on the topic Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past. The purpose of this document is "not to examine particular historical cases but rather to clarify the presuppositions that ground repentance for past faults." It examines repentance for past faults in the context of sociology, ecclesiology and theology.[12]

  10. #260
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,373
    Thanks
    17649

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    The individual (with copious help from reason).



    By the authority of his own conscience.
    Interesting. You seem to have a very relativistic view of the Bible. By your suggestion there is no "incorrect" interpretation of the bible. After all, every individual can, through their reasoning, have an interpretation of the Bible that their reason informs them is "correct".

Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: 6th July 2017, 07:02 AM
  2. The Satanic Bible vs. the holy bible
    By knight in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 26th March 2016, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 26th October 2014, 05:54 PM
  4. Replies: 56
    Last Post: 3rd January 2014, 04:19 PM
  5. If the Bible is the word of God...
    By Zarathustra in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 229
    Last Post: 11th December 2007, 02:57 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed