So, how do you get to heaven?

[Bighead]

I was raised a xtian...I've heard several conflicting answers to this question....most different denominations say something else...I'm curious, christians, how do you get to heaven?
The bible says you have to accept christ and you get to go to heaven. What if you accept him and then kill people? I know..."...you have to repent too", but what if you're a fundie, and you accept christ and then you think he's telling you to bomb abortion clinics? You honestly think that it's god's will and all that crap so do you still get to go to heaven?

[Lurker]

I was raised a xtian...I've heard several conflicting answers to this question....most different denominations say something else...I'm curious, christians, how do you get to heaven?
The bible says you have to accept christ and you get to go to heaven. What if you accept him and then kill people? I know..."...you have to repent too", but what if you're a fundie, and you accept christ and then you think he's telling you to bomb abortion clinics? You honestly think that it's god's will and all that crap so do you still get to go to heaven?
You were raised christian so what do you think the answer is based on what you've read? What does it mean to accept christ's payment for your sins? There's a whole lot of meaning wrapped up in that word "accept".

[Bighead]

I don't have my bible here with me at the moment, so I am ill-equipped to tell what I think, because I would need to reference...but in a few hours, I will be home, and with any luck, I'll have time tonight to give a better response...but basically...

From what I understand, you accept jesus as your saviour, then you're forgiven. You repent for your sins, and you get to go to heaven. That's the only thing that I've found that you actually have to do (and I'm not even sure that the bible actually spells out repenting as a qualification for a gate-pass).

I've heard people talk about having to be baptised (mormons), but I never found where it says you HAVE to be baptised (must be a book of mormon thing).

But...asking for forgiveness and repenting sounds fine and great, but that still leaves the predicament, what about the guy who believes he is doing god's will. He's totally sane otherwise, he just thinks that abortion is so bad that the people who commit it should be stopped at all costs....and he feels that god's law supercedes mans law so he doesn't care if he's actually breaking the law...he's repented for his sins and been "saved"....I don't know how this one would work out up there at those white gates of oyster guts...I'm just interested in opinions.

[Lurker]

From what I understand, you accept jesus as your saviour, then you're forgiven. You repent for your sins, and you get to go to heaven. That's the only thing that I've found that you actually have to do (and I'm not even sure that the bible actually spells out repenting as a qualification for a gate-pass).
Basically that's correct. Repentence is regretting - saying I made a boo-boo and I'm sorry.

I've heard people talk about having to be baptised (mormons), but I never found where it says you HAVE to be baptised (must be a book of mormon thing).
Not required, but recommended as a public demonstration of your faith. Mormons take 1 Corinthians 15 and read it to say you can baptize dead people into heaven. Weird.

But...asking for forgiveness and repenting sounds fine and great, but that still leaves the predicament, what about the guy who believes he is doing god's will. He's totally sane otherwise, he just thinks that abortion is so bad that the people who commit it should be stopped at all costs....and he feels that god's law supercedes mans law so he doesn't care if he's actually breaking the law...he's repented for his sins and been "saved"....I don't know how this one would work out up there at those white gates of oyster guts...I'm just interested in opinions.
Putting god first in your life means you desire to do what he wants. You're a changed person because you're living for god not yourself. What does that mean really – to do god’s will? Does it mean you bomb abortion clinics and break the law whenever you want? I don't think so, because the big-picture message is love god & love people despite their sins and let god do the heavy lifting. Not to say you shouldn't stand up for certain things, but you should do so within a certain context and at the right time. There are times when breaking the law is the best thing to do.

The message of the NT is clear - you are saved by god's grace, not by works, however good works will be an outward sign that you are saved. That is why I question the salvation of “christians” who consistently act like rotton people. There’s a difference between a person that seeks to do rotton things, and a person who struggles and occasionally does something terrible. In the end it doesn’t matter what you and I think about a person because god knows the heart/desire/motives of a man and he will decide what to do. You just take care of yourself.

[Kamikaze189]

"There are times when breaking the law is the best thing to do."

Uh... I'd like an example. Law is more important than religion, it's the one controller we all share, regardless of religion. Sure, go ahead and tell people to not get abortions. Bombing the clinic? You belong in jail.

[Lurker]

"There are times when breaking the law is the best thing to do."

Uh... I'd like an example. Law is more important than religion, it's the one controller we all share, regardless of religion. Sure, go ahead and tell people to not get abortions. Bombing the clinic? You belong in jail.
If the law says drive no faster than 60 mph and you had to speed to save a person's life then I think it's better to break the law. Do you agree?

[Bighead]

wow...one point to lurker

[snap crafter]

Not if your endangering the lives of those your trying to speed around to save this christian you decided you liked. why not let him die and meet his maker?

[Bighead]

what about a woman in premature labor? I would speed for any woman in premature labor and I am DEFINITELY not a xtian.
I'm going to agree with Lurker on this one that sometimes it is okay to break the law. There has to be a good reason for it, and it can't be breaking the spirit of the law. Most people don't seem to understand that there is the writing of the law, and the spirit of the law, meaning what purpose was said law created to serve.

[RedRob]

what about a woman in premature labor? I would speed for any woman in premature labor and I am DEFINITELY not a xtian.
I'm going to agree with Lurker on this one that sometimes it is okay to break the law. There has to be a good reason for it, and it can't be breaking the spirit of the law. Most people don't seem to understand that there is the writing of the law, and the spirit of the law, meaning what purpose was said law created to serve.
If you are putting other people in danger by attempting to save this woman surely this is not a justified braking of the law. Otherwise, it is OK to break the law in this case. However, it is one thing to break a traffic law and a completely different situation if you are killing people.

[Bighead]

If you are putting other people in danger by attempting to save this woman surely this is not a justified braking of the law. Otherwise, it is OK to break the law in this case. However, it is one thing to break a traffic law and a completely different situation if you are killing people.
Correct, but I believe that lurker simply stated that sometimes breaking the law is okay....I don't think he mentioned killing people.

[Lurker]

If you are putting other people in danger by attempting to save this woman surely this is not a justified braking of the law. Otherwise, it is OK to break the law in this case. However, it is one thing to break a traffic law and a completely different situation if you are killing people.
I agree - context is everything. What if you see a person in imminent danger of being killed by another person so you move in and kill that person before they kill. Is that breaking the law, and if so was it the best thing to do?

[RedRob]

If you are putting other people in danger by attempting to save this woman surely this is not a justified braking of the law. Otherwise, it is OK to break the law in this case. However, it is one thing to break a traffic law and a completely different situation if you are killing people.
I agree - context is everything. What if you see a person in imminent danger of being killed by another person so you move in and kill that person before they kill. Is that breaking the law, and if so was it the best thing to do?
OK :D I'll play along with that.

How imminent is this danger?

[snap crafter]

You kill a man you think is about to kill another? You couldn't of knocked him out or simply alerted the man in danger? you got control issues then.

[Lurker]

OK :D I'll play along with that.

How imminent is this danger?
That's the crucial question. In my imaginary scenario only 3 people are there to determine how imminent the danger is. If you determine it's so imminent that the guy must be killed then how would you argue against that?

[RedRob]

Can you describe this "so imminent" danger?

[snap crafter]

Give me an actual scenario, not just the characters and plot, then I can argue against it.

[Lurker]

Can you describe this "so imminent" danger?
Regardless of how I paint the picture, I imagine that you could find a way to say it's wrong. Try it this way...can you imagine there being a situation where killing the guy would be the best thing to do? You'll get your answer that way.

[RedRob]

Can you describe this "so imminent" danger?
Regardless of how I paint the picture, I imagine that you could find a way to say it's wrong. Try it this way...can you imagine there being a situation where killing the guy would be the best thing to do? You'll get your answer that way.
Why do you assume this? I'm merely trying to get the full story since it is hard to argue either way without knowing the full situation unfolding in your scenario.

I do see situations where killing a guy would be the only thing left for me to do. Does that help!:D

[Lurker]

I do see situations where killing a guy would be the only thing left for me to do. Does that help!:D
Then there's your answer. :) I was just trying to say there are times we can all imagine where breaking the law is the best thing to do.

[alaspooryorick]

I always had a huge problem with the heaven/hell system, even when I was a theist. "Sorry, you're a good person, but you are going to hell because you don't believe. Well, you were immoral and a terrible person, but you believe in Christ, so come on up."


I've got a follow-up for this. My mother is what I'll call a passive fundie. That is, she believes that the Bible is the actual word of God and believes in creationism and all that crap. (Frustrating, right?) Anyway, she has her background in the United Methodist and Lutheran churches. We've discussed this point several times, but I'm too lazy and apathetic to look up Biblical references:

Are former theists condemned to hell too? Mind you, I'm not asking this because I'm worried, but I think this is an interesting question. According to her, once you have accepted Jesus as your savior at an age of mental competance and understanding, you will go to heaven (though not as well "rewarded"), even if you later deny him as savior or God, etc. Maybe this is just so she feels like I won't burn in hell, but it's an interesting point.

Any opinions?

[Little Earth Stamper]

Question about the laws of god:

I'm sitting at the bus stop, minding my own buisness, when a crazy guy comes up and stabs me with a knife. I pull out my gun and shoot him before he can stab me again.

Did I sin?

Another question:

Is it acceptable to stone an adulteress to death, as is perscribed by god's law in the old testament, which Christ said he would not change?

Last question:

What information was available to the Aztec Priest to tell him that human sacrifice was against god's will?

[Blod]

So, how do you get to heaven?
Acts 16
16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
(faith)


Matthew 19
19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(ed: and gives some 5 commandments one of which is not in the 10in1 package at all!)
(works)


James 2
2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
(what's faith without works?)


Ephesians 1
1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(the grand absurd X has made up "his" mind as for the saved ones, you can't do nothing)
(already doomed, or saved)


John 3
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.
(faith)


John 14
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
(faith?)


I got some more just to confuse you further, maybe tomorrow :D

[Bighead]

Yeah, it's shit like that that just confuses the shit outta me as to how anyone can know what the goddam hell :D they're supposed to do to get into heaven.
"Just believe in me. No wait, you have to do works too! No WAIT! ...not by works, lest any man should boast. NO WAIT AGAIN!!!! I've already decided who's goin, soooo screw you guys, I'm goin home"

[peepnklown]

And theists still don’t see the problems.

[Lurker]

And theists still don’t see the problems.
That's right, because it's not so difficult to figure out.

[ocmpoma]

"That's right, because it's not so difficult to figure out."

Absolutely. All it took in Europe was a century or so of warfare, church schisms, and hundreds of different sects. Then they just agreed to disagree about the Truth.

[Lurker]

Absolutely. All it took in Europe was a century or so of warfare, church schisms, and hundreds of different sects. Then they just agreed to disagree about the Truth.
Differing beliefs doesn't nullify truth. I'm just saying it's not too hard to figure out. You may conclude that it means something different, but to say it makes no sense is a pretty ridiculous statement.

[Nicole]

Absolutely. All it took in Europe was a century or so of warfare, church schisms, and hundreds of different sects. Then they just agreed to disagree about the Truth.
Differing beliefs doesn't nullify truth. I'm just saying it's not too hard to figure out. You may conclude that it means something different, but to say it makes no sense is a pretty ridiculous statement.
Okay, so we've got different sects of Christianity (not to mention all the different religions of the world) that all have slightly different views on how you get to heaven. They differ enough on this that they have, at times, slaughtered each other. So it's suppose to be easy to pick one of these frequent flyer passes to heaven? It's supposed make sense?
I think that if you've chosen to follow one of these paths to salvation then you may see your way clearly if you don't question anything that your 'church' tells you in their interperatation of things. If you are standing outside those various pathways, it's not clear at all. In fact, it may seem slightly insane that you have to choose between many sure pathways to heaven and be very cautious....the wrong one sends you to hell.

I'm not a believer but even I can see that believing isn't enough to make these choices easy or sensible.

[ocmpoma]

"Differing beliefs doesn't nullify truth. I'm just saying it's not too hard to figure out. You may conclude that it means something different, but to say it makes no sense is a pretty ridiculous statement."

So, you're saying that following Islam, or Hinduism, still means you get into Heaven, then, right? Since differing beliefs such as works vs. faith have no impact, then Jesus is a prophet vs. God incarnate vs. another aspect of the universal God(s) shouldn't matter, either.

[Lurker]

So, you're saying that following Islam, or Hinduism, still means you get into Heaven, then, right? Since differing beliefs such as works vs. faith have no impact, then Jesus is a prophet vs. God incarnate vs. another aspect of the universal God(s) shouldn't matter, either.
No. I'm saying you should be able to use your brain to figure out what seems to be true. Not that your conclusion is true just because you think so - that's a different subject. This whole topic is about making sense out of something, not whether the conclusion is correct. People who say they can't make sense out of the bible or the koran are just being lazy.

[ocmpoma]

"No. I'm saying you should be able to use your brain to figure out what seems to be true. Not that your conclusion is true just because you think so - that's a different subject. This whole topic is about making sense out of something, not whether the conclusion is correct. People who say they can't make sense out of the bible or the koran are just being lazy."

That's odd. I could have sworn that if something made sense, it wasn't confusing or ambiguous. It seems that the whole works vs. faith thing is confusing enough to cause some wars way back when... those Catholics and Lutherans and Anabaptists and Calvinists and Orthodox and Presbyterians and Anglicans and Methodists and Pentecostals and Mormons and Puritans and Shakers and Jehovah's Witnesses and and Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews and Sunnis and Shiites must be lazy.

[Lurker]

Good grief.... :rolleyes:

[Aristarchus]

At some point in the Bible Jesus says that all that is needed to open the gates of Heaven is to have only at least a mustard seed of faith. Even as a militant atheist, I am open-minded and do not have full confidence in anything, as I'm sure many of you can identify with. So, my iota of doubt in my atheism is my mustard seed of faith, so if there are truly gates of Heaven, I have good reason to belive that I will be admitted, even though I highly doubt an afterlife.

This interpretation really seems to irk Xtians, but is as valid as most other interpetations. This also decreases the signifacance of the argument that says "believe for the sake of not burning for eternity". I can do that, even as an atheist of the stongest kind.

[thomas]

Jesus says that all that is needed to open the gates of Heaven is to have only at least a mustard seed of faith.
No, He doesn't. Nice try but your "reverse Pascal's wager" doesn't have any basis in scripture.

[ocmpoma]

"Good grief...."

My point exactly.

[Blindwatchmaker]

truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.

How do you 'love' the truth?

[ocmpoma]

Love the truth, just don't love the truth.

[HeWhoAsks]

No. I'm saying you should be able to use your brain to figure out what seems to be true. Not that your conclusion is true just because you think so - that's a different subject. This whole topic is about making sense out of something, not whether the conclusion is correct. People who say they can't make sense out of the bible or the koran are just being lazy.
But it's impossible to make sense of something when it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

Lurker, please tell us how *you* resolve the contradictions in post #23.

[Blindwatchmaker]

Love the truth, just don't love the truth.
Wouldn't you need to know what something was before you could love it? Is Thomas a theist?

[Blindwatchmaker]

People who say they can't make sense out of the bible or the koran are just being lazy.

Or not transfering our own inferences onto it? Not creating our own patches out of supposition?:D

[ghoulslime]

I love the truth. The truth is I love to screw. :D

The one thing I can't quite figure out about this Christian God's big plan is:

If Jesus paid for our sins. Then why the hell does god always need money? Couldn't Jesus just pay for everything?

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/normal_Watering_Jesus.jpg

If Jesus will pay for my rent too, I'll become a Christian. Until then, piss on him!

[snap crafter]

Woah, Jesus be kinky. Shaved privates AND a dog urinating and taking a dump near him, all while he's hung up.

[Blod]

Ephesians 2
2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(note the "grace" the "gift", so men don't have to do anything in payback - what would be the idea of gift otherwise, if we were to pay for it)
(faith)

Titus 3
3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
(mercy again)
(faith)

Romans 11
11:6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
(hm, yep - works are out of the question)


All this talk about the gift and grace, but wait, isn't accepting Christianity, a price to pay from the beginning of the whole question? Hm, you pay a bit, but don't pay again so it's called gift eh? These guys must've been high or sth


Acts 10
10:35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(works)


Ezekiel 18
18:4Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
18:5But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
18:6And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
18:7And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
18:8He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,
18:9Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
(the quintessence of works)


James 1
1:25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed
(deed - yep works again)


But it's impossible to make sense of something when it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

Lurker, please tell us how *you* resolve the contradictions in post #23.
And the fun of this, is that the contradicting equal options are three, not just two as commonly elsewhere in the pamphlets. They have outdone themselves on this one :D

[Lurker]

But it's impossible to make sense of something when it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

Lurker, please tell us how *you* resolve the contradictions in post #23.
I don't think we should reinvent the wheel. There are many, many places online where you can go to get the answer to your questions. If you're seriously asking then you should go there first. If their answer generates another question then I'll jump in and try to help.

[snap crafter]

The most you can give is a reference? you can't even attempt? That shows lack of faith in ones self... And I'm still waiting for that evidence you seem more than willing to simply ignore than present.

[Nicole]

No. I'm saying you should be able to use your brain to figure out what seems to be true. Not that your conclusion is true just because you think so - that's a different subject. This whole topic is about making sense out of something, not whether the conclusion is correct. People who say they can't make sense out of the bible or the koran are just being lazy.
The people who can't make sense of the bible or Koran are just lazy...is that why there are millions of people debating these topics all over the world...why churches splinter....why holy wars have been fought; because people are lazy?

Come on! Lurker admit it! It's a confusing issue. Sometimes it's impossible to solve a problem or find a truth if the evidence provided is not consistent or contradictory.

On the other hand, it's quite easy to 'use your brain' to find truth if you disregard all evidence that doesn't fit into your idea of what the damn truth should be.

[snap crafter]

You just gave 'her' a leg nicole, she'll say the same thing applies to evolution or some such, average christian tactic.

[Nicole]

You just gave 'her' a leg nicole, she'll say the same thing applies to evolution or some such, average christian tactic.
You're right, of course, but I was really just trying to say that not understanding something is not equal to being lazy.

[HeWhoAsks]

But it's impossible to make sense of something when it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

Lurker, please tell us how *you* resolve the contradictions in post #23.
I don't think we should reinvent the wheel. There are many, many places online where you can go to get the answer to your questions. If you're seriously asking then you should go there first. If their answer generates another question then I'll jump in and try to help.
What a cop-out! You don't think that reinventing the wheel goes on *all the time* at a forum like this? The whole point of a forum is for people to discuss things, even if the vast majority of which have been said before, but people get to work out the issues for themselves with another person. And, note that I asked. Lurker, how *you* resolve those issues. Sheesh.

[Lurker]

What a cop-out! You don't think that reinventing the wheel goes on *all the time* at a forum like this? The whole point of a forum is for people to discuss things, even if the vast majority of which have been said before, but people get to work out the issues for themselves with another person. And, note that I asked. Lurker, how *you* resolve those issues. Sheesh.
You are claiming they are contradictions so I'm going to put the burden on you (and others) to demonstrate that they are. I read them all, and I resolve them as being consistent and not contradictory. Tell me why you think they are contradictions... and don't just quote me the verses again and say "see?". Tell me the context of the situation.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Well, clearly, the bible says that works are more important then faith. Obviously.

[Lurker]

Well, clearly, the bible says that works are more important then faith. Obviously.
Clearly. Obvious [/sarcasm] :P

[RedRob]

Love the truth, just don't love the truth.
Wouldn't you need to know what something was before you could love it? Is Thomas a theist?
Yes he is. See other posts..

[RedRob]

But it's impossible to make sense of something when it is internally inconsistent and contradictory.

Lurker, please tell us how *you* resolve the contradictions in post #23.
I don't think we should reinvent the wheel. There are many, many places online where you can go to get the answer to your questions. If you're seriously asking then you should go there first. If their answer generates another question then I'll jump in and try to help.
And once again lurker is hiding behind these lame excuses. Why don't you actually participate lurker instead of preaching and spitting your Christian shit all over this forum? To all the newb's if you discuss anything with lurker this is the typical answer you will get. Yet if you use the same answer lurker will be sure to point out that you are running away by not posting references. I think ghoulslime knows what I'm talking about but for the rest of you check this discussion thread and you will see what I’m talking about.
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=990Perhaps someone else can reference some other posts as well.
However, no one should be surprised by this given the fact that Christians are hypocrites by nature. No offence to any former Christians.

[Lurker]

And once again lurker is hiding behind these lame excuses.
I answered and said I resolve them as being consistent and not contradictory. There's no need to resolve a contradiction where there isn't one. I assume you want more details so here ya go. Referencing post #23....

Acts 16:30/31
Saved by faith

Matthew 19:16/17
Jesus is trying to make it clear to the rich man that you can't ever do enough to save yourself. The man leaves saddened because he realizes this. Thus you are saved by faith, not by works. See Matthew 19:25/26 -- it is impossible for man to save himself.

James 2:14
Faith will produce deeds. It does not say works/deeds save you.

Ephesians 1:4/5
Nothing about works here. It's saying the group called "christians" is predestined to be saved much like the group "policy holders" is predestined to be covered in the event of a hurricane. Belonging to the group is your choice.

John 3:16
Faith again.

John 14:6
Christ is the intermediary. Nothing said about works.

[RedRob]

James 2:14
Faith will produce deeds. It does not say works/deeds save you.
Lurker you do understand that what might seem clear to you as a believer might not be clear to those who do not believe or who believe those passages to be interpreted differently. Since this is a discussion forum and you have annoyed people about references before I don’t see why you so easily decline to provide references of your own and get mad when others ask the same of you.

I’ve dealt with people like you before, they were not Christians they were Muslim and I put you both on the same boat, the one for religiously insane. If you can’t see your own hypocrisy then you are truly in need of some serious help and I feel sorry for you.

All these interpretations you provided are just that interpretations. I’m assuming this is from the English version of the bible mind you and not the original text. If you read the bible literarily it would make no sense and that’s the truth that can be backed by hundreds of years of warfare between various Christians cults. If the bible is as straight forward and as clear as you make it seem then why all this fighting between Christians in regards to the bible. Why?

[Lurker]

Lurker you do understand that what might seem clear to you as a believer might not be clear to those who do not believe or who believe those passages to be interpreted differently. Since this is a discussion forum and you have annoyed people about references before I don’t see why you so easily decline to provide references of your own and get mad when others ask the same of you.
Because too many are disingenuous and merely want to accuse/confront/bash.

All these interpretations you provided are just that interpretations. I’m assuming this is from the English version of the bible mind you and not the original text. If you read the bible literarily it would make no sense and that’s the truth that can be backed by hundreds of years of warfare between various Christians cults. If the bible is as straight forward and as clear as you make it seem then why all this fighting between Christians in regards to the bible. Why?
If you read the bible in context it would make sense. Why do you choose to read it out of context thus forcing contradictions to pop up?

Just interpretations? You seem to imply that a best interpretation is not possible. There most certainly is a best interpretation. Saying there is no best interpretation is the same as saying your interpretation is equal to mine. That can't be because they are conflicting. One must be more correct than the other. How can this be determined?

What fighting? All that really matters are the core concepts of christianity. The rest is interesting to debate and discuss but has no bearing on the core concepts of christianity. You see this discussion/debating as proof that the core beliefs are not there. They are. Young earth creationist christians are still christians. Christians that believe satan carries a pitchfork or angels play harps all day long are still christians.

[HeWhoAsks]

Matthew 19:16/17
Jesus is trying to make it clear to the rich man that you can't ever do enough to save yourself. The man leaves saddened because he realizes this. Thus you are saved by faith, not by works. See Matthew 19:25/26 -- it is impossible for man to save himself.
Matthew 19: 21-22 = "Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me. But when the young mand heard that saying, he went away sorrowful--for he had great possessions."

The man is saddened not because he realizes that you can't do enough to get into heaven, but because, as the bible clearly says, he had great possessions and Jesus just told him that if he gave them to the poor, he'd get heaven.

Matthew 19:25-6 = . . . "Who then can be saved? But Jesus looked upon them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Explain how these words mean that faith alone means salvation.

Also,

Matthew 19:29 = "And everyone who has forsaked houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundred times, and shall inherit everlasting life.

What's not clear about that? Forsake worldly things because of Jesus, and you get heaven.

[RedRob]

Because too many are disingenuous and merely want to accuse/confront/bash.
Might be true but the same can be said about you since you act the way they do.

If you read the bible in context it would make sense. Why do you choose to read it out of context thus forcing contradictions to pop up?
Might be true for the once listed above but what about the contradictions between some of the original gospels and the once in the bible today. Also between the Old and New testaments? One more, do you believe it is ok to stone a person accused of adultery since the bible OK's it?

Just interpretations? You seem to imply that a best interpretation is not possible. There most certainly is a best interpretation. Saying there is no best interpretation is the same as saying your interpretation is equal to mine. That can't be because they are conflicting. One must be more correct than the other. How can this be determined?
“Best interpretation” says who. Who has the authority to choose which is the best interpretation? This kind of explanation for your logic is open and dangerous and really provides no real life solution to any problem since anyone can choose what the “best interpretation”.

What fighting? All that really matters are the core concepts of christianity. The rest is interesting to debate and discuss but has no bearing on the core concepts of christianity. You see this discussion/debating as proof that the core beliefs are not there. They are. Young earth creationist christians are still christians. Christians that believe satan carries a pitchfork or angels play harps all day long are still christians.
“What fighting?” I’ll ignore that just because I think you are playing stupid with this question.
Once again your logic does not make sense in real life since according to you a Dominionist Christian is still a Christian and will go to heaven simply because he has faith. Just in case you don’t know what a Dominionist Christian is: Someone who believes he/she has been chosen to do gods work and that he may use any means necessary to achieve the goals of that work even if it means killing innocent people or committing other sins. He/she is exempt from all sins committed since god has chosen him/her. Pretty much the same as jihadists in Islam, you know those guys that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

So these people have a better chance of getting into heaven then me just because they have faith and I don’t. Interesting?!

[Lurker]

The man is saddened not because he realizes that you can't do enough to get into heaven, but because, as the bible clearly says, he had great possessions and Jesus just told him that if he gave them to the poor, he'd get heaven.

Matthew 19:25-6 = . . . "Who then can be saved? But Jesus looked upon them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Explain how these words mean that faith alone means salvation.
The story of the rich man demonstrates that the true desires of man prevent him from saving himself. In theory, a perfect man could save himself but that perfect man would be god already (by definition) and not in need of saving. Jesus was finding the man's weak spot and pointing it out to him as a way of saying "See, you can't do it on your own". We all have weak spots.

Matthew 19:29 = "And everyone who has forsaked houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundred times, and shall inherit everlasting life.

What's not clear about that? Forsake worldly things because of Jesus, and you get heaven.
You've got to stop quoting 1 or 2 verses. That's what causes you problems and prevents you from determining the context. Looking at Matthew 19:28-30 and 20:1-16 (see below). My comments are inserted in parenthesis.

28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne (The end), you who have followed me (Talking about believers only) will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Nothing to do with how you are saved since this is directed toward those already saved. It seems to be saying that some believers will receive more honor/inheritance, some will receive less - but all are saved. The parable below sheds more light on this. Verse 30 is saying the same as verse 16)

[Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard]
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

[Lurker]

“Best interpretation” says who. Who has the authority to choose which is the best interpretation? This kind of explanation for your logic is open and dangerous and really provides no real life solution to any problem since anyone can choose what the “best interpretation”.
Who has the authority to say anything is the right/correct/best way? Somebody obviously does. I'm not saying my interpretation is the best one, however you are saying all interpretations are equal and that's dangerous. As I said before, how can someone determine the best interpretation?

“What fighting?” I’ll ignore that just because I think you are playing stupid with this question.
Once again your logic does not make sense in real life since according to you a Dominionist Christian is still a Christian and will go to heaven simply because he has faith. Just in case you don’t know what a Dominionist Christian is: Someone who believes he/she has been chosen to do gods work and that he may use any means necessary to achieve the goals of that work even if it means killing innocent people or committing other sins. He/she is exempt from all sins committed since god has chosen him/her. Pretty much the same as jihadists in Islam, you know those guys that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

So these people have a better chance of getting into heaven then me just because they have faith and I don’t. Interesting?!
The core beliefs of christianity involve repentence from sins and acceptance of god's gift of salvation because you understand that you can't save yourself. The acceptance of jesus/salvation is said to transform you into a new person, a person who lives for christ which can be summed up in the greatest commandment "love god, love people". That's the part where christians agree and that is what I meant by "what fighting?". Being chosen or not chosen is a non-issue in my mind because from our perspective it all looks the same. Nobody can point to something and say "See, I'm chosen and you're not".

After that, all bets are off. There is debate as to how all of this is carried out. What does it mean to love god and love people? I don't see people how killing innocent and committing other sins on purpose fulfills that commandment. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

[PissBoner]

The proof that God exists lies in the fact that all creatures can suffer pain !

Seriously, if you were god would you not relieve suffering ? Would such things as con-joined twins, thalodimide (sp) babies and people born blind exist if you were god ?

How many crippled people do you think there would be if I was god ? Do you really think there would still be people born without arms and legs if I was god ?

These facts alone are enough to give lie to your god claims.

Or should I say 'Allah' ?

[PissBoner]

The core beliefs of christianity involve repentence from sins and acceptance of god's gift of salvation because you understand that you can't save yourself. The acceptance of jesus/salvation is said to transform you into a new person, a person who lives for christ which can be summed up in the greatest commandment "love god, love people". .
Again the false claim of Christainity.

Please explain how you know that Jesus is the son of God but that Muhammed is nothing ?

For surely that is what you believe, that Muhammed is a false prophet. You don't live your life by the Koran do you ?

Don't you realize your world view is totally based on your Skin Colour !!

Lets hear you explain to all the muslims that they are going to hell, as they surely are, since they reject Christ as the saviour.

Indeed, please explain it.

[HeWhoAsks]

The man is saddened not because he realizes that you can't do enough to get into heaven, but because, as the bible clearly says, he had great possessions and Jesus just told him that if he gave them to the poor, he'd get heaven.

Matthew 19:25-6 = . . . "Who then can be saved? But Jesus looked upon them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Explain how these words mean that faith alone means salvation.
The story of the rich man demonstrates that the true desires of man prevent him from saving himself. In theory, a perfect man could save himself but that perfect man would be god already (by definition) and not in need of saving. Jesus was finding the man's weak spot and pointing it out to him as a way of saying "See, you can't do it on your own". We all have weak spots.
I'm not sure I see the connection between your interpretation and the words of Matthew 19, but what I do see for sure is that nothing that you say necessarily contradicts the plain sense of the words of Matthew19:21, "give to the poor, and heaven is yours."

[HeWhoAsks]

The man is saddened not because he realizes that you can't do enough to get into heaven, but because, as the bible clearly says, he had great possessions and Jesus just told him that if he gave them to the poor, he'd get heaven.

Matthew 19:25-6 = . . . "Who then can be saved? But Jesus looked upon them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Explain how these words mean that faith alone means salvation.
The story of the rich man demonstrates that the true desires of man prevent him from saving himself. In theory, a perfect man could save himself but that perfect man would be god already (by definition) and not in need of saving. Jesus was finding the man's weak spot and pointing it out to him as a way of saying "See, you can't do it on your own". We all have weak spots.

Matthew 19:29 = "And everyone who has forsaked houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundred times, and shall inherit everlasting life.

What's not clear about that? Forsake worldly things because of Jesus, and you get heaven.
You've got to stop quoting 1 or 2 verses. That's what causes you problems and prevents you from determining the context. Looking at Matthew 19:28-30 and 20:1-16 (see below). My comments are inserted in parenthesis.
And what you have to stop doing is imagining that demonstrating A proves that B is wrong, under the guise of "context." Both B and A can be present, the presence of one doesn't mean the other is absent. If all the verses you quoted do show that faith alone is enough, that cannot remove the plain meaning of the other verses (like Matthew 19: 21) even under the guise of context. In that case, context merely means "if two things are contradictory, then we can attend to the one that we want and ignore the other one."

[Lurker]

And what you have to stop doing is imagining that demonstrating A proves that B is wrong, under the guise of "context." Both B and A can be present, the presence of one doesn't mean the other is absent. If all the verses you quoted do show that faith alone is enough, that cannot remove the plain meaning of the other verses (like Matthew 19: 21) even under the guise of context. In that case, context merely means "if two things are contradictory, then we can attend to the one that we want and ignore the other one."
The law of non-contradiction say's you've got to pick one and ignore the other - unless you can somehow figure out how both can be true at the same time. Can you do that? You seem to favor the contradictory interpretation and I'm asking you why when the non-contradictory interpretation makes perfect sense in context. It's like a teacher telling her class they have 30 minutes to finish taking a test, and later she tells them they have 10 minutes must be contradictory because it can be interpreted that way.

Regarding Matthew 19....

Jesus: It's hard for a rich man to enter heaven (because it's harder for him to let go and trust god to save him)
Disciples: Then who can be saved?
Jesus: It's impossible for man, but god can do it.

[HeWhoAsks]

And what you have to stop doing is imagining that demonstrating A proves that B is wrong, under the guise of "context." Both B and A can be present, the presence of one doesn't mean the other is absent. If all the verses you quoted do show that faith alone is enough, that cannot remove the plain meaning of the other verses (like Matthew 19: 21) even under the guise of context. In that case, context merely means "if two things are contradictory, then we can attend to the one that we want and ignore the other one."
The law of non-contradiction say's you've got to pick one and ignore the other . . . .
Only if you assume that they are not contradictory. That's *your* assumption. The plain sense of them is that they are contradictory.
- unless you can somehow figure out how both can be true at the same time. Can you do that? You seem to favor the contradictory interpretation and I'm asking you why when the non-contradictory interpretation makes perfect sense in context.
Favoring one over the other makes no sense. There is no reason would you have for denying the plain meaning of Matthew 19:21 other than to remove a contradiction, but there is no reason to remove the contradiction unless you first assume that there is no contradiction.

And, the contradiction is not an interpretation, it is in the plain meaning of the words.

It's like a teacher telling her class they have 30 minutes to finish taking a test, and later she tells them they have 10 minutes must be contradictory because it can be interpreted that way.
You are correct in saying that the above anedocte with the teacher is not contradictory. But you haven't explained why this particular analogy holds with Matthew 19:21. Just because you can find an analogy doesn't mean it applies. You'd have to show how the pertinent structure of one is the same as the pertinent structure of the other.

Regarding Matthew 19....

Jesus: It's hard for a rich man to enter heaven (because it's harder for him to let go and trust god to save him)
Then why does J. say that doing good works will get the rich man into heaven? Your interpretation directly contradicts J. One or the other is wrong.

[Blod]

Lurker, why don't you take a bit that post #23 and post #44, put on one side those fragments by work, on the other those by faith, and pls tell us again, this time with the whole posts and actually addressing them as given (just for the sake of the discussion and of the points presented) that 1+1=0 and 1+1=3 are not contradictions. (One wonders where's that 1+1=2? Well, surely not in the bible.)

[Nicole]

“Best interpretation” says who. Who has the authority to choose which is the best interpretation? This kind of explanation for your logic is open and dangerous and really provides no real life solution to any problem since anyone can choose what the “best interpretation”.
Who has the authority to say anything is the right/correct/best way? Somebody obviously does. I'm not saying my interpretation is the best one, however you are saying all interpretations are equal and that's dangerous. As I said before, how can someone determine the best interpretation?
I hope you've got time and a thick skin Lurker 'cause you sure are getting the works on this thread. I just had to point out something that you wrote in your answer to RedRob. You say that sombody obviously has the right to say that something is the right/correct/best way and then you ask the question; how can someone dertermine the best interpretation, indicating that one one can.

Which is it? No one or someone?

Personally, I think that no one has the right to say an interpretation of something is the right/correct/best way. The very word interpretation suggests that it's perspective not fact.

If it is indeed perspective, then aren't all interpretations equal in that everyone has their own perspective.

[RedRob]

I hope you've got time and a thick skin Lurker 'cause you sure are getting the works on this thread. I just had to point out something that you wrote in your answer to RedRob. You say that sombody obviously has the right to say that something is the right/correct/best way and then you ask the question; how can someone dertermine the best interpretation, indicating that one one can.

Which is it? No one or someone?

Personally, I think that no one has the right to say an interpretation of something is the right/correct/best way. The very word interpretation suggests that it's perspective not fact.

If it is indeed perspective, then aren't all interpretations equal in that everyone has their own perspective.
My point exactly! Lurker's answer is merely side stepping my point which is that the bible is open to interpretation therefore not something that has solid rules or one meaning. I think my point is obvious from Lurkers own answer which admits that there are different interpretations but Lurker still would come out and just say: “Yes you are right there are disagreements and many different interoperations of the bible.” This is all a common theist tactic that I’ve experience before by arguing with the members of the competing Muslim cult.

The only reason Lurker does not admit that I’m right is because Lurker’s beliefs have made him/her blind to the flaws of the bible. Notice Lurker did not even go into the contradictions of the Old and New Testaments and has plainly ignored the fact that there are some major disagreements between different sects of the Christian cult.

My conclusion: if god wrote this text (or dictated it) then god is not what the bible claims it is, an all-powerful all-knowing being. But lurker’s beliefs are too deeply ingrained in that thick scull of his (hers). It's ok I'm sure every rational person with some critical thinking skills can see through the Swiss cheese logic lurker is working off of here.

[thomas]

Christianity does have an over-arching meta-narrative based on the whole Bible from Genesis - Revelation, and it's that consistent meta-narrative which informs the interpretations of Lurker and others. I do see why you all have some difficulty in coming to an understanding about how the Bible is interpreted. Christian theoogy has the concept of Biblical Hermenuetics (http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/hermeneutics.htm). This involves the development and application of methods and systems for interpreting the Bible, including the meta-narrative. The process of comparing interpretations of any one passage of the Bible then becomes an exercise of comparing the competing interpretations against the rest of Scripture to see which is the most consistent, with each other and with the meta-narrative. These exercises are difficult for amateurs like you and I, due to the knowledge required of ancient languages, archeology, history etc.

[Lurker]

I hope you've got time and a thick skin Lurker 'cause you sure are getting the works on this thread. I just had to point out something that you wrote in your answer to RedRob. You say that sombody obviously has the right to say that something is the right/correct/best way and then you ask the question; how can someone dertermine the best interpretation, indicating that one one can.

Which is it? No one or someone?
I guess my point didn't come across very clearly. I am saying there is a "best" interpretation or at the very least a "better" interpretation. My question "How can someone determine the best interpretation?" was meant as a rhetorical question designed to provoke thought.

Personally, I think that no one has the right to say an interpretation of something is the right/correct/best way. The very word interpretation suggests that it's perspective not fact.

If it is indeed perspective, then aren't all interpretations equal in that everyone has their own perspective.
Interpretation is not necessarily a subjective thing. You are interpreting my words right now and I'm betting (hoping?) that you interpret them the way they should - the correct way. There is a correct way to interpret my words, just as there is a correct way to interpret the words written in the bible. It may be difficult to interpret the bible, and we may not have all the answers, but some interpretations are better than others - and some are much, much better than others.

[RedRob]

Christianity does have an over-arching meta-narrative based on the whole Bible from Genesis - Revelation, and it's that consistent meta-narrative which informs the interpretations of Lurker and others. I do see why you all have some difficulty in coming to an understanding about how the Bible is interpreted. Christian theoogy has the concept of Biblical Hermenuetics (http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/hermeneutics.htm). This involves the development and application of methods and systems for interpreting the Bible, including the meta-narrative. The process of comparing interpretations of any one passage of the Bible then becomes an exercise of comparing the competing interpretations against the rest of Scripture to see which is the most consistent, with each other and with the meta-narrative. These exercises are difficult for amateurs like you and I, due to the knowledge required of ancient languages, archeology, history etc.
So, what you are saying is that a normal human can’t understand the message that the creator has written for him. OK! So the intelligent humans such as scientist who have studied these fields you have mentioned and come to conclusions that differ from the bible event though some of them were Christians, are what “lying”. No, well maybe they are influenced by the devil. OOOOOOO, NOOOOOO!

Thomas please don’t bore me with your sidestepping, insert uncertainty in the masses and some shell accept Jesus BS. I suppose your answer for a comment such as “How come this God that knows everything, has written (dictated) a passage that is not understandable by the very people he has created the text for? Shouldn’t it’s (god’s) intelligence be so superior that it would be able to know how to explain things with consistency and in a way so that the masses can understand it? ” would be “God works in mysterious ways.” Or “This is a test for you and your faith in him.”. Come on, enough of your fairy tales and other bullshit. You have nothing, nothing, so get over it.

Besides how do you explain tens of different gospels that were disregarded by the “editors” of the bible? Please don’t say that they were inspired by the divine on which scriptures to pick because that is just lame. Just like the whole College of Cardinals crap that states that they are divinely inspired to pick the right pope, yet it takes them hours/days to pick one. What god’s inspiration is an equivalent of a dialup modem connection to the Internet, you know “a little slow”.
:lol:

[Lurker]

My point exactly! Lurker's answer is merely side stepping my point which is that the bible is open to interpretation therefore not something that has solid rules or one meaning. I think my point is obvious from Lurkers own answer which admits that there are different interpretations but Lurker still would come out and just say: “Yes you are right there are disagreements and many different interoperations of the bible.” This is all a common theist tactic that I’ve experience before by arguing with the members of the competing Muslim cult.
I'm not side-stepping anything. I've answered the questions as best I can. Regarding interpretation not having solid rules....that does not mean all interpretations are equal. When 10 million people watch a movie and they tell someone it was a scary movie doesn't this mean a semi-objective interpretation can be made of a subjective object? I think so. They may all disagree as to how scary it is - some will say a little, some will say a lot - but nobody is going to say the movie was a happy, feel-good, romantic love story. Some interpretations are better than others, and that's all I'm saying

The only reason Lurker does not admit that I’m right is because Lurker’s beliefs have made him/her blind to the flaws of the bible. Notice Lurker did not even go into the contradictions of the Old and New Testaments and has plainly ignored the fact that there are some major disagreements between different sects of the Christian cult.
I was asked to comment on post #23. I have no idea what OT/NT contradictions you are talking about. You gotta remember there are ten thousand atheists on this forum (or so it seems) and only two theists (or so it seems). Too many posts, so little time.

[RedRob]

I guess my point didn't come across very clearly. I am saying there is a "best" interpretation or at the very least a "better" interpretation. My question "How can someone determine the best interpretation?" was meant as a rhetorical question designed to provoke thought.
Personally, I think that no one has the right to say an interpretation of something is the right/correct/best way. The very word interpretation suggests that it's perspective not fact.

If it is indeed perspective, then aren't all interpretations equal in that everyone has their own perspective.
Interpretation is not necessarily a subjective thing. You are interpreting my words right now and I'm betting (hoping?) that you interpret them the way they should - the correct way. There is a correct way to interpret my words, just as there is a correct way to interpret the words written in the bible. It may be difficult to interpret the bible, and we may not have all the answers, but some interpretations are better than others - and some are much, much better than others.
Once again, your divine, superior intelligence being, god, or whatever you want to call it is not very intelligent if the only document that you have (from god to you) is not clear even to those who claim to have faith. Read your answer dude, it's bs. I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the things that are wrong in your statement above. I think anyone can see your BS, well except others like you.

[RedRob]

I was asked to comment on post #23. I have no idea what OT/NT contradictions you are talking about. You gotta remember there are ten thousand atheists on this forum (or so it seems) and only two theists (or so it seems). Too many posts, so little time.
Well you answered some of my other questions that were in the same post so I assume you are ignoring the rest. Read the whole thread again if you don't remember.:P

[Lurker]

Once again, your divine, superior intelligence being, god, or whatever you want to call it is not very intelligent if the only document that you have (from god to you) is not clear even to those who claim to have faith. Read your answer dude, it's bs. I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the things that are wrong in your statement above. I think anyone can see your BS, well except others like you.
I think my overall points are clear - it's possible to correctly interpret words on a page and some interpretations are better than others while some are much better than others. If you call that BS then just chalk it up to your inability to correctly interprete what I'm saying.

[calpurnpiso]

What many fail to understand when "interpreting" the Babble (my spelling) is that there are HUNDREDS of babbles!..and EACH one of them has its own way of describing/defining things!. One must realize that when Constantinus I back in 325 ce, created Christianity out of Mithraism and many other PAGAN belief systems there was NO BABBLE, only a compilation of Greek texts ( the vast majority), Arameic judaic texts and a vast amount ot Egyptian monuments containing RELIGIOUS TEXTS.

The erudite Gerome at the orders of the Emperor, picked and choose the religious texts to be translated into latin from the Greek and Aramaic so the plebes could READ it, be brainwashed and OBEY the commands of the Priest-Emperor 'divine" reflection. A brilliant move to control the minds of the UNRULY UNEDUCATED slaves of the Roman Empire that was DECLINING due to the superstitious, intolerant and anti-science/progress of the early Christians. The scourge of mental health.

The Vulgate was the result. The first compilation of idiocies, lies and stupid myths that would be acceptes as TRUTH by the psychotic masses in the future. Many revisions, alterations, plagiarism ( the reason early Christians had to BURN the evidence ) would follow due to the many COUNCILS of the Church:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/8920/churchcouncils/Ecum04.htm

So, there are HUNDREDS of Babbles and they became more numerous when the derranged delusional Martin Luther opened Pandoras box by saying ANYONE could read the babble ( at the time the Catholic Priest were the ONLY ones allowed to be interpret it) and obtain "salvation". The Babble Mill started and CONFUSIONS ensued.

One interesting mistranslation in this compedium of puerile delusional idiocies ( there are hundreds!) the Gay King James version is when it says, it is easier for a 'camel" to pass through a neddle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven. The RETARD mistralated the word ROPE as camel!!. What an imbecile!..and this compedium of idiocies is believe by so many to be the 'word of a god"?? if these folks are NOT suffering from a neurological disorder which fogs their mind, I do not know what does!

True Christians are simply mentally ill....their actions speak LOUDER than any clinical diagnosis...:)

[thomas]

Christianity does have an over-arching meta-narrative based on the whole Bible from Genesis - Revelation, and it's that consistent meta-narrative which informs the interpretations of Lurker and others. I do see why you all have some difficulty in coming to an understanding about how the Bible is interpreted. Christian theoogy has the concept of Biblical Hermenuetics (http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/hermeneutics.htm). This involves the development and application of methods and systems for interpreting the Bible, including the meta-narrative. The process of comparing interpretations of any one passage of the Bible then becomes an exercise of comparing the competing interpretations against the rest of Scripture to see which is the most consistent, with each other and with the meta-narrative. These exercises are difficult for amateurs like you and I, due to the knowledge required of ancient languages, archeology, history etc.
So, what you are saying is that a normal human can’t understand the message that the creator has written for him.
I did not say it was impossible, I said it wasn't necessarily easy to do that correctly without a lot of study.

OK! So the intelligent humans such as scientist who have studied these fields you have mentioned and come to conclusions that differ from the bible event though some of them were Christians, are what “lying”. No, well maybe they are influenced by the devil. OOOOOOO, NOOOOOO!
I never said anybody was lying or influenced by the devil. Just that coming to a consistent interpretation is not easy.

Thomas please don’t bore me with your sidestepping, insert uncertainty in the masses and some shell accept Jesus BS.
If I bore you then I suggest that you don't read my posts and don't respond to them. I'm not attempting to cynically manipulate anybody, as you suggest. My post was an honest attempt to move the conversation forwards by adding some information about how the Christian church goes about interpreting the Bible, and showing that it was not a completely arbitrary method.

I suppose your answer for a comment such as “How come this God that knows everything, has written (dictated) a passage that is not understandable by the very people he has created the text for? Shouldn’t it’s (god’s) intelligence be so superior that it would be able to know how to explain things with consistency and in a way so that the masses can understand it? ” would be “God works in mysterious ways.” Or “This is a test for you and your faith in him.”. Come on, enough of your fairy tales and other bullshit. You have nothing, nothing, so get over it.
This is just crazy. Posting assumptions about what I believe and then attacking them as fairy tales and bullshit. This is an outright deceitful way to carry on a debate.

Besides how do you explain tens of different gospels that were disregarded by the “editors” of the bible? Please don’t say that they were inspired by the divine on which scriptures to pick because that is just lame.
Why don't you pick just one of these different gospels and then we can discuss the issue on its merits.

Just like the whole College of Cardinals crap that states that they are divinely inspired to pick the right pope, yet it takes them hours/days to pick one. What god’s inspiration is an equivalent of a dialup modem connection to the Internet, you know “a little slow”.
:lol:
You'll not find me defending all of the practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

[thomas]

Maybe your undetected mental illness causes you to wilfully misinterpret history to back up your claims ?

What many fail to understand when "interpreting" the Babble (my spelling) is that there are HUNDREDS of babbles!..and EACH one of them has its own way of describing/defining things!. One must realize that when Constantinus I back in 325 ce, created Christianity out of Mithraism and many other PAGAN belief systems there was NO BABBLE, only a compilation of Greek texts ( the vast majority), Arameic judaic texts and a vast amount ot Egyptian monuments containing RELIGIOUS TEXTS.
Your version of history is bunk and not supported by the evidence. The Bible was well formed by 325AD and Constantines influence was minimal other than pushing for heterodoxy over the issue of the exact nature of the divinity of Jesus.


One interesting mistranslation in this compedium of puerile delusional idiocies ( there are hundreds!) the Gay King James version is when it says, it is easier for a 'camel" to pass through a neddle's eye than for a rich man to enter heaven. The RETARD mistralated the word ROPE as camel!!. What an imbecile!..and this compedium of idiocies is believe by so many to be the 'word of a god"?? if these folks are NOT suffering from a neurological disorder which fogs their mind, I do not know what does!
No sir, not true. Not a single manuscript prior to the 11th Century has the word rope in those verses, all prior manuscripts of which there are many, say camel.

True Christians are simply mentally ill....their actions speak LOUDER than any clinical diagnosis...smile
Your accusations regarding my mental illness are unfounded in fact and resented by me. There is no evidence that I'm other than a sane, well-adjusted, rational person.

[RedRob]

You'll not find me defending all of the practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.
But this is the same church that has compiled your bible. How can you trust anything written in such a document if you do not trust the authority that has brought the text you so vigorously defend? Since I'm assuming “answers” then why don't you answer them yourself and prove me wrong instead of sidestepping and once again trying to change the subject by trying to discredit me. Answer the question above not just the one in this post please. :P

[RedRob]

Once again, your divine, superior intelligence being, god, or whatever you want to call it is not very intelligent if the only document that you have (from god to you) is not clear even to those who claim to have faith. Read your answer dude, it's bs. I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the things that are wrong in your statement above. I think anyone can see your BS, well except others like you.
I think my overall points are clear - it's possible to correctly interpret words on a page and some interpretations are better than others while some are much better than others. If you call that BS then just chalk it up to your inability to correctly interprete what I'm saying.
Why don't you say it correctly so that I don't have to interpret anything?

[Lurker]

Why don't you say it correctly so that I don't have to interpret anything?
I didn't say anything, I typed it. See how tricky interpretation can be? ;)

[thomas]

But this is the same church that has compiled your bible. How can you trust anything written in such a document if you do not trust the authority that has brought the text you so vigorously defend? Since I'm assuming “answers” then why don't you answer them yourself and prove me wrong instead of sidestepping and once again trying to change the subject by trying to discredit me. Answer the question above not just the one in this post please.
Because over time, the RCC has moved away from its initial positions, those that were used to found the church. In particular on this issue, the NT clearly talks about the priesthood of all believers. For me any church that is setting up some people as "priests" and others as ordinary believers is going against what is written in the Bible ( including the meta-narrative ).

As to your other questions, I think I did answer them already, except for situations where you postulated a set of beliefs for me and then denounced them. Please point out specifically where I did not ? Also, are you going to pick a gospel that didn't make it into the bible that we can talk about, or are you withdrawing that claim ?

[Rhinoqulous]

True Christians are simply mentally ill....their actions speak LOUDER than any clinical diagnosis...smile
Your accusations regarding my mental illness are unfounded in fact and resented by me. There is no evidence that I'm other than a sane, well-adjusted, rational person.
I think cal may be the one suffering from a mental illness. It's the only thing he ever talks about, in every single post. Ever hear of OCD?

Rhinoq

[RedRob]

For Thomas:

Not answered by you:
How come this God that knows everything, has written (dictated) a passage that is not understandable by the very people he has created the text for? Shouldn’t it’s (god’s) intelligence be so superior that it would be able to know how to explain things with consistency and in a way so that the masses can understand it?

You answer to my gospel question>>>Perhaps you should pay attention to your own babble since you don't seem to remember what you have and have not answered.>>>>

"I'm not going to pick a gospel since me and you both know that there were gospels that were discarded. You have already answered why you don't look at that as signignificant.
Because over time, the RCC has moved away from its initial positions, those that were used to found the church.”

Is it clear now???

[RedRob]

Why don't you say it correctly so that I don't have to interpret anything?
I didn't say anything, I typed it. See how tricky interpretation can be? ;)
Fine, why don't you type it correctly so that I don't have to interpret anything?:|

[calpurnpiso]

Thomas wrote:

"Your version of history is bunk and not supported by the evidence. The Bible was well formed by 325AD and Constantines influence was minimal other than pushing for heterodoxy over the issue of the exact nature of the divinity of Jesus. "

If you get educated and do RESEARCH, you'll find out what I'm saying is SUPPORTED by the FACTS.

There is NO secular EVIDENCE of the existence of IESOUS. If you read the 5,000 year old Egyptian Book of the Dead, whose ORIGINAL version can be read in the walls of the tomb of king Unas, you'll see for a FACT resurrecting "saviors" where a dime a dozen in those days! The idiotic Babble stories are clearly seen in those pagan mythologies which were written, thousands of years BEFORE, this compilation of LIES, and PUERILE Delusions was ever produced!...... with IDENTICAL miracles including the raising of LAZARUS, water into wine, feeding people with 5 breads, walking in water and THINKING with one's HEART, instead of the brain, resurrecting to 'save mankind from sin et al! ..........ROTFLMAO...

For your information the "cross" is NOT an instrument of torture. It is simple the representation of the RAYS of the SUN...and the SUN DISC was a god, as were Earth, Fire and water (see the SWATIKA, native American solar symbols and others across the world). The REASON the Christ-psychotics when their insanity was made LEGAL in the Roman Empire decided to DESTROY the evidence of their PLAGIARISM and ADOPTING the much more ancient PAGAN deities (they BURNED texts to hide their DECEIT) I suggest you read Contra Celsus. This crazy castrated Christian imbecile, so called Church Father, realizing the philosopher Celsus was CORRECT, introduced the idiotic Christian concept of DIABOLIC MIMICRY to explain WHY all of the IESOUS feats ( miracles, resurrection et al) had EXISTED before in PAGAN divinities!! He was instrumental in BURNING Celsus works!! ....ROTFLMAO.. if this is not an ancient psychosis I do not know what is!...Alas, this delusional man CASTRATED himself to satisfy his Christ delusions...and the samething can be said of the other NUTS in Christ, Augustinus, Cyril, Eusebius,..LOL... psychotic church fathers indeed, they needed hallinogens and ergot contaminated bread to write their "inspired by god" babbles..LOL..

Of course to you, these schizophrenia suffering retards were just "pious" sane men and "inspired" by god. I bet you did not know that many of those men ingested hallucinogens ( the true SACRAMENTS of early Christians) Here is some EVIDENCE, read it and lump it!:

http://distelrath.tripod.com/fabbro.htm

Tell me what's the difference between schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy DELUSIONS and those of CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, HINDUS, and any person of FAITH?..and Don't ALL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS systems in the world base their BELIEFS on IRRATIONAL MYTHS as if they were REALITY?..or do you think your Christian IRRATIONAL myths are TRUE while those of others are FALSE?....well, don't the others think the same about your faith induced delusions?..and what is the definition of a delusion?

Remember a 5 year old child belief that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are REAL is normal but what if he grows up into adulthood and STILL BELIEVES these myths are true? Wouldn't he be diagnosed as MENTALLY RETARDED?

Hmm...what would be the diagnosis of a person that firmly believes, a "son of a god" was CRUCIFIED to 'save" with his blood all of humanity for the "sin" committed by a mud created man and his rib-created woman when they accepted a forbidden fruit ( an amanita muscaria mushroom no doubt) from a talking snake?....and didn't he cancelled his "sacrifice' since he did not stay dead, by resurrecting the SECOND DAY ( early Christians did no know how to count)?

Aren't you a believer in these OBVIOUS DELUSIONS which, by being NO MUCH DIFFERENT that those exhibited by schizophrenia sufferers, could be diagnosed by neurologists as symptom of NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER?

...so, if it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck and swims like a duck...

Realizing one is ill is the beginning of any cure.....Sorry, facts are facts and MYTHS accepted as facts is for nuts...:)

[Rhinoqulous]

See, every post of cal's is the same. OCD, definently OCD.

[Lurker]

See, every post of cal's is the same. OCD, definently OCD.
definitely OCD,
definitely OCD,
definitely OCD...

...and ALSO an unusual MEDICAL condition THAT apparantly TRIGGERS the RANDOM use of the SHIFT KEY (as demonstrated here). I recommend the patient undergo further observation until a treatment can be found. :P

[HeWhoAsks]

Christianity does have an over-arching meta-narrative based on the whole Bible from Genesis - Revelation, and it's that consistent meta-narrative which informs the interpretations of Lurker and others. I do see why you all have some difficulty in coming to an understanding about how the Bible is interpreted. Christian theoogy has the concept of Biblical Hermenuetics (http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/hermeneutics.htm). This involves the development and application of methods and systems for interpreting the Bible, including the meta-narrative. The process of comparing interpretations of any one passage of the Bible then becomes an exercise of comparing the competing interpretations against the rest of Scripture to see which is the most consistent, with each other and with the meta-narrative. These exercises are difficult for amateurs like you and I, due to the knowledge required of ancient languages, archeology, history etc.
If the following, from the web site above (http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/hermeneutics.htm) is typical of the hermeneutics of the bible that thomas is referring to, then I'm not impressed at all:

"The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions."

Yes, if you assume that the bible is inerrant to begin with, then your only choice is to trust god that the bible makes sense despite all appearances. But, then, that's assuming what the whole discussion is about.

Thomas, can you summarize or distill this meta-narrative you mention, and will it do anything better than the quote above?

[thomas]

Not answered by you:
How come this God that knows everything, has written (dictated) a passage that is not understandable by the very people he has created the text for? Shouldn’t it’s (god’s) intelligence be so superior that it would be able to know how to explain things with consistency and in a way so that the masses can understand it?
It's a plain fact, evidenced by the widespread nature of the Christian faith, that the Bible and the basic core beliefs of Christianity are understood by the masses and have been for two thousand years across many different cultures. A handful of atheists looking to create confusion and to be nay-sayers can't change that basic fact.

Now I see as a strength of Christianity that it can be taken on many different levels appropriate to many different ages and intellectual abilities. I see it as a multi-layered faith, that has deep mysteries and significant intellectual challenges, but yet can be understood very simply by a child in a way that is real. We spend a lot of time on this forum talking about the evidences, reasons and facts behind the religion, but don't forget that many people, myself included, have a real daily experience of the faith, that is more valuable than all this talk. Not that the debate isn't important, it is important to me to back up what I believe with reason.

You answer to my gospel question>>>Perhaps you should pay attention to your own babble since you don't seem to remember what you have and have not answered.>>>>

"I'm not going to pick a gospel since me and you both know that there were gospels that were discarded. You have already answered why you don't look at that as signignificant.
Because over time, the RCC has moved away from its initial positions, those that were used to found the church.”
No that was an answer to your questions about the conclave and the mechanism for choosing the Pope. You also asked how do you explain tens of different gospels that were disregarded by the “editors” of the bible? I just wanted to focus on one of them so we could look at the facts together. I offered you the choice of Gospel so you couldn't claim that I'd picked an easy one. Do you want to name one we can talk about ?

Is it clear now???
Not yet.

[Little Earth Stamper]

And what you have to stop doing is imagining that demonstrating A proves that B is wrong, under the guise of "context." Both B and A can be present, the presence of one doesn't mean the other is absent. If all the verses you quoted do show that faith alone is enough, that cannot remove the plain meaning of the other verses (like Matthew 19: 21) even under the guise of context. In that case, context merely means "if two things are contradictory, then we can attend to the one that we want and ignore the other one."
The law of non-contradiction say's you've got to pick one and ignore the other - unless you can somehow figure out how both can be true at the same time. Can you do that? You seem to favor the contradictory interpretation and I'm asking you why when the non-contradictory interpretation makes perfect sense in context. It's like a teacher telling her class they have 30 minutes to finish taking a test, and later she tells them they have 10 minutes must be contradictory because it can be interpreted that way.

Regarding Matthew 19....

Jesus: It's hard for a rich man to enter heaven (because it's harder for him to let go and trust god to save him)
Disciples: Then who can be saved?
Jesus: It's impossible for man, but god can do it.
I think the problem here is that the contradiction can be resolved in one of two ways; You think it's obvious that men are saved by the grace of god and their faith in him alone, and I think it's obvious that good works themselves constitute the purest expression of faith in god, and thus they are what get you into heaven.

I think that the gospels even suggest that knowledge of Christ is not necessary, which is especially appealing given that god decided not to send any christians over to America for more then a millenium after christ was born.

You talk about context a lot, and I think that if we look to the even larger context of world history outside the bible, then my position is theologically the most sound. Or, at least it makes god into less of an arbitrary jerk.

But the essential question that we atheists ask is, why is there so much conflict in biblical interpretation? Although to the enlightened the bible may be clear as day, it's obvious that for the majority of humans, the bible's message is muddled and confusing. God has any number of ways of clarifying his points; For example, he could drop an angel through my roof right now to explain how your reading of the bible is superior to mine. But he doesn't. Why not?

[HeWhoAsks]

Not answered by you:
How come this God that knows everything, has written (dictated) a passage that is not understandable by the very people he has created the text for? Shouldn’t it’s (god’s) intelligence be so superior that it would be able to know how to explain things with consistency and in a way so that the masses can understand it?
It's a plain fact, evidenced by the widespread nature of the Christian faith, that the Bible and the basic core beliefs of Christianity are understood by the masses and have been for two thousand years across many different cultures. A handful of atheists looking to create confusion and to be nay-sayers can't change that basic fact.
You've shifted the goalposts again, thomas. You're saying that some things in the are understood by everyone. So, you're position, in terms of RedRob's point above, has to be that god's intelligence is so superior that he can only get the masses to understand the core of his message, but to communicate the details is beyond him. Hmmm.

As far as atheists creating confusion, I think we're just finding it. The confusion's in the bible itself.

And furthermore, there is nothing about a detail as opposed to a core belief that should make it more difficult to be understood, even by the masses. Speaking plainly and not contradicting oneself's is possible even when I say, to take an extreme analogy, either that (detail) my suit was dark blue (but not black) or whether I say core date) that I was born in Trenton, New Jersey. The masses can understand both the detail about my suit as well as where I was born perfectly well. If only the bible was written so clearly. This makes the bible look exactly like one would expect a collection of myths, written by several people before the scientific revolution, to look.

[thomas]

"Your version of history is bunk and not supported by the evidence. The Bible was well formed by 325AD and Constantines influence was minimal other than pushing for heterodoxy over the issue of the exact nature of the divinity of Jesus. "
If you get educated and do RESEARCH, you'll find out what I'm saying is SUPPORTED by the FACTS.
Quite. Well lets look at the facts then shall we

What many fail to understand when "interpreting" the Babble (my spelling) is that there are HUNDREDS of babbles!
Please list all of the 200+ Bibles that you claim exist or provide references to them.

..and EACH one of them has its own way of describing/defining things!.
Please list out the differences between these 200+ bibles or provide reference to them.

One must realize that when Constantinus I back in 325 ce, created Christianity out of Mithraism and many other PAGAN belief systems there was NO BABBLE,
Two things here. There is no significant impact on the beliefs of Christianity directly from Constantinus that I know of. Maybe you have facts I don't have ? If you are referring to the Council of Nicea in 325, no changes were made to the Bible at the Council, nor was any act of adding Mithraic elements to Christianity.

only a compilation of Greek texts ( the vast majority), Arameic judaic texts and a vast amount ot Egyptian monuments containing RELIGIOUS TEXTS.
No you are wrong about this. The Bible Canon was formed over 300 years but was significantly complete much earlier than you claim. Look at this link (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM) for what I think is a reasonably complete and accurate timeline.

[calpurnpiso]

Rhinoqulous wrote:

"I think cal may be the one suffering from a mental illness. It's the only thing he ever talks about, in every single post. Ever hear of OCD?"

per ignorationem an incurian?...per utramque ut videtur!.

Well if you think so, why not ELABORATE on my observations and REFUTE them with EVIDENCE? or is it perhaps that you're ignorant of ancient history, biology, the use of entheogens by the ancients, the evolution of the brain, how delusions are PRODUCED, the history of ancient religious texts and the nature of shizoaffective disorders and psychosis? Remember, unlike you, I can BACK UP my statements in aposteriori fashion. I bet you do not even KNOW what an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder truly is, how it INFECTS the brain and the WHY...lol.. Hmm, do you use your brain for thinking or perhaps instead do you use the 'heart", as it was the belief this organ was for 200 years ago? AHHH..thinking with a pump!....lol..

Lazy people ignorant of the facts usually resort to those labels to appear educated without nothing to back them up...ROTFLMAO...remember, if the shoe fits....:)

[calpurnpiso]

Thomas wrote:

'Two things here. There is no significant impact on the beliefs of Christianity directly from Constantinus that I know of. Maybe you have facts I don't have ? If you are referring to the Council of Nicea in 325, no changes were made to the Bible at the Council, nor was any act of adding Mithraic elements to Christianity. "

I suggest you get educated in ancient MYTHOLOGIES, specially the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the epigraphy found in Coffins, monuments. Please visit the Chicago Oriental institute or go to the Egypian museum at Cairo. Also, visit the Vatican, who was built over a Mithraic temple as many early churches were. Visit Aix-La-Chapelle in Aachen Germany study the document there, I have!..but the root of the matter is in this question that you FAIL to answer.

Don't you believe as fact a "son of god" was crucified, and resurrected to save with his blood for the SIN committed by a MUD created man and his RIB created woman when they accepted a fruit offered by a TALKING snake? Don't you believe SATAN is a real entity?

..now, what's the DIFFERENCE between these beliefs of yours and those of a 5 year old child who accepts SANTA, The Boogy Man and Tooth Fairy also as REAL entities?

Forget history, psychology, biology, Bibles, early Christians, Mithraism etc....just ANSWER the above questions and I will diagnose your mental health...is that simple.

[Lurker]

I think the problem here is that the contradiction can be resolved in one of two ways; You think it's obvious that men are saved by the grace of god and their faith in him alone, and I think it's obvious that good works themselves constitute the purest expression of faith in god, and thus they are what get you into heaven.
I agree. The good works are a byproduct of faith, or the purest expression of faith in god (as you put it).

I think that the gospels even suggest that knowledge of Christ is not necessary, which is especially appealing given that god decided not to send any christians over to America for more then a millenium after christ was born.
Some christians will disagree, but I tend to agree with you considering many people have never heard of christ. We're on a roll! :)

You talk about context a lot, and I think that if we look to the even larger context of world history outside the bible, then my position is theologically the most sound. Or, at least it makes god into less of an arbitrary jerk.
OK

But the essential question that we atheists ask is, why is there so much conflict in biblical interpretation? Although to the enlightened the bible may be clear as day, it's obvious that for the majority of humans, the bible's message is muddled and confusing. God has any number of ways of clarifying his points; For example, he could drop an angel through my roof right now to explain how your reading of the bible is superior to mine. But he doesn't. Why not?
I wouldn't say clear as day, but clear enough to grasp the fundamental message. I'd love for an angel to explain it to everyone, but I'm not god so I don't get to make the rules. I can see value in letting people work their way through it all like a school teacher makes a child learn concepts by himself. In school you learn in small increments and you retain it longer as you study it repeatedly. Study long enough and it becomes a natural part of you.

[thomas]

Thomas wrote:

'Two things here. There is no significant impact on the beliefs of Christianity directly from Constantinus that I know of. Maybe you have facts I don't have ? If you are referring to the Council of Nicea in 325, no changes were made to the Bible at the Council, nor was any act of adding Mithraic elements to Christianity. "

I suggest you get educated in ancient MYTHOLOGIES, specially the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the epigraphy found in Coffins, monuments. Please visit the Chicago Oriental institute or go to the Egypian museum at Cairo. Also, visit the Vatican, who was built over a Mithraic temple as many early churches were. Visit Aix-La-Chapelle in Aachen Germany study the document there, I have!..but the root of the matter is in this question that you FAIL to answer.
Do you deny my claims above regarding Constantinus, the Council or Nicea and the formation of the Bible . To quote you own words "Well if you think so, why not ELABORATE on my observations and REFUTE them with EVIDENCE?". Your vague attempts to deflect my evidence by bringing up unsubstantiated claims and a proposed travel itinery for me is bogus.

Don't you believe as fact a "son of god" was crucified, and resurrected to save with his blood for the SIN committed by a MUD created man and his RIB created woman when they accepted a fruit offered by a TALKING snake? Don't you believe SATAN is a real entity?
I am a Christian. I believe Jesus existed, was in fact the Son of God, was crucified and was resurrected. I believe there is sufficient historical evidence and reasoning to support these facts.

..now, what's the DIFFERENCE between these beliefs of yours and those of a 5 year old child who accepts SANTA, The Boogy Man and Tooth Fairy also as REAL entities?
Well, one difference would be that santa, the boogey man and the tooth fairies are deliberate inventions of parents, which they absolutely do not believe really exists. This is unlike Jesus who was an historical figure.

Forget history, psychology, biology, Bibles, early Christians, Mithraism etc....just ANSWER the above questions and I will diagnose your mental health...is that simple.
You don't need to diagnose my mental health, you just need to actually try and find some evidence to support your statements, and respond to mine. This would then become a debate, rather than the deranged rantings of guy with a one-track mind ( That's you I'm talking about in case you're wondering ).

[thomas]

Not answered by you:
How come this God that knows everything, has written (dictated) a passage that is not understandable by the very people he has created the text for? Shouldn’t it’s (god’s) intelligence be so superior that it would be able to know how to explain things with consistency and in a way so that the masses can understand it?
It's a plain fact, evidenced by the widespread nature of the Christian faith, that the Bible and the basic core beliefs of Christianity are understood by the masses and have been for two thousand years across many different cultures. A handful of atheists looking to create confusion and to be nay-sayers can't change that basic fact.
You've shifted the goalposts again, thomas. You're saying that some things in the are understood by everyone. So, you're position, in terms of RedRob's point above, has to be that god's intelligence is so superior that he can only get the masses to understand the core of his message, but to communicate the details is beyond him. Hmmm.
I don't think I moved the goalposts at all. RR's argument, as I understood it, was that the fact that the Bible was sometimes difficult to interpret was a sign that it wasn't inspired by God, because surely God would have created the Bible in such a way as to communicate His message clearly in a way that could be understood by "the masses". The point I made was that God did in fact communicate His message in such a way to the masses and has been demonstrably successful at that. Actually, in a way that is far superior to anything that atheism has come up with so far.

As far as atheists creating confusion, I think we're just finding it. The confusion's in the bible itself.
No, the confusion is not in the Bible. The confusion is caused by reading the Bible in isolation from the church and it's understanding of it. After all the Bible is a record of what the early church believed, and those beliefs are carried both in the Bible and by the Church, neither is of value without the other. When you interpret the Bible outside of the experience and practice of the Church you are basically wasting your time.


And furthermore, there is nothing about a detail as opposed to a core belief that should make it more difficult to be understood, even by the masses. Speaking plainly and not contradicting oneself's is possible even when I say, to take an extreme analogy, either that (detail) my suit was dark blue (but not black) or whether I say core date) that I was born in Trenton, New Jersey. The masses can understand both the detail about my suit as well as where I was born perfectly well. If only the bible was written so clearly. This makes the bible look exactly like one would expect a collection of myths, written by several people before the scientific revolution, to look.
It seems self-evident to me that some people will understand more than others can understand but that both can end up with a correct understanding. For example, I'm sure there are many more qualified scientists than I who can explain the fundamental details of how electricity works, I don't have that knowledge but I do have sufficient knowledge to wire a plug without killing myself. Kind of the same with Christianity, we're not all theologians or historians but we can rely on those who are to present us with good, consistent, robust intepretations of the Bible. After all the purpose of the Christian faith is not to become a master theologian, its to worship God, and love your neighbour.

[thomas]

If the following, from the web site above (http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/hermeneutics.htm) is typical of the hermeneutics of the bible that thomas is referring to, then I'm not impressed at all:
I'm not promoting all the content of that particular website, but I do think it has a good set of links that help understand how the Christian church works at intepreting the Bible. I'd hoped that more information would help move the conversation forward and away from any assumption that the Church views this as a trivial exercise.

Yes, if you assume that the bible is inerrant to begin with, then your only choice is to trust god that the bible makes sense despite all appearances. But, then, that's assuming what the whole discussion is about.
I don't know about inerrant but at least consistent. It's actually a reasonable assumption for hermeneutics to take. If the Bible is inspired by God, then it should be a consistent whole and be capable of being interpreted as such. Of course, if its not inspired by God then the Christian theologians should all give up and go home.

Thomas, can you summarize or distill this meta-narrative you mention, and will it do anything better than the quote above?
I knew this question was coming, and its a tough one to answer because there is so much to it. Let me see if I can find a good summary somewhere, otherwise I'll come back and see if I can put some words together.

[Nicole]

Okay, I'm just going to make the suggestion that calling everyone insane isn't really debate.

Thomas; I just wanted to bring up a couple of points with you. I was wondering if someone would mention that interpretations of the bible can be unequal do to education and method and you did, very intelligently. I believe that there's a problem with saying that a historian or language expert can better interpret the bible. Their knowledge is, in fact, based on suposition from their own teachers. If the author can't be directly asked what he meant by writing a passage, then I feel we are simply making educated guesses. This is true with any methodology used in interpretation. It's all open for debate as to the accuracy of the method. Hasn't there recently been an acceptance of the mistranslation of 'red sea' to 'reed sea'. (just an example)

Okay, another point. In this quote you say;
It's a plain fact, evidenced by the widespread nature of the Christian faith, that the Bible and the basic core beliefs of Christianity are understood by the masses and have been for two thousand years across many different cultures. A handful of atheists looking to create confusion and to be nay-sayers can't change that basic fact.
but later you mention that reading the bible out of context with the church is meaningless. So my question here is; if the bible and its' core beliefs are self evident, why do we need a church at all?

I disagree with your point that basic core beliefs have been understood by the masses due to the fact that congregations have always needed a Priest/pastor/minister to guide them in understanding.

What are your thoughts?

By the way, I'm pretty sure you're sane....

[Nicole]

Interpretation is not necessarily a subjective thing. You are interpreting my words right now and I'm betting (hoping?) that you interpret them the way they should - the correct way. There is a correct way to interpret my words, just as there is a correct way to interpret the words written in the bible. It may be difficult to interpret the bible, and we may not have all the answers, but some interpretations are better than others - and some are much, much better than others.
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you on this. I do agree with you in the fact that we can make educated guesses regarding interpretations. (I mentioned this in my reply to Thomas) But educated guesses rely on a couple of things. Firstly, where did the interpreter get their education of the subject matter? What is their motivation for the interpretation? These factors would suggest that any interpretation is highly subjective. Especially when the subject matter has emotional content.

That all being said; how is it possible to trust the interpretation (boy, I'm starting to hate that word) of any one person or organization?

[Nicole]

Thomas; one more thing...

You said; "Two things here. There is no significant impact on the beliefs of Christianity directly from Constantinus that I know of. Maybe you have facts I don't have ? If you are referring to the Council of Nicea in 325, no changes were made to the Bible at the Council, nor was any act of adding Mithraic elements to Christianity. "

It was my understanding (I've read this in a couple of places including 'Don't know much about the bible' by Kenneth C. Davis) that the Council of Nicea in 325 was to take all the competing sects of Christianity and select the elements or texts that they thought respresented a unified Church. Davis quotes several sources on this subject (I'm sorry that's a cop out and I don't have a copy of the book with me) and mentions that certain texts were chosen due to the councils' consideration. This action was taken to prevent division of the church and had political motivation. It's my opinion that the council had 'worldly' motivations and thus, created a bible which reflects that.

If it's true, then the bible can no more be taken as a divine source than any other book that's been edited.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
I wouldn't say clear as day, but clear enough to grasp the fundamental message. I'd love for an angel to explain it to everyone, but I'm not god so I don't get to make the rules. I can see value in letting people work their way through it all like a school teacher makes a child learn concepts by himself. In school you learn in small increments and you retain it longer as you study it repeatedly. Study long enough and it becomes a natural part of you.
Well, while I can see the value of this too, the practical consequence has essentially been to cause a great deal of unnecessary strife.

People who didn't (Or possibly did) understand the bible used it to justify slavery, inquisitions, conquest, ignorance, and other assorted scumbaggery.

Essentially, where you and I differ is that when god does something you don't understand, you just assume he must have a good reason, but to me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask what that reason might be.

Um... you'll have to indulge me. I know I've asked this before, but I don't remember where and I don't think I ever read your response.

If we don't question god's descisions, how do we know he's really god, and not just an idiot pretending to be god?

[HeWhoAsks]

I don't think I moved the goalposts at all. RR's argument, as I understood it, was that the fact that the Bible was sometimes difficult to interpret was a sign that it wasn't inspired by God, because surely God would have created the Bible in such a way as to communicate His message clearly in a way that could be understo