Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

The Bible and Denominations

jimvansage
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 9:24:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Bible can be used to destroy errant doctrine vital to each and every denomination.
This is not to say that the Bible contradicts itself, but that man-imposed traditions and ideas have cheapened and corrupted the Lord's church.

To name a few:
Calvinism (All 5 points of T.U.L.I.P)
Original Sin
Salvation by Faith Only (or the converse Works Only)
Instrumental Music in Worship (Already debated, but still willing to go at it again)
Premillenialism
Alcoholic Wine in Communion
Observing the Sabbath (Saturday)
& Other binding of OT Law on the Christian
etc. etc.

If I didn't think souls were at stake, I would not take this position.
Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 10:43:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 9:24:00 PM, jimvansage wrote:
The Bible can be used to destroy errant doctrine vital to each and every denomination.
This is not to say that the Bible contradicts itself, but that man-imposed traditions and ideas have cheapened and corrupted the Lord's church.

To name a few:
Calvinism (All 5 points of T.U.L.I.P)
Original Sin
Salvation by Faith Only (or the converse Works Only)
Instrumental Music in Worship (Already debated, but still willing to go at it again)
Premillenialism
Alcoholic Wine in Communion
Observing the Sabbath (Saturday)
& Other binding of OT Law on the Christian
etc. etc.

If I didn't think souls were at stake, I would not take this position.
Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Hello. :)
What exactly is your position. You haven't made it clear.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
clucas
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2010 8:11:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Whether you are religious or not, you can not deny that the bible can not be fully trusted and taken word for word when the original copy has been held by so many different leaders and people. Anyone could simply change it to what they wish the "lord" to say. I believe this is why the bible contradicts other parts so much.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2010 8:19:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/25/2010 8:11:14 PM, clucas wrote:
Whether you are religious or not, you can not deny that the bible can not be fully trusted and taken word for word when the original copy has been held by so many different leaders and people. Anyone could simply change it to what they wish the "lord" to say. I believe this is why the bible contradicts other parts so much.

And it has been changed many times. Remember King Henry in England? The Catholic church wouldn't allow him to divorce his wife so he basically re-wrote parts of the Bible and created his own church. That is just one example too...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2010 8:22:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/25/2010 8:11:14 PM, clucas wrote:
original copy

Huh? Translations do not derive from an already collated group of manuscripts. Diverse manuscripts are translated and then compiled. There is no singular source document, there are instead multiple documents.
Ferg
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2010 9:27:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Funny you should mention "alcohlic wine". The denomination I grew up in insisted that Jesus and his followers only drank non-alcohlic "wine". None of the parables or stories about wine (old wine/new wineskins, the water into wine story, etc.) make any sense unless we are talking about fermented grape juice. When Jesus turned the water into wine, the wedding guest remarked, if you will forgive the paraphrasing, that this was the good stuff and shouldn't have been saved for so late in the ceremony. This doesn't make sens if we are talking about grape juice, but it makes sense if we are talking about wine. And Jesus talks about new wine breaking old wineskins, something that can only happen during fermentation.

Plus . . . they never bothered to explain how the disciples kept their non-pasteurized grape juice from fermenting. People who claim that the disciples were just drinking juice have some serious explaining to do.

And if God cared so much about the nuances of doctrine, why didn't He just clearly spell things out instead of giving us a gospel so prone interpretation?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2010 3:42:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 9:24:00 PM, jimvansage wrote:

& Other binding of OT Law on the Christian
etc. etc.


The evidence that Christians are not bound by the OT law is weak, self-contradictory and rather convenient. It seems unlikely that this is really what Jesus, a jewish fundamentalist revolutionary, actually intended. I think if I was a Christian I'd be inclined to adopt these laws just to make sure.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2010 8:31:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/25/2010 9:27:29 PM, Ferg wrote:
Funny you should mention "alcohlic wine". The denomination I grew up in insisted that Jesus and his followers only drank non-alcohlic "wine". None of the parables or stories about wine (old wine/new wineskins, the water into wine story, etc.) make any sense unless we are talking about fermented grape juice. When Jesus turned the water into wine, the wedding guest remarked, if you will forgive the paraphrasing, that this was the good stuff and shouldn't have been saved for so late in the ceremony. This doesn't make sens if we are talking about grape juice, but it makes sense if we are talking about wine. And Jesus talks about new wine breaking old wineskins, something that can only happen during fermentation.

Plus . . . they never bothered to explain how the disciples kept their non-pasteurized grape juice from fermenting. People who claim that the disciples were just drinking juice have some serious explaining to do.

And if God cared so much about the nuances of doctrine, why didn't He just clearly spell things out instead of giving us a gospel so prone interpretation?

I had no idea there were denominations that believed this. I'm guessing Baptists?
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2010 1:52:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/25/2010 8:11:14 PM, clucas wrote:
Whether you are religious or not, you can not deny that the bible can not be fully trusted and taken word for word when the original copy has been held by so many different leaders and people. Anyone could simply change it to what they wish the "lord" to say. I believe this is why the bible contradicts other parts so much.

Fail
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
clucas
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2010 2:17:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/27/2010 1:52:43 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 11/25/2010 8:11:14 PM, clucas wrote:
Whether you are religious or not, you can not deny that the bible can not be fully trusted and taken word for word when the original copy has been held by so many different leaders and people. Anyone could simply change it to what they wish the "lord" to say. I believe this is why the bible contradicts other parts so much.

Fail

How so?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2010 9:08:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/27/2010 3:42:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/24/2010 9:24:00 PM, jimvansage wrote:

& Other binding of OT Law on the Christian
etc. etc.


The evidence that Christians are not bound by the OT law is weak, self-contradictory and rather convenient. It seems unlikely that this is really what Jesus, a jewish fundamentalist revolutionary, actually intended. I think if I was a Christian I'd be inclined to adopt these laws just to make sure.

That would probably make you closer to a Messianic Jew then although they're not really Jews. They're basically Christians who follow Jewish law and embrace Jewish customs such as Hanukkah and Passover.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2010 9:23:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 9:24:00 PM, jimvansage wrote:
man-imposed traditions and ideas have cheapened and corrupted the Lord's church.
To name a few:
Calvinism (All 5 points of T.U.L.I.P)
Original Sin
Salvation by Faith Only (or the converse Works Only)
Instrumental Music in Worship (Already debated, but still willing to go at it again)
Premillenialism
Alcoholic Wine in Communion
Observing the Sabbath (Saturday)
& Other binding of OT Law on the Christian
Papism
Trinitarianism
Omnibenevolence
etc
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 11:34:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/27/2010 8:31:04 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/25/2010 9:27:29 PM, Ferg wrote:
Funny you should mention "alcohlic wine". The denomination I grew up in insisted that Jesus and his followers only drank non-alcohlic "wine". None of the parables or stories about wine (old wine/new wineskins, the water into wine story, etc.) make any sense unless we are talking about fermented grape juice. When Jesus turned the water into wine, the wedding guest remarked, if you will forgive the paraphrasing, that this was the good stuff and shouldn't have been saved for so late in the ceremony. This doesn't make sens if we are talking about grape juice, but it makes sense if we are talking about wine. And Jesus talks about new wine breaking old wineskins, something that can only happen during fermentation.

Plus . . . they never bothered to explain how the disciples kept their non-pasteurized grape juice from fermenting. People who claim that the disciples were just drinking juice have some serious explaining to do.

And if God cared so much about the nuances of doctrine, why didn't He just clearly spell things out instead of giving us a gospel so prone interpretation?

I had no idea there were denominations that believed this. I'm guessing Baptists?

Yep. I never understood it either. One guy said he couldn't go to a Church where the members got drunk every Sunday. That is about the same argument that C_N clings to when talking about adhering to the Laws of Moses.

The wine isn't even tat strong. I don't know the content but I remember drinking a whole bottle of it once when I was young, well I shared it with the guy that snatched it. Between two 13 year old kids we hardly caught a buzz.

The argument is more comical then anything though.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen