The Christian Thread

JLocke wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: JLocke wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: JLocke wrote: Rob, just wondering . . . as an ex-believer, I still find myself incredibly fascinated with the ins-and-outs of the bible, and how it has been interpreted over the years. Which edition of the bible do you think I should go for to get the most literal translation, and is there any additional reading you recommend on the matter? I've read a lot of the bible in various translations and I favor it in the original Klingon. In all seriousness, I grew up with Revised Standard, but I believe to really understand it you have to dig into the original languages it was written in. Right. I don't have time to learn those languages, so a literal english translation is the next best thing.  I've already got my personal favorite 'modern english' translation, and that is the NIV. I also have an Apologetics study bible, but am not too sure of the translation they use. I have a fairly firm grasp on what the bible says in general, otherwise I wouldn't have felt confident enough in my knowledge to stop believing in it, but I just like to learn more about it because the whole thing interests me on both sides.  To be honest I'm not a language scholar by any means, but a few key words were not translated properly into English, so any given version is a book written by people who had their own perspective and agenda as well as the English translations.  As long as you take that into account, you'll be OK. Now if you believe the Bible to the literal word of God, then you have to deal with the conflicting translations. I get where you're coming from, now. Don't worry. I don't believe any of the supernatural stuff is literally true, anyway. I just like to know as much as I can what the books are trying to say. Douglas Wilson put it very interestingly when he said he approaches each book in the bible the same way: he first uses all his knowledge of the sources and time frames to determine whether the book in question is literal, allegorical, poetry, etc. Then he comes to a conclusion and accepts them each on their own merits.   . . . Or, something to that effect.  Rob probably knows better on what Wilson was talking about.

I believe everything in the Bible can be explained scientifically (at least for the most part).  Now whether or not I can explain it is a different matter.

Think about it logically a moment:

If God did create the universe, then the laws of the universe are by His own design.  And if that's true, then why would God need to break His own laws to accomplish something?  To me, it says more about God if He works within the laws He Himself created rather than "cheat."

Epignosis wrote: JLocke wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: JLocke wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: JLocke wrote: Rob, just wondering . . . as an ex-believer, I still find myself incredibly fascinated with the ins-and-outs of the bible, and how it has been interpreted over the years. Which edition of the bible do you think I should go for to get the most literal translation, and is there any additional reading you recommend on the matter? I've read a lot of the bible in various translations and I favor it in the original Klingon. In all seriousness, I grew up with Revised Standard, but I believe to really understand it you have to dig into the original languages it was written in. Right. I don't have time to learn those languages, so a literal english translation is the next best thing.  I've already got my personal favorite 'modern english' translation, and that is the NIV. I also have an Apologetics study bible, but am not too sure of the translation they use. I have a fairly firm grasp on what the bible says in general, otherwise I wouldn't have felt confident enough in my knowledge to stop believing in it, but I just like to learn more about it because the whole thing interests me on both sides.  To be honest I'm not a language scholar by any means, but a few key words were not translated properly into English, so any given version is a book written by people who had their own perspective and agenda as well as the English translations.  As long as you take that into account, you'll be OK. Now if you believe the Bible to the literal word of God, then you have to deal with the conflicting translations. I get where you're coming from, now. Don't worry. I don't believe any of the supernatural stuff is literally true, anyway. I just like to know as much as I can what the books are trying to say. Douglas Wilson put it very interestingly when he said he approaches each book in the bible the same way: he first uses all his knowledge of the sources and time frames to determine whether the book in question is literal, allegorical, poetry, etc. Then he comes to a conclusion and accepts them each on their own merits.   . . . Or, something to that effect.  Rob probably knows better on what Wilson was talking about.  I believe everything in the Bible can be explained scientifically (at least for the most part).  Now whether or not I can explain it is a different matter. Think about it logically a moment: If God did create the universe, then the laws of the universe are by His own design.  And if that's true, then why would God need to break His own laws to accomplish something?  To me, it says more about God if He works within the laws He Himself created rather than "cheat."

Epignosis wrote: Juan (I know you'll read this here)...I do believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God.  I never said that I didn't. What I did say (and have said multiple times) was that most people interpret it most of the Bible poorly because they read it like it was yesterday's newspaper.  Some folks around here don't get that, and so still attack interpretations of the Bible that are flawed to begin with.

Slartibartfast wrote: Padraic wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: You know what's an interesting read if you aren't familiar with it: Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision.  He studied a lot of the ancient texts including the Bible and saw commonalities.  Came to the conclusion that some of the supernatural events may have actually happened and can be explained by close encounters of the earth with some of the planets before they settled into their current orbits.  Venus and Mars in particular.  Which may also explain why some of the ancients worshiped planets as gods.  I mean, think about it, you see a light in the night sky coming closer and closer and soon all hell breaks loose... I would think the planets had settled into their orbits long, long before human beings existed. The Wikki article looks pretty good on the book if anyone wants to check it out (I just scanned over the text though): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

oh dear.

JLocke wrote: To me, that makes you just as guilty of judgmental behavior as anybody else here, if not more. Because, regardless of the requirements, you do believe that some people are sent to hell while others get to go to heaven. And an Atheist is much more likely to go to the fiery place than a believer. That's just how it is. To accept such a notion, that not everyone is good enough to have eternal bliss, is a very judgmental thing to do. Mike may think you have silly beliefs, but at least he doesn't think anyone deserves to burn forever. (And if you're like Rob, and don't believe in hell as a place of torture, then it's still the same argument. You believe some people deserve eternal life, while others deserve hell/non-existence/separation from God/etc.)

This is something that I've explained many times, and I will do it again (I hope you don't mind if I do it here since it pertains to Christianity specifically and not atheism or theism- I'm sure you'll see it). Smile

Everyone deserves punishment.  Everyone deserves God's wrath.  No one deserves eternal life.  No one deserves mercy.  The above use of the terms "deserve" and "judgmental" exposes a degree of ignorance of biblical doctrine.

This always blows people away, especially non-believers.  It's from Ephesians chapter one (emphasis mine):

 3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

 11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.


Do you see a pattern here? 

To put it more succinctly, this is from Romans chapter nine:

15For [God] says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,  and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.


___

As a side note, I spent an entire summer studying nothing but the Hebrew law- precisely because the passages you mentioned (about slavery, stoning children, adulterers, etc.) bothered me.

It proved to be one of the most fascinating studies I ever conducted.  There were a lot of, "Well that makes sense now!" moments. 

I wanted to write a book about it but something called "music" took over. 


Edited by Epignosis - July 09 2010 at 06:45

JLocke wrote:   Yes, yes, I know: We're all pieces of dirt who don't deserve eternal life, but through the grace of God, we unworthy ones are shown mercy. I was a believer for 18 years, Rob. I know a thing or two about this mindset.  Now that I no longer feel that way, however, I've learned to have a little more self-respect. I no longer do believe that we all deserve eternal torture, therefore the believer's stance seems much crueler (unintentionally, of course) than I once thought it to be.  That's just how I look at it now, and you can't tell me that christians are the most loving, all-inclusive people in the world, because that just isn't the case. Many christians like yourself (and myself, when I was one) are indeed non-judgmental, but many more are. Closeted gay politicians and pastors, hating themselves and all other homosexuals because they choose to follow the old testament's laws. People like the WBC who picket funerals and cheer on the death of soldiers. These people WOULD NOT BE THIS WAY if the bible didn't exist. These folks have allowed the bible to turn them into hateful people.  Now surely, there are folks like the cult leaders who merely use the bible for their own agendas. In that case, it is the people to blame, and not the text. But all I'm saying is that religions CAN cause more hate than love in some circles, and while you obviously don't think it's a good enough reason to speak against it, I would at least hope you could admit that religious people are more likely to judge others than non-religious people. Perhaps I'm just looney, but that's all I was trying to say. Ivan accuses me and Mike of being the judgmental ones. I don't recall either one of us saying anything judgmental to him. We disagree, sure, but I would never call him, you, or anybody else 'stupid' for believing in the christian God, or any other god. I'm dumber than everyone else here combined, I claim no intellectual superiority. I just state my opinion. Ivan needs to stop taking it all so personally.

"The world would not be this way" if the Bible didn't exist.  I couldn't disagree more.  Hateful people would find other means to support their evil.  There are plenty of writings by philosophers and politicians that can serve as a basis for it.  Do you seriously judge the Bible because of people who misread and misuse it?  Kind of funny really...the Bible says they (WBC) will be judged by God to an even greater extent.

By the way, what's wrong with judging people?  Did you know the Bible commands us to judge?  Yes- people love taking the "Do not judge" verses completely by themselves.  It's a common practice- take one sentence out of context and use it for the basis of an opinion.  Here, let me quote a verse Ivan quoted and give you the rest of it:

Luke 6:41“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

This has nothing to do with me judging non-Christians, by the way.  It says "brother."  If I am living in sin, it is wrong for me to try to correct small trespasses of a fellow Christian.  If I am defiling myself before God, however I would appreciate it if someone show me the error of my ways.

As for non-Christians, how do I judge them?  If I am a follower of Jesus, then I will imitate him.  This is what Jesus says:

⁴⁴Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. ⁴⁵When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. ⁴⁶I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.  ⁴⁷"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. ⁴⁸There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

I will warn the unrepentant of their dire situation (just as Jesus did right here), but I will not judge them, which in this specific context means "condemn." 

Same word in John 3:17 (krino):

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

So I don't judge (condemn) the world because it isn't my place.  But we are to make a judgment (i.e., determination) between what is right and wrong.  You do that too, do you not?  You don't seem to be a fan of WBC. 




Edited by Epignosis - July 09 2010 at 11:40

^ Religion keeps people from thinking for themselves ... I think that is a statement that is obviously true. The very essence of religion is to give people fixed rules that you are supposed to follow without questioning. Of course even religious people don't always do that, so there you have your thousands of Christian denominations - it's like that with Christianity in particular because the Bible is so ambiguous. Keep in mind, it's 27 books (the new testament), most of them written independently of each other, by various authors, each of which had a different understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. That's why - since you mentioned this - some parts of the Bible will command you to judge, while others will command you not to judge. When I'm talking about inconsistencies in the Bible, it's not stuff that would be considered to be normal glitches for books that old, who were copied by scribes over the decades and centuries. There are many inconsistencies that are not only flat out not reconcilable, but also not minor details but central elements of the tenets of Christianity. Was Christ born of a virgin? Was he human, was he God incarnate, was he both man and God? It's a long list of discrepancies that prove to me (in a historical sense) that Christianity was a phenomenon invented by Jesus' followers. The gospels were most likely written by people who not only never knew Jesus personally, but also lived in other countries - and they were written decades after Jesus had died, and the authors' sources were people who had heard the stories from other people, who had heard them from travelers, who ... etc..

Epignosis wrote: JLocke wrote: ^ I just got through saying that some people use and twist the bible as an excuse for their own evils. But many other people judge and hate solely because they think God wants them to. Yes, it is their interpretation, but if the damn bible weren't in their lives to begin with, they would have to judge and hate people without an excuse. People will always hide behind their religion as the reason for judging others if we let them.  I cannot believe you don't understand where I am coming from, here. I truly cannot believe it.  You said it yourself, the bible commands you to judge others. Again, it is up for interpretation how one wishes to take that, but it's there. As such, a christian is more likely to judge someone than an atheist is. Atheists don't follow any doctrine that condemns someone for how they live, so why WOULD they judge? It's a very simple point, I'm making.  And what is wrong with judging others? Well, if you're  a Christian, nothing. But since I am not, I find PLENTY to be wrong with judging others. To you, it makes sense, but since I no longer follow your religion, that mindset doesn't apply to me. I don't think anybody deserves to be denied eternal life simply because they choose to not believe in god. I don't think anybody deserves anything horrible to happen to them unless they themselves would commit a horrible crime. To you, denying believe in Christ IS a horrible crime, but to everybody else who aren't part of your club (in other words, most of the world), it's simply living life.  I've made my point, and that's it. If you don't understand my perspective, then you're simply choosing not to. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but to not even see it from my point of view takes a lot of work, I'd say. I've made it very clear that Christianity teaches people to judge, and therefore a believer in Christ is in theory much more likely to judge another human being than a non-believer. It's simple. I'm not saying your book is 'evil', I'm not saying your beliefs are 'stupid', and I'm not saying religion is a 'poison'. I'm just saying that judgmental attitudes come more naturally to religious folks than others, since they actually have something they can judge people up against. That's it. Agree with me, or don't. I'm moving on to other debates, now.  You just missed the entire point of my previous post.    I'd ask that you read it again. Of course, you judge others by whatever moral code you have gleaned from whatever sources seem right to you (else you would not have said "I don't think anybody deserves anything horrible to happen to them unless they themselves would commit a horrible crime.).  Is that not judgment on your part? 1. You judge others who commit a "horrible crime." 2. For me, denying Christ is a "horrible crime" (to use your words). So you are allowed to judge others by your own moral code and I am not allowed to do so by an ancient one?  Why do you get that privilege and I don't?  Are you judging me, Micah?  Finally, if a person doesn't believe in God or eternal life in the first place, what difference does it make if I warn him that he is in danger of losing out on eternal life?  He doesn't believe in it...so why would it offend him, hmm?  He will shrug and move on with his life, but not before judging me and my message first.

Edited by JLocke - July 09 2010 at 15:55

don't judge me bro!

JLocke wrote: Epignosis wrote: JLocke wrote: ^ I just got through saying that some people use and twist the bible as an excuse for their own evils. But many other people judge and hate solely because they think God wants them to. Yes, it is their interpretation, but if the damn bible weren't in their lives to begin with, they would have to judge and hate people without an excuse. People will always hide behind their religion as the reason for judging others if we let them.  I cannot believe you don't understand where I am coming from, here. I truly cannot believe it.  You said it yourself, the bible commands you to judge others. Again, it is up for interpretation how one wishes to take that, but it's there. As such, a christian is more likely to judge someone than an atheist is. Atheists don't follow any doctrine that condemns someone for how they live, so why WOULD they judge? It's a very simple point, I'm making.  And what is wrong with judging others? Well, if you're  a Christian, nothing. But since I am not, I find PLENTY to be wrong with judging others. To you, it makes sense, but since I no longer follow your religion, that mindset doesn't apply to me. I don't think anybody deserves to be denied eternal life simply because they choose to not believe in god. I don't think anybody deserves anything horrible to happen to them unless they themselves would commit a horrible crime. To you, denying believe in Christ IS a horrible crime, but to everybody else who aren't part of your club (in other words, most of the world), it's simply living life.  I've made my point, and that's it. If you don't understand my perspective, then you're simply choosing not to. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but to not even see it from my point of view takes a lot of work, I'd say. I've made it very clear that Christianity teaches people to judge, and therefore a believer in Christ is in theory much more likely to judge another human being than a non-believer. It's simple. I'm not saying your book is 'evil', I'm not saying your beliefs are 'stupid', and I'm not saying religion is a 'poison'. I'm just saying that judgmental attitudes come more naturally to religious folks than others, since they actually have something they can judge people up against. That's it. Agree with me, or don't. I'm moving on to other debates, now.  You just missed the entire point of my previous post.    I'd ask that you read it again. Of course, you judge others by whatever moral code you have gleaned from whatever sources seem right to you (else you would not have said "I don't think anybody deserves anything horrible to happen to them unless they themselves would commit a horrible crime.).  Is that not judgment on your part? 1. You judge others who commit a "horrible crime." 2. For me, denying Christ is a "horrible crime" (to use your words). So you are allowed to judge others by your own moral code and I am not allowed to do so by an ancient one?  Why do you get that privilege and I don't?  Are you judging me, Micah?  Finally, if a person doesn't believe in God or eternal life in the first place, what difference does it make if I warn him that he is in danger of losing out on eternal life?  He doesn't believe in it...so why would it offend him, hmm?  He will shrug and move on with his life, but not before judging me and my message first.  You're allowed to do whatever you wish, and I'm not saying you aren't.  I never said I don't judge people, but the difference is that I judge people based on my own morality, and not the morality dictated to me by some old book.  As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't offend me that someone thinks I'm going to hell. But when a person treats me like I'm scum simply because I don't believe the same thing he does, forgive me, but I do have a problem with that. None of this has ANYTHING to do with my point. Christians are more likely to judge others more often, and for many more (often senseless) reasons. I'm not judging you or anybody else by saying that; it's just what my opinion is on the matter. It's a statement, not an argument.

Have I ever treated you like scum, Micah?

And when you say judge, what do you mean?  This, I feel, is the crux of the issue.

Finally, why can you "cherry pick" a morality (to use a term you are fond of) and I can't accept a biblical one?  You clearly differentiate between the two and judge that one is superior to the other.  If you didn't, then you wouldn't choose "your own morality" over that of "some old book."  They'd be equally good.  But by accepting one thing and rejecting something else, you judge value statements, and by extension, people.

You do nothing different than anybody else.  So how is it then, that "Christians are more likely to judge others more often?"  What does that even mean to you?