The wheat and the chaff

[Turner]

But the New Testament is about Jesus Christ. How can one be 'redeemed through Christ' if he believes the New Testament is superfluous?

Perhaps it's just a matter of seperating the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Perhaps it's just a matter of seperating the wheat from the chaff.

I think I may have opened a can of chaff that I dont want to peer into

I dont think you can take it literally, because literally, we have no true idea of the power of God and how he works. The bible also contains a lot of metaphor...if you take that literally, you will absolutely miss the point - much like Nicodemus did when he couldnt comprehend how a man could be 'born again' in the spirit.

I think God can be both so subtle and in turn so powerful that we truly have no concept of his ability. It would be like playing against a chess grandmaster who sees all possible moves and plans, not just a dozen or so.

Mobboss, even you? Youre a cherry picker too?? What about this?

1 Thessalonians 2:13

13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[Turner]

If you look at a lot of the older myths and legends, they were more about explaining the world than bringing any kind of truth to it. Let's fact it, as smart as our ancestors were, they weren't quite as sophisticated as we are now. So the creation myths and legends were ways to explain how we came to be.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If you look at a lot of the older myths and legends, they were more about explaining the world than bringing any kind of truth to it. Let's fact it, as smart as our ancestors were, they weren't quite as sophisticated as we are now. So the creation myths and legends were ways to explain how we came to be.

We know that, but we have the luxury of not claiming to be Christians. All Im saying is this: if people dont believe that the bible is the Word of God, thats perfectly fine, but then they shouldnt call themselves Christians. It means that its time for them to either abandon faith entirely, or come up with a new faith, which DOES conform with what they actually believe.

 

[MobBoss]

Mobboss, even you? Youre a cherry picker too?? What about this?

What about it? I think it perfectly fine scripture. I think what we will disagree on is what is the literal word of God. While the bible is most certainly defined and referred to as the word of God, it does not encompass all of Gods words or works.

Btw, you just gave me another 213 reference. Gee thanks.

 

[Turner]

We know that, but we have the luxury of not claiming to be Christians. All Im saying is this: if people dont believe that the bible is the Word of God, thats perfectly fine, but then they shouldnt call themselves Christians. It means that its time for them to either abandon faith entirely, or come up with a new faith, which DOES conform with what they actually believe.

But a lot of Christians do undestand that it's a metaphor and not an accurate account of what happened. Just because someone is a christian, it doesn't mean that they automatically accept every single word in the bible as undeniable truth. Of course, there are those out there who do, but they're the minority.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Verily, I am come to low estate, for is it not so that even Mobboss and Eran of Arcadia take not the Word of God as truth? For lo, see Mobboss, and his sig. Does it not concern itself with the councils of men, and not the words of the Lord thy God?

Btw, whats a 213 reference?

 

[Turner]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 is what he's referring to, I think.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But a lot of Christians do undestand that it's a metaphor and not an accurate account of what happened. Just because someone is a christian, it doesn't mean that they automatically accept every single word in the bible as undeniable truth. Of course, there are those out there who do, but they're the minority.

They arent Christians anymore, theyve moved on, like everyone else, but theyre pretending to be something they arent. You cant base a faith on nothing but amusing little metaphors. Thats not what a faith is supposed to be. No wonder Christianity no longer has much impact on the West, even those who claim to be Christians dont believe it.

Why not just come up with a new faith?

 

[Turner]

So you're saying a majority of christians aren't anymore, because they don't take the bible literally word for word?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 is what he's referring to, I think.

Oh of course, duh!

So you're saying a majority of christians aren't anymore, because they don't take the bible literally word for word?

Yes thats what Im saying. Tell me if this makes any sense:

Is this your religion?

Yes.

Ok. Do you believe this passage?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

This one?

No.

(two hours later)

And finally, how about this passage?

Nope.

Is this your religion?

Yes.

 

[MobBoss]

Verily, I am come to low estate, for is it not so that even Mobboss and Eran of Arcadia take not the Word of God as truth? For lo, see Mobboss, and his sig. Does it not concern itself with the councils of men, and not the words of the Lord thy God?

Btw, whats a 213 reference?

The 213 thing is from this thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203990

As for my sig, I am a man after all, and not a perfect one. I can still be a christian and opine about politics. It doesnt mean I dont take the word of God as truth. I will go on record right now saying the word of God is far more true than anything that could ever come from man - the problem is, I dont think most men, including you Bozo, truly capable of understanding Gods truth. Heck, I have read my bible quite well and my wife even more so, and we learn new things everyday about Gods word and his will. Its a never ending journey.

 

[Turner]

I think you're reading too much into it. I'm not saying that they don't need to completely disregard...oh wait, yeah, I did say that.

Try this: Did Jesus use the truth every single time he had a lesson for the masses? No, he didn't. He often times used parables and hyperbole (Fig tree, anyone?) to make his point.

 

[Dr Alimentado]

The Bible is chockfull of allegories and metaphors, some pretty good ones, and you can learn something from them even if you arent a Christian. But things like Genesis, the first thing you see, and which lays down the very foundation of the entire faith HAVE to be taken literally, or else, why bother? Dont get me wrong, I believe that stories like Genesis were handed down orally from some forgotten past and werent originally meant to be taken literally, however by the time these stories were being gathered together into the holy books of the Hebrews, they were being taken literally and continued to be taken literally by all believing Jews and Christians, until very very recently.

Actually I don't think many christians take/ have taken the bible so literally. Catholicism (arguably the largest domination throughout history) takes a very interpretive route to scripture. Protestant fundamentalism (and bible literalism) is relatively recent and imo its probably only in the last 50-100 years that literal interpretations of genesis etc have become popular again.

I don't see why Christians should be polarised into either being totally literal (with the bible) or having to renounce the label 'christianity'; Christian's should be able to make their own mind up as to what is literal and exactly what being a christian means. I personally know a couple of anglicans and one very active catholic (who is a deacon or somesuch) who would take great issue with a literal reading of genesis - who are you to tell them that they are not christian? Thats what this athiest thinks anyway.

 

[Sidhe]

I think you're reading too much into it. I'm not saying that they don't need to completely disregard...oh wait, yeah, I did say that.

Try this: Did Jesus use the truth every single time he had a lesson for the masses? No, he didn't. He often times used parables and hyperbole (Fig tree, anyone?) to make his point.

Luke 12:22-34

[22] Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. [23] Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. [24] Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! [25] Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? [26] Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? [27] "Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. [28] If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! [29] And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. [30] For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. [31] But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

[32] "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. [33] Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. [34] For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

As an example which reminds me actually of something funny I saw recently that people may find amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgSn7VG5Odc&mode=related&search=

 

[MobBoss]

I think you're reading too much into it. I'm not saying that they don't need to completely disregard...oh wait, yeah, I did say that.

Try this: Did Jesus use the truth every single time he had a lesson for the masses? No, he didn't. He often times used parables and hyperbole (Fig tree, anyone?) to make his point.

Why do you equate truthfullness in any way with the use of parables or hyperbole? The underlying message was still true; but the message wasnt literal.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The 213 thing is from this thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203990

As for my sig, I am a man after all, and not a perfect one. I can still be a christian and opine about politics.

I know, I know I was just kidding about that part

It doesnt mean I dont take the word of God as truth.

Except when you dont?

I will go on record right now saying the word of God is far more true than anything that could ever come from man

Except when it isnt?

- the problem is, I dont think most men, including you Bozo, truly capable of understanding Gods truth.

Hey wait a minute, now youre getting carried away there MB

Heck, I have read my bible quite well and my wife even more so, and we learn new things everyday about Gods word and his will. Its a never ending journey.

Me too, I think the Bible is a very instructive book, and Im not a Christian. Theres so much in the bible that I can also say quite truthfully that I believe discovering all of what its saying is a never ending journey. The weird part here is that neither one of us believes its literally true, and only one of us claims to be a Christian.

I think you're reading too much into it. I'm not saying that they don't need to completely disregard...oh wait, yeah, I did say that.

Try this: Did Jesus use the truth every single time he had a lesson for the masses? No, he didn't. He often times used parables and hyperbole (Fig tree, anyone?) to make his point.

When Jesus is telling us a parable, its very clear. When he is speaking the Word as God incarnate, its also quite clear. A real Christian wouldnt say, 'well since Jesus used a parable over here, Im going to just go ahead and take the whole Bible as a parable and not take it literally.'

Actually I don't think many christians take/ have taken the bible so literally. Catholicism (arguably the largest domination throughout history) takes a very interpretive route to scripture. Protestant fundamentalism (and bible literalism) is relatively recent and imo its probably only in the last 50-100 years that literal interpretations of genesis etc have become popular again.

Dr, before the Enlightenment, the people who called themselves Christians believed that the Bible was the literal revealed Word of God.

I don't see why Christians should be polarised into either being totally literal (with the bible) or having to renounce the label 'christianity'; Christian's should be able to make their own mind up as to what is literal and exactly what being a christian means. I personally know a couple of anglicans and one very active catholic (who is a deacon or somesuch) who would take great issue with a literal reading of genesis - who are you to tell them that they are not christian? Thats what this athiest thinks anyway.

Religion isnt a democracy. You cant on the one hand say that holy scriptures, the basis of your faith, are the living word of god, and then say next that youre going to pick and choose which of those words youre going to believe. Its everything or nothing. If its not everything, then you need a new religion. Thats where we are in the West, an interfaith period. The new faith hasnt arrived yet, or isnt recognized yet.

 

[Sidhe]

Why do you equate truthfullness in any way with the use of parables or hyperbole? The underlying message was still true; but the message wasnt literal.

I'm pretty sure he meant literal truth. A parable will reveal a truth but by analogy, so it is true but not literally.

I tend to agree that even though I am not Christian there is much wisdom in the Bible, and though I may not follow it as a Christian and a believer I still think to put that into practice is a noble and worthy thing, just a pity I'm not very good at it.

I don't think you have to take the Bible as 100% accurate to be a good Christian, I think those that do are very much in a minority and somewhat missing the point of the stories themselves.

I would put literalists more amongst the chaff than the wheat, I can't see how you can approach a modern world believing in creationism and some of the other stuff, it might of been relevant 2400 years ago, but humanity has moved on and now the message is true but every little parable or story? I somehow doubt many of them ever happened, and many are probably by the nature of Chinese whispers, based on truth but not the literal truth, more philosophical.

Obviously when Jeramiah says x,Peter y, John z, or Elijah a, this is true and much like what he said or at least to be taken as a truth, or Moses says though shalt not do murder etc. But the stories of Genesis, the floods and Job are probably more parable or more based on some sort of truth or historical event, than actually 100% reality.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Luke 12:22-34

[22] Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. [23] Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. [24] Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! [25] Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? [26] Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? [27] "Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. [28] If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! [29] And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. [30] For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. [31] But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

One of my favorites But I prefer this version:

22And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.

23The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

24Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

25And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?

26If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

27Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

28If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

29And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

30For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.

31But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

32Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

 

[PrincepsAmerica]

Bozo I dont have much time, but you really need to look into the history of your family's faith. Catholicism specifically has never advocated for a literal reading of every passage in the Bible. Never. It's a completely, sectarian, Protestant innovation.

To say that if someone doesn't believe certain passages are literally true that they don't believe other purposes or points contained within it seems obtuse. Have you much education on oral Hebrew literary style? Are you a Bible scholar? I'm not being confrontational I'm just saying the "common sense literal ideal" of Biblical exegesis is incredibly ill-informed and detached from the reality of the book's context.

Now as an American it hurts me to say that because that style of exegesis is distinctly American but its the truth damnit. Anyway gotta go.

Edit: And I just noticed you said the Bible is the basis of the faith. You play it up a great deal, but from a Catholic point of view it is the Church which is the basis of the faith. The Church made the Bible, not the other way round. If I may say so, you seem to misunderstand a lot of your "home faith".