Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

infallible bible v noah and earth's moving

linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.

so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:03:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
i'm also not trying to call him out, but i respect his wisdom, sometimes. ethan. are you a literalist? inerrantist? infallble? i think you go more than just reliable, though. i respect your opinion enough to ask. you get pretty touchy defending the bible, i do know that.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:06:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
The bible is a book. You have to decide whether you think it is infallible or not. Who writes books? Men. Do men ever make up stories?
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:24:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
What parts of the bible do you think are true?
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:29:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:24:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
What parts of the bible do you think are true?

unless i have a reason to think otherwise, i go with orthodox christianity. i like the church fathers. that doesn't mean i'm conservative, but i'm at least conseravative by default unless i have a reason not to be on an issue. i would also emphasize the types of christians called 'red letter' christians. they focus on the words of Jesus. i dont know if it's always exactly all true, but there is a lot of wisdom pondering his words when approaching the spiritual life. i pretty much go with it, only heistating sometimes. i also emphasize the new testament and contemplating the wisdom of the apostles in those books.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:33:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:29:48 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:24:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
What parts of the bible do you think are true?

unless i have a reason to think otherwise, i go with orthodox christianity. i like the church fathers. that doesn't mean i'm conservative, but i'm at least conseravative by default unless i have a reason not to be on an issue. i would also emphasize the types of christians called 'red letter' christians. they focus on the words of Jesus. i dont know if it's always exactly all true, but there is a lot of wisdom pondering his words when approaching the spiritual life. i pretty much go with it, only heistating sometimes. i also emphasize the new testament and contemplating the wisdom of the apostles in those books.
I don't know what any of that means. Do you believe Jesus died and was resurected?
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:44:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:33:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:29:48 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:24:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
What parts of the bible do you think are true?

unless i have a reason to think otherwise, i go with orthodox christianity. i like the church fathers. that doesn't mean i'm conservative, but i'm at least conseravative by default unless i have a reason not to be on an issue. i would also emphasize the types of christians called 'red letter' christians. they focus on the words of Jesus. i dont know if it's always exactly all true, but there is a lot of wisdom pondering his words when approaching the spiritual life. i pretty much go with it, only heistating sometimes. i also emphasize the new testament and contemplating the wisdom of the apostles in those books.
I don't know what any of that means. Do you believe Jesus died and was resurected?

yes. it is a central belief. easter is a joyous time because Jesus was resurrected, dying at the hands of sin and evil.

people have distorted christianity by focusing on all the bad things God looked like he did in the old testament, or coopting politics with religion. the focus is all wrong. Jesus taught a kingdom of love. he said the kingdom of God is within you, if you only will see it. he taught eternal life. these are the basics.... a kingdom of love, and eternal life. this is good news! we should have the same zeal as original christians that made the religion spread like wildfire.

the bible does say if you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, you will be saved. the bible says a lot of things about how to be saved, but the most basic that i see are that you must "believe in" him, and if that is too vague, i sometimes go with "rely" on him. we all should acknolwedge that we do things wrong and come to repent of doing things wrong. that means acknowledging our sins. we should all acknowledge that we will one day die, and it looks like our fate as dead people is out of our hands. but, if you acknowledge you are a sinner and that you rely on Jesus, you will be saved, in my book. the salvation of God is a wide net, in my book too, perhaps beyond christians, depending on their level of knowledge and wisdom. but if you want to know how to be saved via the christian method, you want to come to rely on Jesus. he can save you from death and heal you from your wrongdoing.

if you have questions, you can ask people like me or google them. i am pretty knowledgeable about scripture and theology. i think we've come to a new age of enlightenment because of new age thinking and the internet. it is a good time to be alive.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:48:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:44:37 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:33:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:29:48 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:24:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
What parts of the bible do you think are true?

unless i have a reason to think otherwise, i go with orthodox christianity. i like the church fathers. that doesn't mean i'm conservative, but i'm at least conseravative by default unless i have a reason not to be on an issue. i would also emphasize the types of christians called 'red letter' christians. they focus on the words of Jesus. i dont know if it's always exactly all true, but there is a lot of wisdom pondering his words when approaching the spiritual life. i pretty much go with it, only heistating sometimes. i also emphasize the new testament and contemplating the wisdom of the apostles in those books.
I don't know what any of that means. Do you believe Jesus died and was resurected?

yes. it is a central belief. easter is a joyous time because Jesus was resurrected, dying at the hands of sin and evil.

people have distorted christianity by focusing on all the bad things God looked like he did in the old testament, or coopting politics with religion. the focus is all wrong. Jesus taught a kingdom of love. he said the kingdom of God is within you, if you only will see it. he taught eternal life. these are the basics.... a kingdom of love, and eternal life. this is good news! we should have the same zeal as original christians that made the religion spread like wildfire.

the bible does say if you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, you will be saved. the bible says a lot of things about how to be saved, but the most basic that i see are that you must "believe in" him, and if that is too vague, i sometimes go with "rely" on him. we all should acknolwedge that we do things wrong and come to repent of doing things wrong. that means acknowledging our sins. we should all acknowledge that we will one day die, and it looks like our fate as dead people is out of our hands. but, if you acknowledge you are a sinner and that you rely on Jesus, you will be saved, in my book. the salvation of God is a wide net, in my book too, perhaps beyond christians, depending on their level of knowledge and wisdom. but if you want to know how to be saved via the christian method, you want to come to rely on Jesus. he can save you from death and heal you from your wrongdoing.

if you have questions, you can ask people like me or google them. i am pretty knowledgeable about scripture and theology. i think we've come to a new age of enlightenment because of new age thinking and the internet. it is a good time to be alive.
Why do you believe some things in the bible, but not others.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:55:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:48:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:44:37 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:33:43 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:29:48 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:24:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
What parts of the bible do you think are true?

unless i have a reason to think otherwise, i go with orthodox christianity. i like the church fathers. that doesn't mean i'm conservative, but i'm at least conseravative by default unless i have a reason not to be on an issue. i would also emphasize the types of christians called 'red letter' christians. they focus on the words of Jesus. i dont know if it's always exactly all true, but there is a lot of wisdom pondering his words when approaching the spiritual life. i pretty much go with it, only heistating sometimes. i also emphasize the new testament and contemplating the wisdom of the apostles in those books.
I don't know what any of that means. Do you believe Jesus died and was resurected?

yes. it is a central belief. easter is a joyous time because Jesus was resurrected, dying at the hands of sin and evil.

people have distorted christianity by focusing on all the bad things God looked like he did in the old testament, or coopting politics with religion. the focus is all wrong. Jesus taught a kingdom of love. he said the kingdom of God is within you, if you only will see it. he taught eternal life. these are the basics.... a kingdom of love, and eternal life. this is good news! we should have the same zeal as original christians that made the religion spread like wildfire.

the bible does say if you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, you will be saved. the bible says a lot of things about how to be saved, but the most basic that i see are that you must "believe in" him, and if that is too vague, i sometimes go with "rely" on him. we all should acknolwedge that we do things wrong and come to repent of doing things wrong. that means acknowledging our sins. we should all acknowledge that we will one day die, and it looks like our fate as dead people is out of our hands. but, if you acknowledge you are a sinner and that you rely on Jesus, you will be saved, in my book. the salvation of God is a wide net, in my book too, perhaps beyond christians, depending on their level of knowledge and wisdom. but if you want to know how to be saved via the christian method, you want to come to rely on Jesus. he can save you from death and heal you from your wrongdoing.

if you have questions, you can ask people like me or google them. i am pretty knowledgeable about scripture and theology. i think we've come to a new age of enlightenment because of new age thinking and the internet. it is a good time to be alive.
Why do you believe some things in the bible, but not others.

some things are too far fetched, scientifically. the story of adam and eve is obviously just a story given evolution. the story of noah is obviously a story given there's no way the whole world got flooded given all the types of people who live in different continents despite the flood supposedly happening only a few thousand years ago. lol. kangaroos didn't just jump to the ark, not to mention all the breeding issues with only two animals.

aside from science, i might split hairs on issues of morality, maybe, rarely. it's not that im denying the bible, but i'm being very skeptical or picky about it.

i tend to give the bible the benefit of the doubt in almost everything, though.

it's sort of like the x files thing "i want to believe". there is an element of wanting to beleive. but then we have the testimony of the people who were executed for not denying Jesus. they saw him resurrected themselves. there's the testimony of scientists and peopele who have miracles happen to them, or near death experiences. and miracles don't happen to atheists despite being documented as at least looking like it with theists. so i just go with it. l like the virgin birth story. i like the idea of miracles from Jesus, and beleive in them. this is something that everyone can aspire to, if they just pray and seek God.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 6:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:55:56 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:48:13 PM, janesix wrote:

Why do you believe some things in the bible, but not others.

some things are too far fetched, scientifically. the story of adam and eve is obviously just a story given evolution. the story of noah is obviously a story given there's no way the whole world got flooded given all the types of people who live in different continents despite the flood supposedly happening only a few thousand years ago. lol. kangaroos didn't just jump to the ark, not to mention all the breeding issues with only two animals.

aside from science, i might split hairs on issues of morality, maybe, rarely. it's not that im denying the bible, but i'm being very skeptical or picky about it.

i tend to give the bible the benefit of the doubt in almost everything, though.

it's sort of like the x files thing "i want to believe". there is an element of wanting to beleive. but then we have the testimony of the people who were executed for not denying Jesus. they saw him resurrected themselves. there's the testimony of scientists and peopele who have miracles happen to them, or near death experiences. and miracles don't happen to atheists despite being documented as at least looking like it with theists. so i just go with it. l like the virgin birth story. i like the idea of miracles from Jesus, and beleive in them.

Many would say the idea of resurrection is "ridiculous". You are simply choosing what you want to believe I see, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem to others.

Why do you think the story of Noah, stationary earth etc. were put in the Bible?
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 6:19:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 6:12:23 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:55:56 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:48:13 PM, janesix wrote:


Why do you believe some things in the bible, but not others.

some things are too far fetched, scientifically. the story of adam and eve is obviously just a story given evolution. the story of noah is obviously a story given there's no way the whole world got flooded given all the types of people who live in different continents despite the flood supposedly happening only a few thousand years ago. lol. kangaroos didn't just jump to the ark, not to mention all the breeding issues with only two animals.

aside from science, i might split hairs on issues of morality, maybe, rarely. it's not that im denying the bible, but i'm being very skeptical or picky about it.

i tend to give the bible the benefit of the doubt in almost everything, though.

it's sort of like the x files thing "i want to believe". there is an element of wanting to beleive. but then we have the testimony of the people who were executed for not denying Jesus. they saw him resurrected themselves. there's the testimony of scientists and peopele who have miracles happen to them, or near death experiences. and miracles don't happen to atheists despite being documented as at least looking like it with theists. so i just go with it. l like the virgin birth story. i like the idea of miracles from Jesus, and beleive in them.

Many would say the idea of resurrection is "ridiculous". You are simply choosing what you want to believe I see, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem to others.

Why do you think the story of Noah, stationary earth etc. were put in the Bible?

to tell a story. there is wisdom in the adam and eve story, and wisdom in the story of noah in that we want to approach God with respect. but it's more than that, i'd say many things in the bible are just the works of men who make mistakes. there's not a lot of rationalizing that you can do about it.

i wouldn't get too quick to dismiss the resurrection. as far as i know there are good records of the people who were executed who saw Jesus and record of the beginning of the christian church. i dont know if it's credible, but there is the shroud of turin, the clothe that covered Jesus that shows his face print and such. i guess we can quibble over how credible this evidence is, but it's not like there's no evidence to speak of. that evidence point goes beyond just the resurrection, too.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 6:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 6:19:48 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 6:12:23 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:55:56 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:48:13 PM, janesix wrote:


Why do you believe some things in the bible, but not others.

some things are too far fetched, scientifically. the story of adam and eve is obviously just a story given evolution. the story of noah is obviously a story given there's no way the whole world got flooded given all the types of people who live in different continents despite the flood supposedly happening only a few thousand years ago. lol. kangaroos didn't just jump to the ark, not to mention all the breeding issues with only two animals.

aside from science, i might split hairs on issues of morality, maybe, rarely. it's not that im denying the bible, but i'm being very skeptical or picky about it.

i tend to give the bible the benefit of the doubt in almost everything, though.

it's sort of like the x files thing "i want to believe". there is an element of wanting to beleive. but then we have the testimony of the people who were executed for not denying Jesus. they saw him resurrected themselves. there's the testimony of scientists and peopele who have miracles happen to them, or near death experiences. and miracles don't happen to atheists despite being documented as at least looking like it with theists. so i just go with it. l like the virgin birth story. i like the idea of miracles from Jesus, and beleive in them.

Many would say the idea of resurrection is "ridiculous". You are simply choosing what you want to believe I see, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem to others.

Why do you think the story of Noah, stationary earth etc. were put in the Bible?

to tell a story. there is wisdom in the adam and eve story, and wisdom in the story of noah in that we want to approach God with respect. but it's more than that, i'd say many things in the bible are just the works of men who make mistakes. there's not a lot of rationalizing that you can do about it.

i wouldn't get too quick to dismiss the resurrection. as far as i know there are good records of the people who were executed who saw Jesus and record of the beginning of the christian church. i dont know if it's credible, but there is the shroud of turin, the clothe that covered Jesus that shows his face print and such. i guess we can quibble over how credible this evidence is, but it's not like there's no evidence to speak of. that evidence point goes beyond just the resurrection, too.

I wasn't dismissing it. Just like I don't dismiss evidence for a stationary earth.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 6:32:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
if anyone is interested, this guy does a pretty good job arguing from the not always volumous details they have, about the resurrection of jesus.
https://www.desiringgod.org...
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 6:43:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:20:07 PM, linate wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:16:44 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/18/2018 4:54:34 PM, linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. is it inerrant? literal? infallible on faith and morals? generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, they are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, it looks like. i'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. this is the classical story for a reason, even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is.... i like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. i'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself.... is it a matter of faith the story of noah, or the stationary earth? or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, and maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. i'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. i could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside"... but that begs what should constitutute scripture, and i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. but doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. but it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, just revelations, or just a general rule of thumbs. i mean, christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", i'll go with trustworthy, and i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? what say atheists? fundamentalists? bible with out error, literal, infallible - ists?
Do you believe the earth is stationary?

no, i don't. i think that's ridiculous. i think taking the story of noah as literal, is ridiculous. i guess i explained most of my approach otherwise, above, but most people would call me a progressive christian in theology, with a big shout out to eastern christian theology. i'm willing to entertain all the legalism and fundamentalisms of the west, but view the easterns as having a much more mature and orothodox view in not having all the contrived theology of the west.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 8:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm curious of ethan's explicit philosophy on all this. cause at one time I was willing to argue against contradictions in the bible, but I was no fundamentalist. just because you say there are not contradictions doesn't mean you think the bible is inerrant or literal or whatever.

does it make sense to think the bible can have error but no contradiction?

that's how I used to be, to some extent. really it was trying to give the benefit of the doubt whenever I could until it seemed I was rationalizing too much. I know many people don't want to be called fundamentalists, but when you start saying there's no contracictions or errors or whatever... that's basically what you've become. I guess there's the caricature of fundamentalist that even true fundamentalists might try to get away from, but the facts are still the facts.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 8:56:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
you have to weigh the evidence for everything. ive done some science looking into flat earth and stationary earth or heliocentism, and found the evidence lacking. when I am faced with overwhelming skeptics of science, I don't have time to attack every argument, so I fall back on the widespread credibility of scientists. for example, we shoot things into space, we see things moving, this all involves the earth moving too, or things like that... and there are millions of credible people who explain it, they are the far majority and the skeptics of science are fringe.

it's all about good judgment.
AndrewHerlitz
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2018 6:34:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
People want to share their words with others and for that purpose joining of online forums is very helpful for them. Students of country like to visit this https://ukessaysreviews. Com/ site for essay and reviews.
WisdomOfAges
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2018 8:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
HUMANITY needs to RID itself of the JESUS and ALLAH Middle East con artist GOD garbage along with the retarded and utterly useless and horrifically OBSOLETE
. . . . . Bible and Quran Comic Book TRASH

The Bible a horrifically OBSOLETE work of trash. . . Invented by clever mind and life MOLESTING PSYCHOPATHS for power and control. . . .

Humans are deliberately hypnotized into submission by world class PSYCHOPATH mind and life molesters who seek POWER and CONTROL of the masses to do their bidding. . .

What better excuse than to invent a GOD then assimilate others into some retarded CULT by inciting FEAR-INTIMIDATION-VIOLENCE. . . .

The Middle East had many highly advanced civilizations. . . Beginning with MESOPOTAMIA
about 4000 BC. . . They had many GODS and tales to go with them. . . . All STOLEN by clever
tribal lunatics roaming the area of CANAAN (ISRAEL + zone) these clever tribal scum
reduced the many GODS of the region to 3. . . . . The JEW GOD the JESUS farce GOD. . . And the ALLAH GOD JOKE. . . . . 3 GODS all neighbors. . . . Each according to the retarded followers is the only TRUE GOD? What a JOKE. . .

Then comes the Bible and Quran Comic Book stolen stories trash. . .

All of the Middle East GOD garbage is for assimilation and CONTROL of the masses
through DIVIDE and CONQUER. . . . . Choose JESUS or ALLAH. . . Either way YOU are CONDEMNED. . It's such an OBVIOUS GAME and HOAX on humanity. . .

Clever mind molesters invade and condition the brain of ignorant vulnerable humans into slavery. . . The Comic Book Bible/Quran are used as tools to confuse and CONDEMN all who do not OBEY the clowns in Halloween Glory Gowns who play GOD. .

Time is NOW for JESUS and ALLAH to be relegated to Mythology with Zeus and Odin. . .
. . . . . . These are not GODS they are human inventions used to commit MURDER. . . .

MURDER of the open mind and MURDER of life itself for not accepting this TRASH
Harikrish
Posts: 28,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2018 4:04:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
linate wrote:
there are many ways to approach the bible. Is it inerrant? Literal? Infallible on faith and morals? Generally reliable?

if you think carefully about these, They are different ways of approaching biblical texts.

but then you have the story of noah. Jesus and the apostles took the story literally, It looks like. I'm too lazy to post it but i have before.

the text says God flooded the world and killed everyone but noah's family. This is the classical story for a reason, Even if literalists want to distort it as not so literal or that there are scientific ways to skew the evidence.

then we have verses that say the earth is stationary.

my point isn't to get into debates about these specifics, Though i'm sure that coudl happen.

my point is. . . . I like to approach the bible as possibly infallible on faith and morals. I'm often willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

but i have to ask myself. . . . Is it a matter of faith the story of noah, Or the stationary earth? Or are these questions of science and not qualified as 'faith' questions at all?

do you think i'm not being honest enough when i say maybe they are not questions of faith, And maybe the bible is reliable on faith and morals?

then there's the bible as generally reliable. I'm reminded how catholics approach things as a matter of 'infallible on faith and morals' v the orthodox who just go for trustworthiness in general. I could get behind that orthodox approach without too much hesitation.

then we have to ask what the bible even says about it self.
-i know once Jesus said "scripture cannot be set aside". . . But that begs what should constitutute scripture, And i'm not sure he was stating a rule or just using the rule against his adversaries given he was using it against their own logic.
-the bible does say it if 'profitable'. But doesn't say without error or any of that sort of jargon.
-at one point revelations says 'do not add or detract' from it. But it's hard to say if it meant alll of scripture, Just revelations, Or just a general rule of thumbs. I mean, Christians can't even agree on what books to be in the bible anyway. Which gets into catholic/orthodox/protestant arguemnts on authority.



so all in all it all leaves me thinking "maybe infallible on faith and morals", I'll go with trustworthy, And i think i'm being pretty consistent with the bible the way the bible is with itself.

do you consider this approach flakey? What say atheists? Fundamentalists? Bible with out error, Literal, Infallible - ists?

Jesus said he only spoke figuratively. So everything Christians know are only figurative.

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, A time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. " (John 16:25) -

And since the words Jesus spoke all came from his God, God too spoke figuratively.
John 12:49 I have not spoken on My own, But the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it.

And since the bible is the word of God. Therefore it too must all be figurative.

Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.