Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 4:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man's elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man's fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?

Regards
DL
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 4:55:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 4:40:50 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man's elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man's fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?

Regards
DL

The Jewish interpretation is actually quite interesting. The Christian one is there to create fear and guilt, so they can make more money out of you.
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:02:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To be fair, many of the events of the Old Testament have archaeological evidence to support them as fact, and much of it should be viewed historically, though many would argue certain events ascribed to God either did not occur or were the result of something else.

As to the events in Eden, concerning the Fall, it is hard to say. Presuming the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them morality and the ability to choose to be either good or evil, as it is said, then Adam and Eve were not aware of their doing wrong, even after God telling them not to do so. Thus, while I still view the disobediance to God as sin, because the definition of sin is to go against God's will, I cannot say whether it was an improvement or not. People then thusly had morality, and could know to do right, and feel pain for what is done which is wrong, but there is also the aspect of the fact that evil proliferated after that point. Man turned away from God, and eventually forgot about him, and many decide to do evil even though they feel it is wrong in their heart to this day.

Both views could be considered valid, and while Christianity is wrong on many issues, it must be noted that so man is not infallible, and Jewish tradition is largely based on interpretation of the Bible, meaning it is probably wrong in many cases, as well.

I am a Christian, but I read the Bible and judge on these matters objectively, on a case by case basis. I do not view, for example, the Pope to be infallible, and find the idea that he could condemn souls to damnation via excomunication to be ridiculous. There have also been cases in recent history where the Roman Catholic church has come forth and appologized/stated they were wrong on certain mistakes in the past, such as the imprisonment of Gallileo Galilei, and the excommunication of Dante Alighieri. There was also a case where the Pope bought himself into that office via bribery of those who would come to appoint him.

I am not Catholic, but do not mistake my words above to mean I am predudiced against them. Other sects of Christianity have made mistakes, as well, and continue to do so, as it is difficult to be completely correct regarding such a text as the Bible. It is large and complex, and it requires insight regarding the times the books were writen in to fully understand it, among many other things required to do so. I doubt any man that has ever lived has understood it all, with the exception of Jesus Christ, him being the living embodiment of God, and thus having the privilage of understanding things that others would not.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:11:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:02:24 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
To be fair, many of the events of the Old Testament have archaeological evidence to support them as fact, and much of it should be viewed historically, though many would argue certain events ascribed to God either did not occur or were the result of something else.

As to the events in Eden, concerning the Fall, it is hard to say. Presuming the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them morality and the ability to choose to be either good or evil, as it is said, then Adam and Eve were not aware of their doing wrong, even after God telling them not to do so. Thus, while I still view the disobediance to God as sin, because the definition of sin is to go against God's will, I cannot say whether it was an improvement or not. People then thusly had morality, and could know to do right, and feel pain for what is done which is wrong, but there is also the aspect of the fact that evil proliferated after that point. Man turned away from God, and eventually forgot about him, and many decide to do evil even though they feel it is wrong in their heart to this day.

Both views could be considered valid, and while Christianity is wrong on many issues, it must be noted that so man is not infallible, and Jewish tradition is largely based on interpretation of the Bible, meaning it is probably wrong in many cases, as well.

I am a Christian, but I read the Bible and judge on these matters objectively, on a case by case basis. I do not view, for example, the Pope to be infallible, and find the idea that he could condemn souls to damnation via excomunication to be ridiculous. There have also been cases in recent history where the Roman Catholic church has come forth and appologized/stated they were wrong on certain mistakes in the past, such as the imprisonment of Gallileo Galilei, and the excommunication of Dante Alighieri. There was also a case where the Pope bought himself into that office via bribery of those who would come to appoint him.

I am not Catholic, but do not mistake my words above to mean I am predudiced against them. Other sects of Christianity have made mistakes, as well, and continue to do so, as it is difficult to be completely correct regarding such a text as the Bible. It is large and complex, and it requires insight regarding the times the books were writen in to fully understand it, among many other things required to do so. I doubt any man that has ever lived has understood it all, with the exception of Jesus Christ, him being the living embodiment of God, and thus having the privilage of understanding things that others would not.

The historical claims of the Iliad and the Odyssey have been shown to be true. Doesn't mean that the Greek Gods were involved.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:53:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 4:55:01 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
At 1/1/2012 4:40:50 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man's elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man's fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?

Regards
DL

The Jewish interpretation is actually quite interesting. The Christian one is there to create fear and guilt, so they can make more money out of you.

+ 1

Regards
DL
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 6:58:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
True, that it doesn't.

I do not support the view that all Christian doctrines were made to create fear. That happened to allow for the subjugation of barbarians, when Christianity was the national religion of the Roman Emire. There have been many reforms since then.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:06:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 4:40:50 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man's elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man's fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?:

It's the difference between Peshat (direct meaning), Remez (allegory) and Derash (comparative teachings), which are different forms of exegesis.

Different verses in the bible to include all three forms of interpretation, but when and where to apply it is not universal, nor are different sects/denominations of Christians or Jews united either.

In my mind it is easy to tell the difference between allegorical versus literal translations, but some people literally believe there were talking snakes and flying chariots. Such a pity, considering they miss the allegorical meaning behind the passage. Jesus used tons of parables, yet most Christians seem to be able to disntinguish between literal and allegorical when it comes to that. Seems like when it comes to the OT, many denominations tend to take the view that it's literal. Why? I don't know.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:13:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:02:24 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
To be fair, many of the events of the Old Testament have archaeological evidence to support them as fact, and much of it should be viewed historically,

http://video.google.com...#

though many would argue certain events ascribed to God either did not occur or were the result of something else.


Those with intelligence, yes.

As to the events in Eden, concerning the Fall, it is hard to say. Presuming the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them morality and the ability to choose to be either good or evil, as it is said, then Adam and Eve were not aware of their doing wrong, even after God telling them not to do so.

I agree yet God punished them and us if the Christian view is held.

Thus, while I still view the disobediance to God as sin, because the definition of sin is to go against God's will, I cannot say whether it was an improvement or not.

IMO sin is done from one human to another and creates victims. God cannot be victimized.

People then thusly had morality, and could know to do right, and feel pain for what is done which is wrong, but there is also the aspect of the fact that evil proliferated after that point. Man turned away from God, and eventually forgot about him, and many decide to do evil even though they feel it is wrong in their heart to this day.

Christian B S to inspire guilt and open the purse.

Both views could be considered valid,

Impossible. They oppose each other.

and while Christianity is wrong on many issues, it must be noted that so man is not infallible, and Jewish tradition is largely based on interpretation of the Bible, meaning it is probably wrong in many cases, as well.

Eh. Jews do not follow the N T so we cannot say they follow the bible.


I am a Christian, but I read the Bible and judge on these matters objectively, on a case by case basis.

That, to me, means that you are not a Christian.

I do not view, for example, the Pope to be infallible, and find the idea that he could condemn souls to damnation via excomunication to be ridiculous. There have also been cases in recent history where the Roman Catholic church has come forth and appologized/stated they were wrong on certain mistakes in the past, such as the imprisonment of Gallileo Galilei, and the excommunication of Dante Alighieri. There was also a case where the Pope bought himself into that office via bribery of those who would come to appoint him.

I am not Catholic, but do not mistake my words above to mean I am predudiced against them. Other sects of Christianity have made mistakes, as well, and continue to do so, as it is difficult to be completely correct regarding such a text as the Bible. It is large and complex, and it requires insight regarding the times the books were writen in to fully understand it, among many other things required to do so. I doubt any man that has ever lived has understood it all, with the exception of Jesus Christ, him being the living embodiment of God, and thus having the privilage of understanding things that others would not.

So much of the hearsay and book say is all B S but where the same book speaks of Jesus, it is right.

Sigh.
You do not read literally except the parts you like.

Quite the way to read a book but I should say it is better than literalists which you are, and fundamentals.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:16:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
True, that it doesn't.

I do not support the view that all Christian doctrines were made to create fear. That happened to allow for the subjugation of barbarians, when Christianity was the national religion of the Roman Emire. There have been many reforms since then.

Yes. But not the main parts that need refrorm.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 7:20:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:06:58 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/1/2012 4:40:50 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Whose view of the O T is authoritative? Jewry or Christianity?

In reading and discussing the O T, I have noted that the Jewish view is in some cases completely opposite of what the Christian view is.
I E. The Jews see Eden as man's elevation to a moral sense, while Christians see Eden as man's fall. Jews do not recognize original sin while Christians do.

Jews also do not read the O T as literal and historic while Christians do.

Whose interpretation should hold precedence? The Jewish view or the Christian one?

When Christianity usurped the Jewish God, should they have also usurped their interpretations as well, instead of reversing them?:

It's the difference between Peshat (direct meaning), Remez (allegory) and Derash (comparative teachings), which are different forms of exegesis.

Different verses in the bible to include all three forms of interpretation, but when and where to apply it is not universal, nor are different sects/denominations of Christians or Jews united either.

In my mind it is easy to tell the difference between allegorical versus literal translations, but some people literally believe there were talking snakes and flying chariots. Such a pity, considering they miss the allegorical meaning behind the passage. Jesus used tons of parables, yet most Christians seem to be able to disntinguish between literal and allegorical when it comes to that. Seems like when it comes to the OT, many denominations tend to take the view that it's literal. Why? I don't know.

It may be that they just like the idea of a God that will murder anyone not of their little tribe.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Regards
DL
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 8:55:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Greatest, if you agree with the fact that they would not have realized that they were doing wrong, it is hypocricy to say that you do not agree with my statement immediately afterwords. I say that they turned away from God because of the fact that God's reason for the Flood, according to Genesis was litterally that exact reason. Now, with that being said, I know Genesis in large part could be incorrect/meant to be an allegory, but it is also true that not all humans worship God, now, and the majority of people are quite sinful, indeed. If you accept the Garden of Eden account, then you must accept that at one point all men knew of God's existance. With the knowledge of good and evil provided by said fruit, you can also assert that they then had moral judgement/a concience, making their sins known to them, and giving them guilt for doing evil, and yet they sinned anyway. You could say the fruit only effected Adam and Eve's mind, but then they would pass the teachings at least down to their children, if not further down the line, and by teaching them right from wrong as kids they still were aware when it was bad, and they were likewise aware that God existed, and He did not want them to do bad things, unless that concept was not fully understood at that point, which I find unlikely. Thusly, it is not "Christian B S", and the church only asks for offerings just as God instructed man to give 1 tenth of their earnings to him. The priests were the ones who received it at the time, so you could argue it is void now that te temple is gone, but how else are the ministers going to get payed? A church needs money to opperate. That is fact.

I was saying it depended on the person's point of view. There were good things and bad things both that occured do to Adam and Eve's leaving the Garden of Eden, such as God no longer walking with them in plain view, among other negative effects. The sinfulness that resulted from that event was a bad thing, no? I cannot imagine the slaughter and murder of so many that the earth was filled with violence and bloodshed would be considered anything but a bad thing, and Genesis agrees many times, saying man was corrupt, and the earth was filled with corruption. The good thing is that it allowed man to actually know what he was doing, and good things and righteous people exist on the earth, now. I say again, it depends on oppinion, and they could also both be considered to be correct because of the fact that both good and bad came from it, as well.

I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I meant their interperatations of the Old Testament at the time. I was meaning that because of the fact that the Jewish tradition is not infallible because of the fact that it is man's oppinionated interperatation, which can be shown even more by the fact that many teachings are contradictory. Not every Rabi will be correct in every matter, and there will be times when they are wrong because they are imperfect humans, and thus in both cases there are things that each religion is wrong on. Christianity has had a habit of not agreeing with the Bible and the teachings therein, but as I said, reforms have been made, and the Bible is being studied still. We are not perfect, but neither does every Jew follow all the precepts of the Law. In fact, most of them don't, because alot of the teachings are moral ones that are extremely difficult to follow constantly, because of humanity's temptation to sin. Along with that, they could very well make mistakes by accident, or not have known about the rule they break.

How am I not a Christian if I believe in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, yet do not follow the doctrines of certain parts of the faith? Christianity is by no means uniform, and if you study the Bible and find things that disagrees with the doctrines you had followed/known about, and you don't follow said doctrines from thereafter, you are still a Christian, as you are following the Bible and believe in Christ. By objectively I was meaning I do not let my personal feelings about things prior to reading effect my judgement and make me ignore advice or Biblical Law in most cases. There are still things I do not do, such as celebrate Jewish hollidays, but most of those are not valid because the Temple has been destroyed. Others were not commands from God, but celebrations the people themselves decided on, such as Hannukah. I am a Christian, and we are not all the same. You cannot judge the me based on things I have not done, but have been by others of my faith.

I do not understand what you mean completely after your comment on me saying that I am not Catholic, and the Pope is not infallible, ect.... Were you insulting me because I made the statement about Jesus at the end? Of course I would do so; I have already admited I am Christian.

I do not always believe the Bible to be literal, either, it's just that I do on the matter of Jesus Christ and His being the Son of God, and also God incarnate. There were prophesies in the Old Testament that said the Messiah was going to be called God Almighty. I cannot say that that means He is God, but the fact that He was supposed to be called so by His followers was foretold. Personally, I do believe he is God incarnate, but still. I have reasons for my saying things. The comment about interperating things literally other than the parts I like seems odd. I think you may say this out of frustration, but know that that is not true. I read much of the Bible literally. I felt I should say that regardless of your reasoning just because it was there. *shrugs*

I realize and have stated that Christianity has and continues to make mistakes. I read the Bible to further my knowledge of it, improve myself with the advice within it, and so I will know what has been ordained by the Allmighty. There are yet changes that need to be made, but you must be patient. Do not insult the people for the way they are, but rather strive to tell them where they are wrong and to guide them to the correct path, if you wish for reform and dispise the mistakes that have been made so much.

Yes, yes, I already realized God actually intended to allow many to sin. He works in ways of manipulation, controling things down to the subatomic level to use cause and effect to make what He wants to occur. I cannot speak for the morality of this overly much, as I am tired, and that would be a complex arguement, but that is the way things are. I am sorry that I can't, but perhaps another time, eh?

I never said that God did not intend for man to sin, and I believe He did, however you fail to acknowledge that good things can happen as the result of bad things. It was written that Jesus gave all the men who had died before his crucifiction the same opportunity for redemption as the ones who were alive at the time and thereafter. Death is not necessarily a bad thing, and God woudl obviously have a different perspective on things than humans would. He knows of events before they happen, and he has engineered them to occur in the way they have.

I disagree with your calling God insane, but sadly I cannot put my arguement into words right now, as I am tired, as has been mentioned.

Odd that you would double post and put the exact same thing at the bottom of both. I find this annoying, rather than supportive of your claim.

*sigh* Might as well end this post now, with so few characters remaining...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:08:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Word of advice... most people here don't bother reading lengthy posts. Learn to summarize; will make your life much easier.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel he probably will. He seems like one who would, to prove their side of the arguement.

I am known for my lengthy and detailed posts on the other forum, and liked for it. lol
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:22:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 7:16:22 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/1/2012 6:58:29 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
True, that it doesn't.

I do not support the view that all Christian doctrines were made to create fear. That happened to allow for the subjugation of barbarians, when Christianity was the national religion of the Roman Emire. There have been many reforms since then.


Thats Calvinism buddy not all of us. Armenians do not believe that.
Yes. But not the main parts that need refrorm.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Regards
DL
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:24:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The first ever commandment from God was to have sex.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
MasterKage
Posts: 1,257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:24:53 PM, Calvincambridge wrote:
The first ever commandment from God was to have sex.

*Face Desk*
This signature is full of timey wimey wibbly wobbly stuff...
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 5:13:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 6:02:24 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
To be fair, many of the events of the Old Testament have archaeological evidence to support them as fact, and much of it should be viewed historically, though many would argue certain events ascribed to God either did not occur or were the result of something else.

Has God looked after his book or not? If not, I submit to you that you have a useless God.

As to the events in Eden, concerning the Fall, it is hard to say. Presuming the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil gave them morality and the ability to choose to be either good or evil, as it is said, then Adam and Eve were not aware of their doing wrong, even after God telling them not to do so. Thus, while I still view the disobediance to God as sin, because the definition of sin is to go against God's will, I cannot say whether it was an improvement or not. People then thusly had morality, and could know to do right, and feel pain for what is done which is wrong, but there is also the aspect of the fact that evil proliferated after that point. Man turned away from God, and eventually forgot about him, and many decide to do evil even though they feel it is wrong in their heart to this day.

This is a bit like me as a Dad warning my 2 year old daughter to not touch the apple in the fruit bowl because there will be terrible consequences. She has no understanding why there should be anything wrong with touching the apple, nor should she have. Indeed I have just made it sound more attractive to her and I've put the suggestion in her mind. If she then touches the apple, if I was the Biblical God in this strange little scenario, I would think it was ok to banish her into the back garden in the middle of winter and consider that justice. Barking mad!

Both views could be considered valid, and while Christianity is wrong on many issues, it must be noted that so man is not infallible, and Jewish tradition is largely based on interpretation of the Bible, meaning it is probably wrong in many cases, as well.

What reason do have for still believing in some of it and what thought process do you have that enables you to decipher fact from fantasy?

I am a Christian, but I read the Bible and judge on these matters objectively, on a case by case basis. I do not view, for example, the Pope to be infallible, and find the idea that he could condemn souls to damnation via excomunication to be ridiculous. There have also been cases in recent history where the Roman Catholic church has come forth and appologized/stated they were wrong on certain mistakes in the past, such as the imprisonment of Gallileo Galilei, and the excommunication of Dante Alighieri. There was also a case where the Pope bought himself into that office via bribery of those who would come to appoint him.

Even catholics would recognise this as incorrect. They would consider the Pope to be fallible as far as his humanity goes. His infallibility comes in allegedly when he makes an ex cathedra statement (and he's apparently taking dictation from God on an important moral issue).

I am not Catholic, but do not mistake my words above to mean I am predudiced against them. Other sects of Christianity have made mistakes, as well, and continue to do so, as it is difficult to be completely correct regarding such a text as the Bible. It is large and complex, and it requires insight regarding the times the books were writen in to fully understand it, among many other things required to do so. I doubt any man that has ever lived has understood it all, with the exception of Jesus Christ, him being the living embodiment of God, and thus having the privilage of understanding things that others would not.

You seem to be doubtful of a lot of what is contained in the Bible and yet you make a statement like this. I really couldn't justify any of this to myself. It must be very strange living in a self-contradictory bubble.
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:28:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is not that I believe such things ascribed to God in the Bible were not so, but I was meaning to be diplomatic, so as to make my words have the greatest effect possible, VoiceInMyHead.

I also likewise realise that Eve and Adam were not in the mindframe we are, concerning knowing what is right and wrong, as I already said, and that God did in fact know that Adam and Eve would eat of said fruit (God had already given humanity permission to eat the fruit of any tree whose fruit contained seeds, which means that they were able to eat apples, and that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had no seeds, it seems), but I also do not judge Him as being unrighteous for doing so. You see, God views things from an extra-temporal level, seeing beyond the bounds of time and space, knowing what is going to happen, when it does, and being able to cause things to go acording to His will. What humans view as right or wrong is not necessarily so, and with the promise of eternal life, those few days we walk the earth, while extremely important, are a paltry sum compared to what there is to gain. Along with this, I would like it to be known that Hell, unlike people have argued and said and thought over many generations and in these debate threads, as well, is not a place of torture and damnation. Hell itself is actually a vault, effectively, to hold souls untill the end of time, at which they will be judged according to if they have lived good lives or evil ones, as it has been writen. The Lake of Fire is actually the place of eternal pain and torment that most people think of the equivalent of when they think of Hell. In it, those who have proven unworthy, which would cause problems in the hereafter, or whathaveyou, will be sent there, where they will be stripped of their personality as time immeasurable takes effect on them through the constant pain of (as its name indicates) fire causing every part of their being to be filled with pain, as they will have been given new bodies, which are immortal. I would also like it to be known that Jesus is said to have gone to Hell and given those who had died in the previous years the same chance at salvation as those who lived when He did, and thereafter.

By "Christianity is wrong on many issues" I meant that Christians in general do not follow doctrines that follow Biblical teaching, and that there needs to be improvement. To discern what is correct and what is wrong in that case, you would have to compare the Bible with common teachings and practices. As to the validity of the Bible itself, that is very hard to discern properly, as we were not there, and while we can find evidence to support what is said to have occured in the Biblical accounts in many cases, most of the miraculous things said to have occured in the texts we will simply never be able to prove, making it a matter of faith, though the fact that Paul, after being one of Christianity's biggest enemies/persecutors, converted to the faith would indicate that he either had a very vivid and convincing hallucination that he never stopped believing was Jesus untill the day he died, and he died a martyr's death, mind you, or it was indeed a vission of Christ that was not caused by hallucination. There is also the fact that so many others who lived at the time refused to recant and deny Christ's ressurection, even in the face of persecution and painful death (many, many others besides Paul met with similar fates, both commoners and noteworthy historical figures alike, in the time following Christ's crucifiction).

I will concede the point on the matter of the Pope's infalibility, as I do not wish to continue to argue it, and it would be pointless, anyway.

Eh, think of me what you will. I have many deeply ingrained beliefs, one of which being the bit about Chist being one with God.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:39:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Drakk

First.
Why do you read a book of myths literally when its own authors do not?

http://www.raceandhistory.com...

Secondly. Stop trying to profit from the murder of an innocent man.

What would you tell a victim of rape, who wants closure, when she would see her rapist walk and an innocent man go to jail?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:18:53 PM, Drakkoniss wrote:
I feel he probably will. He seems like one who would, to prove their side of the arguement.

I am known for my lengthy and detailed posts on the other forum, and liked for it. lol

I read only a part.
Enough to get the drift.

KIS is the way to go.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 3:45:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:25:32 PM, MasterKage wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:24:53 PM, Calvincambridge wrote:
The first ever commandment from God was to have sex.

*Face Desk*

???

He is right.

What do you see as God's first command?

Regards
DL
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 6:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And why do you think I am trying to make a proffit out of it? I don't even run/work in a church. I'm doing this because I enjoy the intellectual excercise and to hear other people's oppinion/arguements.

Not all Jews doubt the story of the Exodus... I have to go, so I can't finish writing my response. Perhaps later.
Drakkoniss
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 4:16:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By that, are you implying all Christians wish to gain financially by being a Christian? If so, then I would have you know that most Christians are not Christians for financial reasons, but because they were either raised in a Christian household, or had an epiphany of sorts that led them to chose to join said religion. In fact, I would say that the opposite is true, and that most Christians actually make less money because of the offerings to their church, or they make the same as they would, presumably (by that, I mean it is difficult to tell, because religion effects your life in ways that are not easily detectable, changing the choices you would make, ect.).

Those that would abuse Christianity for profits are few and far between, usually being scam artists claiming to be faith healers, those that write books on the subject while only doing so for the money (which would most likely make it difficult to actually write a good book on the subject, but it is conceivably possible to do so), corrupt priests, clergymen, or whathaveyou, and a few other people such as those who would pretend to be someone who needs help from the Salvation Army, and gets things from them while actually not being needful in that regard.

In fact, most Christians effectively act just as normal people would, perhaps having their personality or way of acting improved based on moral advice in the Bible, or provided by someone who's studied it, but not necessarily.

I find it very odd that you would accuse me of wanting to profit on it without me having made any indication of such... unless you mean profit relating to the belief held by Christians that you will have rewards in the afterlife based on your actions in this world, in which case I would have you know that I act the way I do for the sake of doing so. Any advice or statements I make with regards to religion are either for the sake of debates or for helping people in general. I am not so selfish as to have rewards for my actions be my driving goal in life.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 7:22:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
By profit, I was speaking of profit for the soul. Heaven IOW.

I was referring to those who will line up to take advantage and profit from the murder of an innocent man and letting the guilty shed their responsibility to their whipping boy, Jesus, while ignoring justice.

As to what you do and why. If there was not something rewarding for you, you would not be doing it.

Regards
DL