AOC

[Dickc]

I won't argue with you there. I don't know enough about why each denomination did what it did. My faith is the Bible. We read directly from it. We don't modify it's words, remove words, modify meanings, modernize, stray away from hard topics, etc.

You sound like a Quaker.

[gardi]

I won't argue with you there. I don't know enough about why each denomination did what it did. My faith is the Bible. We read directly from it. We don't modify it's words, remove words, modify meanings, modernize, stray away from hard topics, etc.

I would add that unless you are fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic you very much modify its words:)

[easyrider16]

I've heard it once said that the Bible is not a salad bar ... you can't read through and pick some parts you choose to believe and other parts you choose to ignore/dispute.

Here's the thing, though. At some point, a group of men went through a bunch of ancient books and did exactly what you're describing - they picked which books to include as scripture and which books to reject. (see wikipedia article below). There have also been parts of the gospels that have been added and removed depending on who was doing the copying - see John 8:11 (link below). So why should you or I accept blindly what other men have chosen to be scripture? If these other men could treat it like a salad bar and pick which parts to believe and which to reject, why can't we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passage ... y-and-John

Sorry if I sound argumentative, but this is actually a serious question for me and I'm certainly not convinced that I have the right answer. I was raised in an evangelical Christian home and studied the Bible since I was a kid. These are ideas I've been struggling with and debating for a long time. In fact, it was the concept of homosexuality that most caused me to question the composition of the Biblical cannon. Logically, I just couldn't see why homosexuality or gay marriage would be a sin if it harms no one and does not seem like it should interfere with one's ability to worship God.

[deadheadskier]

It's not just Christianity, virtually all religions have been bastardized by man throughout history. And most all have had periods of violence if not wars fought over how and who people worship. Pretty nuts that it still happens today.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I've heard it once said that the Bible is not a salad bar ... you can't read through and pick some parts you choose to believe and other parts you choose to ignore/dispute.

Here's the thing, though. At some point, a group of men went through a bunch of ancient books and did exactly what you're describing - they picked which books to include as scripture and which books to reject. (see wikipedia article below). There have also been parts of the gospels that have been added and removed depending on who was doing the copying - see John 8:11 (link below). So why should you or I accept blindly what other men have chosen to be scripture? If these other men could treat it like a salad bar and pick which parts to believe and which to reject, why can't we?

I'm not a Biblical scholar. I also haven't studied the history of the Bible nor it's construction. That said, I think your statement is otherwise a hasty generalization.

The verse you pick above keeps with Jesus’ relationship to sinners. Seems scholars are split on whether it was part of John’s original Gospel or not. My Bible includes a footnote calling attention to its origins.

Sorry if I sound argumentative, but this is actually a serious question for me and I'm certainly not convinced that I have the right answer. I was raised in an evangelical Christian home and studied the Bible since I was a kid. These are ideas I've been struggling with and debating for a long time. In fact, it was the concept of homosexuality that most caused me to question the composition of the Biblical cannon. Logically, I just couldn't see why homosexuality or gay marriage would be a sin if it harms no one and does not seem like it should interfere with one's ability to worship God.

Doesn't sin always harm others? The more you sin the less good you are to everyone? Doesn't sin harm God?

Homosexuality doesn't (shouldn't?) interfere with the ability to worship God. Homosexual's attend my church. Sin doesn't interfere with my ability to worship God just the same. However, sinning impacts my relationship with Him. It's clear as sinners we are to repent and turn away from sin.
I think if you're Christian living in habitual sin then the question is are you really following Christ?

[easyrider16]

I'm not a Biblical scholar. I also haven't studied the history of the Bible nor it's construction. That said, I think your statement is otherwise a hasty generalization.

A generalization perhaps, but hasty it is not. It's based on what I've read and thought about for a long time. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article that sort of illustrates my point:

The apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time. Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches.

As far as I can tell, the evangelical Bible with its 66 books is a cannon chosen by men who claimed to speak for God. There are other men who also claim to speak for God who disagree with that composition. How are we to know who actually speaks for God? I don't think it's an easy question, but I think it's one that needs to be asked by any person of faith.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I'm not a Biblical scholar. I also haven't studied the history of the Bible nor it's construction. That said, I think your statement is otherwise a hasty generalization.

A generalization perhaps, but hasty it is not. It's based on what I've read and thought about for a long time.

Hasty in that you assume I or others 'blindly' accept scripture

Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article that sort of illustrates my point:

The apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time. Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches.

As far as I can tell, the evangelical Bible with its 66 books is a cannon chosen by men who claimed to speak for God. There are other men who also claim to speak for God who disagree with that composition. How are we to know who actually speaks for God? I don't think it's an easy question, but I think it's one that needs to be asked by any person of faith.

With the exception of Paul, who had a unique calling from God and lived at the same time of His disciples, those that heard Jesus had the authority to teach His truth. Jesus promises us that His hand picked people would proclaim His message. He also promised after He was crucified the Spirt would guide these people. That's why scriptures alone are the final authority.

[easyrider16]

That's great but most of the new Testament was written by people who did not hear Jesus directly. In fact, I believe it's just some of the gospels and revelation, and the rest are written by people who never met Jesus. How do we determine that those writers (and none others) were divinely inspired? I don't see written anywhere in scripture that particular writers were or were not divinely inspired, do you?

I didn't mean to suggest that you believe blindly and I apologize for that insinuation. I am curious though as to why you do believe what you do about Biblical cannon.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Bubba]

Personally, I believe the New Testament (any version thereof) is a fable. The Old Testament is where it's at. If our book wasn't good enough for you, that's too bad. Sequels and remakes are generally unnecessary and a waste of time and effort. Which do you prefer? Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, or the more recent remake? (Mic drop!)

[gardi]

Personally, I believe the New Testament (any version thereof) is a fable. The Old Testament is where it's at. If our book wasn't good enough for you, that's too bad. Sequels and remakes are generally unnecessary and a waste of time and effort. Which do you prefer? Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, or the more recent remake? (Mic drop!)

Yes, but what about The Godfather?

[easyrider16]

Personally, I believe the New Testament (any version thereof) is a fable. The Old Testament is where it's at. If our book wasn't good enough for you, that's too bad. Sequels and remakes are generally unnecessary and a waste of time and effort. Which do you prefer? Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, or the more recent remake? (Mic drop!)

OT OG!

[Bubba]

Personally, I believe the New Testament (any version thereof) is a fable. The Old Testament is where it's at. If our book wasn't good enough for you, that's too bad. Sequels and remakes are generally unnecessary and a waste of time and effort. Which do you prefer? Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, or the more recent remake? (Mic drop!)

Yes, but what about The Godfather?

True, and it's a sordid almost biblical tale of good first resisting evil but eventually turning to the dark side; which, of course, reminds me of the original Star Wars trilogy, where evil was saved by good, a tale of almost biblical redemption. Those are among the few exceptions which prove the rule.

Apparently this thread has turned Talmudic over the last several pages.

[XtremeJibber2001]

That's great but most of the new Testament was written by people who did not hear Jesus directly. In fact, I believe it's just some of the gospels and revelation, and the rest are written by people who never met Jesus. How do we determine that those writers (and none others) were divinely inspired? I don't see written anywhere in scripture that particular writers were or were not divinely inspired, do you?

I didn't mean to suggest that you believe blindly and I apologize for that insinuation. I am curious though as to why you do believe what you do about Biblical cannon.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

I know what you meant, no worries.

Paul clearly didn't know Jesus personally and his story is especially unique. Peter, John, Jude, Matthew and James were all Apostles. Mark and Luke knew Jesus but probably not intimately until they connected with the Apostles.

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Just one example, there are others that make direct/indirect claims to divine inspiration.

[asher2789]

not accepting your future gay child is child abuse. end of story. twist it up however you like and smoke it for all i care. you're a homophobe, and a shitty parent as well - assuming you "hate the sin but not the sinner" except there is no difference.

You care because you're here and posting. You command acceptance and give yourself license to hate anyone that won't give it to you. There's no love and respect of others humanity in that way of thinking.

also, what about the straight couples who want to procreate but for whatever reason can't - are they "sinners" too for using what "god" gave them despite the fact it isn't leading to procreation?

They're not sinners.

as the world has become more educated and connected with people very different than them (thanks to globalization and the internet) organized religious participation has essentially fallen off a cliff in western civilization. i think the masses have wizened up to the bible - like all religious texts of all religions - being nothing more than a fable/allegory.

Your assertion is without merit.

According to a 2015 Pew Research Center study, by 2050, the Christian population is expected to be 2.9 billion. According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, by 2060 Christians will remain the world's largest religion; and the number of Christians will reach 3.05 billion (or 31.8%).

you're the one saying that gay people are sinners, and that gay people are a bad example for your children to see. im not having it, and ill be as nasty as i want to be in not having it. lets see: you write politely, yet your content is incredibly nasty; i write nasty, yet my content is ultimately to further equality and protect minority rights. i just dont have the patience to give you the respect you havent earned. when you stop seeing gays as a negative, then you can have my respect.

my assertion - that religion is in steep decline in western civilization - is entirely with merit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_o ... _countries

your quote doesnt change that, since the south america, africa, and asia are all making up for the declines in europe and north america.

[easyrider16]

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Just one example, there are others that make direct/indirect claims to divine inspiration.

This is not particularly convincing, especially when put into it's context in the epistle:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

I don't see how that can fairly be interpreted as something like, "This epistle I'm writing right now is the infallible word of God." I also don't see how it can be fairly interpreted as pointing to any other particular book or books of the Bible as being the infallible word of God. I mean, arguably, it's advocating the same thing I am - look at the particular book/writing and figure out if it lines up with Jesus' teaching, and if not, it's false.

Why can't we look at this the same way we look at history? Compare various sources and analyze them critically to determine what is likely true and what likely isn't? Seems to me there's a reason we have 5 gospels that depict the life and teachings of Jesus. If it was all divinely inspired, why would we need 5 books that cover essentially the same material?

I have read many books that analyze the Bible in various ways and provide instruction to Christians. I do not see the difference between these books and what the Apostles did with the epistles. It seems to me to just be senior leaders of the Church teaching their disciples, and sometimes those teachers get things wrong despite their best efforts. Jesus said what he said, and if we believe he is God, then his word is the word of God. The words of these apostles? I don't see it as being on the same level. Same goes for the OT.