Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Smellincoffee, Jan 22, 2014.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see the Catholic Church to change its stance on gay marriage within the next 50 or so years. The Church, while late, has been modernizing its doctrine, especially with Vatican II. I myself hope that the Church can allow for same sex couples to marry within the church, as for I see it, marriage isn't a religious right, it's a human right. And I'm not gay, but I do support gays being able to marry for the reason listed above.
And Jesus is God and God divinely inspired the word.
Formaldehyde- It is inherently ludicrous to claim to be somebody's follower whilst at the same time the person you claim to follow would reject you. Jesus clearly thought the Bible, or at least parts of it, is and was the Word of God.
JollyRoger- Begs the question of why the Bible was made so deceptive.
It's not clear who Jesus would reject. There will be many who say Lord, Lord and he will reply "I know you not". It's written right there in red letters.
And, that's just Matthew's take. Who knows the original version before it was paraphrased?
The same place gravity and the color 'blue' came from. Basically, it's a fundamental component of the Universe recognised by sapient organisms developed through natural selection. In some ways 'blue' is a quirk of biology. In some ways it began with the first starlight. So, yes. The Bible is clear. It's also incorrect ... so, basically you need to move on from that.
The Bible is clear that it was paradise before Eve was created. Shortly after that, heterosexual lust got discovered and things went downhill from there.
The Bible as we know it didn't even exist during Jesus's life, it was created later by a Roman emperor as a political ploy to consolidate the power of his preferred Catholic church and create a set guideline for what counts as heresy. There are many examples within the Bible of canonized prophets who reference scripture that was lost or even outright rejected by the Council of Nicaea. For example, in the Epistle to Jude Paul quotes from the Book of Enoch, which was declared non-canon (for good reason, Enoch was some crazy junk, even crazy compared to the normal Old Testament stuff).
Does that mean you think that Jesus quite likely only believed parts of the Bible? Does that mean he probably wasn't a real Christian either?
How do you know with any certainty who Jesus would reject or not, much less someone who fulfilled the basic requirements of the religion?
Is this the vengeful OT god? Or is it the far more compassionate NT god who is apparently willing to forgive virtually any sin just as long as you believe that Jesus died for your sins? If they believe that, who are you to say who a real Christian is or not?
I don't think that the Council of Nicaea has a monopoly on the Bible canon.
I don't think that many people of the first century were Christians in the sense of a single religion by the name Christianity, and maybe the 2nd one also.
Then do you disagree with the council's selection of scripture? Does your copy of the Bible feature some alternative texts, or perhaps remove some that you'd deem unnecessary?
Because if so thumbs up to you and you're not the kind of person I'm arguing against
El Machinae- There are many categories Jesus would reject. I'm focusing on just one.
Next question- how on earth does it make sense that there is no Scripture of Jesus's life when it is a Very Important Event?
Arachnofeind- What precisely is Holy Scripture is not the point. There is considerable room for debate here. The point is that it exists.
Formaldehyde- The modern Bible was compiled by human choices- I am leaving open the possibility of human error. Jesus makes at least some passages of Scripture quite clear in what he says as accurate.
There is only one God, who chooses to act in different ways at different times. Believe otherwise, and you aren't a Christian.
So Holy Scripture exists, but what is in the Bible may not necessarily be Holy Scripture due to it being put together by humans and therefore subject to human errors and biases. In that case, isn't cherry picking the best parts of the Bible exactly what anyone should be doing? Excerpts that are clearly foolish, arbitrary, and tend to lead you into being a terrible person could very well be stuff written down by Jewish jerks that some Roman jerks decided should be considered God's law.
There is a difference between cherry picking based on one's own moral opinions and determining the truth based on historical evidence. One is wishful thinking, the other uses actual evidence.
For example, Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fullfill it. This implies that every bit of the old Law is valid Scripture, even if some has been replaced. This means that whatever our personal feelings, we must accept that God indeed ordered genocide.
How do we even know Jesus actually said that? The gospels weren't written by Jesus, they were written by his disciples, way after the fact. It could have just been some guy's grumbling about how all these darned Gentiles are trying to change their precious Jewish traditions.
The Gospel of Mark was actually quite close to the events- 40 years or so if I remember right. In addition, in the absence of a source telling you what Jesus actually said how are supposed to be his follower?
For clarity, I would like to know- what's your approach to "being a Christian" and what do you think validates the claim?
40 years may be a short time in historical terms but it is a very long time in people's memory terms. I can barely remember what I did last week, a lot of quotes can become confused and altered in 40 years' time.
This is actually kind of my point
My approach to being a Christian is not doing that, to be perfectly honest. I personally value "not being a douche" over "being a Christian", and where those goals intertwine I don't really have a problem with Christianity. When they don't, however, I have to question the validity of the claim that most Christians make that theirs is a loving God. An argument that I can accept is that, even if the God is good, the text we have been left may not be; it's been tainted by people who are less good and it is therefore the job of the modern Christian to discern what is good moral law and what is robbing you of experiencing the joy of a good clam chowder. I may not agree with the process that brought you there, but you're still on the path of not being a douche, so it's fine by me.
40 years is considered reliable by most historians on most matters.
If you have no account telling you what Jesus actually said, that implies being his follower is IMPOSSIBLE, not that you can pick and choose.
I'm not a Christian either, and in my opinion it is full of logical holes. However, this is about what is actually Christian, not about not being a douche.
The Bible being written by humans is not the problem. The problem is that it is written about humans. God is consistent in taking people's lives all the way through the Bible. So taken one account of Genocide and claiming that it is not logical, wrong, inconsistent, would be considered a fallacy in logic. Does God have a good side and a bad side? No. Does God have two natures? No. Is God different in the OT than he is in the NT? No. The Law does not define God nor what he is. The Law defines how God demands humans to live. Does obeying this command set up by the Law make a person righteous, a Christian, saved, going to Heaven, a good person, moral, perfect, better than any one else, or even God like? NO NO NO. It may make a person Jewish. When Adam disobeyed, humans gained the knowledge of good and evil. Their nature was changed in such a way that nothing could redeem a person. The is no redemptive power in any part of the human race. That is what entails the human side of the Bible. So one can pick and choose whatever they want to believe in the Bible, but it will only get them as far as their last breath. Morals only belong to humans and how they go about their daily lives. Humans have choices and are free to be as moral or evil as they please. Morals are internal choices and do come from human nature. But that nature confines one to a material universe and will only get one so far in this existence.
Yes one can pick the "good" parts of the Bible and live a normal healthy life and the planet may spin around in utopia. It is a person's choice to make life as pleasant or miserable as they desire. God is not forcing any one to go against their will or making them to be robotic in their lifestyle choices and if any one claims otherwise they are just trying to control people to make life better for the few who can keep other's in their grip.
If you want to discuss the spiritual side of life, it would have to be done by accepting the fact that God does exist and the topic is totally separate from the rest of this post.
Might I suggest you stop reading Dan Brown? The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with deciding what was in the Bible - it ruled on several doctrinal matters, but the core content of the Bible had been agreed on long before it, while the final decision on which of the "borderline" books to include didn't take place until the best part of a century later.
Not impossible if you're in personal communication with Jesus, yeah? People seem to think that's possible.
Separate names with a comma.