Am I an evangelical? If not, what am I?

[Hotpoint]

REGARDING THE BIBLE
It is the divinely inspired/guided/directed/whatever word of God, and if The Bible claims some event happened, then it happened.

Honestly not trolling here, and I apologise for the off-topic question, but even ignoring known historical errors what about the parts of the bible that contradict other parts of the bible? What is your stance on that?

If the bible was truly "inspired/guided/directed" then those errors/contradictions wouldn't be in there surely?

I'm really just curious. Although an atheist myself I attended Catholic School (in my distant youth) and they got around those problems by not taking a literalist and inerrantist view on the Bible.

 

[Shaihulud]

So am I a fundamentalist then?

Since you belive that the Bible is divinely inspired and that the details listed within are inerrant truth, albeit subjected to your intepretation. That makes you a fundamentalist.

Very constructive.

(You guys can't tell, but I'm rolling my eyes big time right now.)

It is rather constructive, don't you think? I find my ability to put the truth across in so short a sentence to be amazing as well.

 

[bhsup]

You're welcome to believe what you like, more power to you. But please keep you erroneous and unfounded notion of what is and isn't "known fact" out of our schools. And thank YOU kindly.

Actually, that's pretty much what I did say I'd do. Science can't PROVE that evolution and the earth's formation came about randomly, nor can I prove that God did it, so neither viewpoint should be taught in school.

Simply say that evolution occured, explain what it is and how it was determined that it did/does indeed occur, and leave it up to the students to decide whether it was a random act or divinely inspired. What's wrong with that?

 

[Perfection]

If he has a certain definition of Christianity , based on its holy books , and he finds that some person does not fit that definition , then he has the authority to tell that person that according to that definition , the other person is not a Christian . I see nothing contradictory in that . Do you ?

I don't think the bible mentions a trinity...

 

[Sidhe]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say your a Christian the rest is semantics.

Seriously the lable crap is a waste of time, so long as your a good person it doesn't matter what branch of the faith you are.

If people spent more time following Jesus' message instead of disecting it into a million interpritations then the world would be a better place, Christianity should be a place where you can believe pretty much anything from the religous texts not just what organised religion tells you, it should be free and expressive, not dogamtic and restrictive.

Tell you what why don't you shop around try out a few churches until you find a preacher that speaks to you. Or just forgo church and worship in your own special way, after all that's not against Gods teachings, he does want everyone to find there own path to him, however that goes, you know question your faith what it means to you what you agree with what you despise about it if anything, what makes you go all weak at the knees, whether it's though shalt not eat custard or though shalt not eat any egg based confections. You know figure it out for yourself.

Chiristianity=belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and saviour(that's it really) do that and your in, hommie's talking nonsense.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Actually, that's pretty much what I did say I'd do. Science can't PROVE that evolution and the earth's formation came about randomly, nor can I prove that God did it, so neither viewpoint should be taught in school.

Simply say that evolution occured, explain what it is and how it was determined that it did/does indeed occur, and leave it up to the students to decide whether it was a random act or divinely inspired. What's wrong with that?

Bold by me.

Because that same flawed logic could then be applied to every branch of science and be used to remove science from every explanation of how our world came to be and why things are the way they are.

We can't PROVE that when I drop my coffee cup that it falls to the floor due to gravity - god (or an intelligent designer) could have intervened and caused it. So we should not teach the cause at all because we can't PROVE why? At this time after our best analysis of the current data leads to our best conclusion being that it falls due to gravity caused by the earth having a large mass. If a better explanation, that can withstand scientific analysis, comes along then science will update and the newer improved model will supplement the older less complete one.

The exact same model is used for evolution. It is our best analysis of the current data, and it is updated and improved as new data becomes available. We can show that species can adapt to their environment, do go extinct when they don't adapt, do have their most fit members breed more and pass on the best genes more often, etc. None of this requires or shows scientific evidence of any outside godlike influence being needed or involved.

You don't need 100% proof as the minimum level in order to teach science. To not teach any reason at all because 100% proof hasn't been obtained wouldn't be reasonable in a modern, science-based world.

 

[Sidhe]

Scientific theory is in a constant state of dying and being replaced by a fitter animal it's very evolutionary in itself.

I think that's my key bugbear with ID or creationism it can't die be replaced with anything better or have the burden of proof placed on it in any way so it's philosophical arm waving at best, fine put it in the philosophy class or the religion classs, keep science free of God exists does not exist crackpottery arguments.

 

[ybbor]

was/is Jesus The Messiah?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Scientific theory is in a constant state of dying and being replaced by a fitter animal it's very evolutionary in itself.

Great analogy!

I think that's my key bugbear with ID or creationism it can't die be replaced with anything better or have the burden of proof placed on it in any way so it's philosophical arm waving at best, fine put it in the philosophy class or the religion classs, keep science free of God exists does not exist crackpottery arguments.

I don't have any problem with people believing as they see fit, but to use that to drive scientific explanations from the classroom is going too far. Science is by nature the hunt for knowledge and is thus inherently imperfect.

 

[El_Machinae]

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

- Matthew 7.1-5

You'll note that VRWCAgent, cleverly, is following this scripture when he says that Homie can pronounce him a non-Christian!

I've also noticed that VRWCAgent think that God can pierce the consciousness viel. We are only aware of our own consciousness, and the Agent might think that God is aware of my consciousness too (which is different from memories.)

 

[Rad Chris]

Sterotyping and pigeonholing people is simply a useful tool as long as you dont read to much into it. Obviously there is just as much disagreement in the religious camp about various things as there is in any complex subject, be that politics or the other vital question of our time, Coke or Pepsi.

Your creation belief system is Day-Age Creationism. Though of course you still have to deal with all the direct contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

 

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, that's pretty much what I did say I'd do. Science can't PROVE that evolution and the earth's formation came about randomly, nor can I prove that God did it, so neither viewpoint should be taught in school.

Evolution does not say anything one way or another about the earth's formation or any involvement from god(s). Where did you get the idea that it does?

Simply say that evolution occured, explain what it is and how it was determined that it did/does indeed occur, and leave it up to the students to decide whether it was a random act or divinely inspired. What's wrong with that?

Um...isn't that what's currently going on? I mean, that's how I was taught evolution. I'm not aware of a single biology course that makes any statements regarding evolution somehow being "proof" of the existence or nonexistence of deities.

 

[blackheart]

If he has a certain definition of Christianity , based on its holy books , and he finds that some person does not fit that definition , then he has the authority to tell that person that according to that definition , the other person is not a Christian . I see nothing contradictory in that . Do you ?

There's nothing contradictory, it's just hypocritical and the Bible speaks out against it.

 

[classical_hero]

REGARDING THE BIBLE
It is the divinely inspired/guided/directed/whatever word of God, and if The Bible claims some event happened, then it happened.
REGARDING CHRIST
He is our savior, king, messiah, ruler, blood sacrifice before God, and the Son of God. He is NOT God, that much is obvious via his own words in the New Testament. He is the only way to God, again by his own words, and all those who reject him are lost....

There is a problem with these two positions especially the part where you say that he is not God because the Bible explicately says that he is God.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This is a clear reference to what God told Moses with the burning bush.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

So you must show why you believe what you believe because those two statements just do not add up.

 

[Atropos]

There is a problem with these two positions especially the part where you say that he is not God because the Bible explicately says that he is God.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This is a clear reference to what God told Moses with the burning bush.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Uh... How do you view that as a "clear" reference?

If, as a historian, I took the phrase "I am" out of one text and claimed that it was an obvious reference to any other text, I would be laughed at. Convulsively.

The phrase "I am" is a very common one.

 

[classical_hero]

Uh... How do you view that as a "clear" reference?

If, as a historian, I took the phrase "I am" out of one text and claimed that it was an obvious reference to any other text, I would be laughed at. Convulsively.

The phrase "I am" is a very common one.

'I am" is not used like that in most cases like that because it does not make much sense gramatically because you generally start a statement with "I am" not right at the end. The way how the sentance is structed does not allow for your interpretation and here is the pasage in full and it will show that what I just said was not out. You also have to show how that was out of context. For you reference I have provided a list of all the times the Bible uses the phrase "I am", and see how many use it exactly like it is used in John 8:58.
John 8:49-59 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jesus was discussing with he Jews, about Abraham and he was showing them that before Abraham existed, he existed. The Jews knew what he was talking about because they asked him according to verse 57, you are not yet 50 and yet you say that you have seen Abraham? His reply is in the verse that I first quoted. "Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews response was to take up stones to throw at him, so why did the Jews take to such an extreme response to those words. Well here is the answer to that. They believed that he was talking blasphemy, by making himself equal with God. Now here is another passage that explictly states that.

John 10:25-33 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

A similar situation happened here in the passage in chapete 8. Jesus was again talking to the JEws and he was saying in more explict terms than in the 8th Chapter that he is equal to God when he said, "My Father and I are one." There is no way you cannot say that Jesus wans't saying that he was equal with God and this is why the Jews went to stone him, because of he was saying He is God and that is the same reason why the Jews reacted the way they did in Chapter 8.

Now here is a list of all the times the Bible uses the phrase, "I am" Search for "I am" in the Bible. I would like to see the results of what youhave studied.

 

[atreas]

@classical hero:
Unfortunately, due to the lack of a specific grammatical structure in English or better the differences of languages, your whole argument on "I am" is just a game with translations. For example, the "I am" in the end of the phrase in Moses is in fact an entirely different word (to be more exact, an entirely different grammatical form) than the other "I am". And, of course, they have entirely different meanings.

Which shows for one more time how dangerous is to take things literally, especially when you consider translations of a translation.

 

[Sidhe]

I changed my mind after reading these posts become a Budhist, seriously all the religous debate about what makes who what has made me realise that Christianity is divisive, get the hell away from that religion quick Either that or just build a church in you own house and worship how you want.You remember the episode of the Simpsons where Homer refuses to go to church, use that as a guide.

@classical hero:
Which shows for one more time how dangerous is to take things literally, especially when you consider translations of a translation.

Never ever take the bible literally, though shalt not bare false witness means you can lie your arse of just don't get caught, honest. Though shalt not steal? From big business is fine. Though shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, steal it he's rich he wont miss it, see it's all so easy when everythings under debate.

Not one Christian or Jew on the planet can answer if its though shalt not kill or murder. This is humanity being a dick about interpritation as usual.

 

[Meleager]

Uh... How do you view that as a "clear" reference?

If, as a historian, I took the phrase "I am" out of one text and claimed that it was an obvious reference to any other text, I would be laughed at. Convulsively.

The phrase "I am" is a very common one.

Short answer: When moses asked God to tell him his name, God answered: I am I am. So the jew knew exactly what Jesus was saying then he pronounced himself "I am". They immediately tried to stone him for the reference. They knew what he was saying.

Do you really mean to imply, 2000 years after the event, that the crowds mis-interpreted Jesus' grammar?

He also makes a few "I and the father are one" references.

 

[Atropos]

Short answer: When moses asked God to tell him his name, God answered: I am I am. So the jew knew exactly what Jesus was saying then he pronounced himself "I am". They immediately tried to stone him for the reference. They knew what he was saying.

Do you really mean to imply, 2000 years after the event, that the crowds mis-interpreted Jesus' grammar?

He also makes a few "I and the father are one" references.

First of all, let me comment that I am in no way trying to dispute the idea that the New Testament really states that Jesus is God/part of the Trinity/ whatever. I am disputing a specific reference which seems to me very ambiguous.

Both you and Classical Hero are taking it for granted that the phrase "I am" refers to something else in the Bible. There is no evidence for this. Moreover, please note that Jesus' statement that he was God (if that is what he was in fact saying) is not, in fact, technically blasphemous in Jewish law. Nothing is blasphemous in Jewish law, then or now, except the misuse of the name of the Lord. It is highly ... unusual, but so is the simple statement that Jesus was immortal (the literal implication of the phrase). The statement of immortality in itself explains the shocked reaction of the Jews.