OT: Bible Discussion (Split from Real World Sensitivities)

[Imp]

Slippery Jim
Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity

Sorry probably getting annoying now but can someone explain how this works.
If I understand correctly in a time when people did not travel much & word passed slowly due to the lack of things like transport & radio what happened.
All the people who had not heard so did not even get a chance to form an opinion just failed straight off, that does not seem like a fair & just God to me.
Have you not just denied anybody who lived before & those half way round the globe the chance because you forgot to tell them?

I also have a question for the people who believe in souls going on eternily, reincarnation if you will or something along those lines.
Either a lot did not get to play at the start or another world somewhere has died. My reasoning behind this is there are more humans alive right now than have died in the history of the entire human race. Better health & the bunny syndrome, 2 produce etc etc so where did these extra souls come from? Modern farming means despite loss of habitats "lower level" animals have not declined significantly until very recently.
Does not compute unless there is (was) extra terrestial life.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by Imp

Sorry probably getting annoying now but can someone explain how this works.
If I understand correctly in a time when people did not travel much & word passed slowly due to the lack of things like transport & radio what happened.
All the people who had not heard so did not even get a chance to form an opinion just failed straight off, that does not seem like a fair & just God to me.
Have you not just denied anybody who lived before & those half way round the globe the chance because you forgot to tell them?

Skeptics have been raising this argument ever since believers started preaching the concept. I have my own answer to the problem that (sort of) satisfies me, but I'm not confident enough that I'm correct to try to convince others of it.

I also have a question for the people who believe in souls going on eternily, reincarnation if you will or something along those lines.
Either a lot did not get to play at the start or another world somewhere has died. My reasoning behind this is there are more humans alive right now than have died in the history of the entire human race.

This is a modern myth that has repeatedly been debunked.

where did these extra souls come from? Modern farming means despite loss of habitats "lower level" animals have not declined significantly until very recently.
Does not compute unless there is (was) extra terrestial life.

Why are you assuming that there is some kind of "conservation of souls", that new souls can't be created? Different faiths have different theories about this, but the universe is both big enough and old enough that the answer could very well be extraterrestrials, for all we know.

[lch]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

If that person was able to prove that He was God, then you'd better believe I'd listen to Him. I'd be nuts to ignore Him!

Here's the main point: God must be first for those who claim to believe in Him. He gave us His life. We must give Him our lives.

Here's the other point: If my parents do not believe in Jesus as Lord, they will not experience eternal life. There will be no happy ending for them. When they die, they will suffer for eternity. That's bad. Under the circumstances, I would be a poor son indeed if I stood to the side and allowed my parents to go to Hell without making every effort to prevent it. I must be a witness to them. However, my witnessing will cause division between us, at least in the short term.

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Remember: Jesus is also God. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. God didn't pick some random Jewish carpenter and use him as a scapegoat for the world. Instead, He satisfied His own justice by paying the price Himself.

No he isn't. There is no holy trinity in my book.
Yes, he did pick a random Jewish carpenter for it. That was EXACTLY THE POINT.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by lch

Let me just disagree with you here as a good christian: I believe that Jesus was God's prophet and the messias. I do not believe that Jesus was God, became God at any time or is God. I do not believe in Hell and eternal damnation. Being christian is multi-faceted and I don't think that catholics are better christians just because they have the cooler hats and rituals.

Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.

Jesus claimed the prerogatives of God. He claimed to forgive sins, even when He was not the injured party. How can a mere man, even a prophet, claim to forgive sins against others? If I sin against you, you can forgive me. But if I sin against a complete stranger, and you still forgive me, by what right would you offer that forgiveness? (And wouldn't it seem arrogant?) Forgiving sins only makes sense if Jesus Himself was injured by our sins -- all of our sins -- and that only makes sense if He is God.

Let me be quick to clarify: You are free to believe whatever you believe, and you don't owe me any answers. If you would entertain my questions, I would appreciate your attention. I have been a non-Christian. Now I am a Christian. (Not Catholic, by the way, although I have a great respect for the Catholic Church.) In all of that, I simply don't see a way to be a Christian who rejects the divinity of Jesus.

---

PS: Plain honesty requires me to identify CS Lewis as the inspiration for much of my argument in this post. His book Mere Christianity explains much of these points, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in an intellectual approach to the Christian faith.

[lch]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Christians have many doctrinal disputes among us -- baptism, Holy Communion, church authority, etcetera -- but there are also central truths that must be held in common. The divinity of Christ is one such truth. If Jesus is not God, then why be Christian?

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that. I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity. And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God. How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Jesus Himself claimed to be God. He claimed His divinity repeatedly and forcefully. In the end, that's why the Sanhedrin had Him killed. If He wasn't God, then Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. If He was a liar, then He was a particularly vile liar, because those lies have deceived countless people over the centuries. If He was a lunatic, then He was like one of those seriously-deranged people who needs heavy meds to keep out of trouble. Either way, Jesus would not be God's prophet, because God wouldn't speak His words through lies or insane ramblings.

As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God. Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by lch

Why does he need to be God? Everything works out perfectly fine without that.

God alone has the power to forgive sins. Without that power, Jesus wouldn't be much good as a Savior.

Originally Posted by lch

I do believe that Jesus has ascended and that there is a trinity in spirit, if that's the right word, but I don't agree that God and Jesus are the same entity.

Jesus (God the Son) is not the same entity as God the Father. They are both members of the Godhead, but they are different from each other. Three persons, one God.

That's why the Holy Trinity is such an essential piece of Christian doctrine. Without a clear understanding of the Trinity (as much as humans can ever understand it), we would be forever confused about God.

Originally Posted by lch

And I don't believe in the virgin birth either. I think that's not that uncommon, and that's what I meant when I referring to catholics where they have a big cult around the holy Madonna, but this would then be a problem for me if I wanted to believe that Jesus is/was God.

To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't encourage or require any Cult of the Madonna. But yeah, plenty of actual Catholics seem to go overboard in their devotion for Mary. All I can do is to point to the official Catholic teaching, which does not encourage such behavior. Mary was a special person, and God chose her for a unique role to bear His Son ... but Mary was still a human being.

Originally Posted by lch

How and when did he become God? I'd consider it blasphemy that a man can become God, and that God becomes a man as well. I have to say that I connect a lot more with the Old Testament than with the New Testament, by the way.

Jesus was always God. He didn't "become" God. All the way back in Genesis, when God spoke the world into being, His Word was Jesus. That's the point that John makes in the first chapter of his Gospel:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

It goes back to the doctrine of the Trinity. Jesus has always been God the Son, along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by lch

As I said before, I don't take the bible literally. Partly because what I read in the bible has gone through at least two translations of different languages and has been written down years after it happened, a generation later, but that's not my point. And I don't want to set at defiance the rigorous work of the people who did the transcriptions and translations. Jesus has often been speaking in similes. Jesus Christ is holy, that is without question, but I do not believe that he is God.

I won't address the reliability of Scripture, but only because I've already spent so much time writing about it on this thread.

If you don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, what do you believe about it? Are some parts true and other parts false? How do you know which are which?

Also, as I mentioned before, the divinity of Jesus is one of the major themes of Scripture. You'd have to do away with an awful lot of the Bible to get around it....

Originally Posted by lch

Just out of curiosity, if you believe that Jesus and God is the same, or at least that he forcefully claimed that, then why would he despair on the cross and call to God, asking why he had forsaken him?

Back to the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) became sin on our behalf. As He hung on the Cross, He became the sins of the entire human race. As God is holy, He cannot be in communion with sin. For those agonizing moments, the eternal unity between the Father and the Son was interrupted, and the Father turned His back on the Son. When it was finished, Jesus said so [John 19:30], and then He surrendered His spirit to the Father's care [Luke 23:46]. The Father and the Son were in unity once more, never to be separated again.

By the way, that was perhaps the ultimate punishment of the Cross: Jesus endured separation from God, which is the fitting punishment for all of us. Because He took it for us, we don't ever have to suffer that horrible separation. We can be united with God -- all three Persons -- forever.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

When interpreting Scripture, context is key. In Luke 14, Jesus was telling His followers about the cost of being a disciple. He wanted to make it very clear to them that His demands were absolute. There should be no possibility of divided loyalties, because Jesus must be the Lord of your life. Reading the whole chapter makes this point quite clear.

Basically, Christ's message here is not that we have to literally hate our families. Rather, His message is that we must love Him so much that we are willing to sacrifice anything (or anyone) for Him.

For some reason it wanted to glitch and note show Tifone's original quote from Luke 14. I gave up trying to get it into this reply. Anyway, I find this part particularly interesting, because it's the same sort of indoctrination that is embedded into the US Special Forces, and CIA. Only there they replace Jesus with America. The premise is still the same, to convince someone to embrace something so entirely with their being, that should they be told that their own brother or mother is a threat, that they will do what has to be done to protect the ideological focal point.

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

As with the quote from Luke 14, Jesus is trying to warn His followers about the high cost of following Him. The Gospel divides people based on belief. Those who believe Jesus are fundamentally different from those who do not believe. Our priorities are different. Our worldview is different. Our lives are different. When Jesus is Lord, everything changes.

This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.

Originally Posted by Nikelaos

I think it is wrong for people to pick out little qoutes to make judgements, being totally conservative here, the bible was written by several people and their scriptures were all written at different times, even the 4 gospels were written with a 30/40 year gap between each one and as such each chapter of the bible will have the individual ideas of a single individual and is insufficient in my opinion to lift an entire faith but instead the fundamentals of the entire collection of scriptures should just be followed.

But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict eachother, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.

Originally Posted by Nikelaos

also to clarify i believe most christians take the old testament to be little more than a fable, the fundamental values are accepted but the stories aren't necesarrily taken literally as they are written in the bible.

And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.

[JimMorrison]

Oh and I'm glad that this thread picked back up. 8 )

Let's just try to keep things civil please, so the discourse can continue. As the most level-headed faithful whom I have met have claimed to only want to help me and improve my life, it is the same that I give in return. Personally I believe that there is only one spiritual destination, and that no religion can actually take you all the way there. They are human constructs (most of them quite old, as well), and therefore intrinsically flawed. It is the individual, the human who must transcend beyond the confusion and lies - grasping the seed of truth that is within their faith, and letting it grow within themselves without the interference of of the garbled rantings of barbaric and unwashed madmen from the past.

<3

[JaghataiKhan]

I'm happy to answer questions about my faith, but I'm not going to read comics by some organization called the Luciferian Liberation Front. Life is too short to spend on such pastimes....

O RLY? The comic directly quoted from the OT, I remember stating that. Nice dodge. Life is never short not to read even the rival's apologetics(correct If I wrongly used it)

Let me read it for you then! As the Jews exited Egypt, they assaulted the promised land to cleanse it of other faiths. It speaks of 32000 virgins captured, 32 of hem SACRIFICED to God WHILE BURNED ALIVE(stop dodging this!), and the rest given as slave wives!

So stop defending the Abrahamic faiths. God ordered these. That equals a "sick feck".

You Christian folk are all the same. You always dodge a question, miss the point, find a way to denigrate the rival argumentator (Luciferian liberation front is an atheist website, but it is named Luciferian! OHNOES!), or entirely try to lead away from the point.

Well, my final conclusion is that God is a 5 year old fat kid throwing a hissy fit against a creaton that gives him the finger because he is just that. Noah's flood itself is stolen from Gilgamesh, and is logically contradicting as a perfect God simply can disintegrate those hated in an instant, and never need a pair of animals to repopulate the world. Babies drowned too, animals drowned too, children drowned as well. A perfect entity CANNOT make this. End of discusion.

So your God is either a mad raving monster or a holy entity that has LIMITED powers. Take your pick.

Also, if such a thing is perfectly holy, I am the anti-Christ, or will definitely follow him should all this Bronze Age babble is right, and he will rise.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

This is the essential premise that must be laid down before leaders can develop a militant "us vs them" mentality. You call non-believers "fundamentally different", but between the two quotes provided here, and your rationale to support them, you mean that non-believers are "inferior". Beyond that, non-believers are not just inferior, but expendable, and perhaps worthy of direct and violent retribution for their disbelieving ways. To me it seems that this is a good example of scripture that you can interpret to your heart's delight, you can dress it up and sugar coat it all you want - and it's still just wrong, and no matter how you try to bury it, it is filled with malice and dischord.

I said we were fundamentally different, and that's what I meant. What have I said that would lead you to believe that I meant "inferior"?

Unbelievers are not inferior to believers, and no Christian should claim so. Jesus died to save the whole world, not just a chosen few. Each human being is worth the life of God's own Son. That's a lot of value....

In a sense, unbelievers may be worth even more than believers. If I die today, I'm going to heaven. If an unbeliever dies without accepting Christ, he goes ... somewhere else. Therefore, an unbeliever's earthly life is (in a sense) more important than mine, because it's the only chance he has.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

But the bible itself states that it is the word of god. It seems illogical to assume that an essentially infallible being would deposit its teachings into people who were so horribly flawed that they would contradict each other, and make such horrible and glaring errors as are seen. Hence, the basic disagreement between logic and faith ensues.

That's why Marcionism was rightly condemned as heresy. If God is God, then we must take His entire Word. We must interpret it correctly, but we must accept it. Picking apart the Bible will only lead a person astray. We can see the clear danger of picking apart the Scriptures in Christ's warning to the church of Laodicea:

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And again, it seems terribly illogical to claim that part of a religious scripture is directly literal, while another part is figurative. I find it amusing that when religious believers are confronted on certain points, they argue that the "word of god" must be taken literally word for word. Confronted on other points, and they will figuratively construe the message in whatever convoluted way necessary to support their own point of view. It is worth noting that this particular point of view may not mesh with many other factions of the religion, who will interpret that particular portion of the bible in a different way.

In one sense, you're mistaken. But in another sense, you're very correct.

It is a mistake to conclude that one cannot believe in the truth of Scripture without taking it literally word-for-word. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken word-for-word. Scripture contains history, biography, poetry, and prophecy. Some of those events (such as Jesus's biographies, AKA the Gospels) are clearly meant to be understood as the literal truth. Other passages of Scripture are poetic, and they must be understood as metaphor. Much of Scripture works on multiple levels. The Song of Solomon is a good example of beautiful (erotic!) poetry that praises married love between a man and a woman, while it also gives us an analogy for the relationship between God and His church.

On the other hand, you're very correct to spot that there are some logical inconsistencies in Christians who want to dismiss the Old Testament as a mere fairy tale. Christ came to earth as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. We cannot dimiss those prophecies without dismissing Christ Himself. The miracles in the Old Testament also point to Christ. If we dismiss those miracles, how can we maintain any consistency in our belief about Jesus?

For example, the parting of the Red Sea is frequently dismissed as a fable, even by modern Christians. But God's power over the elements is an integral part of His divinity. He made the waters, so He can certainly order them to part. Power over the elements was part of how Christ proved His own divinity, when He calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee. More importantly, the parting of the Red Sea (and the entire Exodus) is a foreshadowing of how Christ saved us from sin. Just as the power of God created a passage in the Red Sea, so the power of God through Christ created a passage through sin and death.

There's another point to consider. The crowning miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection, the entire faith falls apart. It seems to me that raising a dead man back to life is at least as big a "trick" as parting the sea. So why would I believe in the Resurrection, yet reject the rest of the miracles? If the parting of the Red Sea is too improbable for me to believe, then the Resurrection is also going to be a problem....

Finally, there's the credibility of God's Word, which comes back to the credibility of God Himself. Not all of Scripture is meant to be taken literally, but there is no sign that Exodus is meant to be understood in any other way. It's not poetry. It's not prophecy. Clearly, it's meant to be a literal history. If we don't believe it as such, then we're challenging God's honesty.