Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In order to protect their faith from the findings of science, both the conservative and liberal Christians are having to come up with new rationalizations for their respective religions. Often, the rationalizations take the form of appeals to ignorance and/or incredulity.
For example, the conservative cannot believe that life and/or the universe can exist without a Creator, therefore the Christian God must have done it. The liberal cannot believe that emotions, experiences, and consciousness are reducible to chemical reactions in the brain, therefore an Eternal Soul or a God must be involved.
Both camps ultimately retreat to personal experience if they are pressed for evidence and cannot provide it.
I'm no brand of Christian though I feel that I can relate most to those Christians who do not think the bible is the be all and end all of God's revelation to humanity. But as to the bolded portion of your post, it is not that I canNOT believe it, but rather that it does not seem likely to me. And personal experience as evidence of a God who interacts with people on a personal level makes sense to me.
This is indeed an interesting discussion. We see the Fundamentalist who holds to the literal reading and the inerrancy of the Bible and the more liberal sects arguing against doing so.
To me, growing up as a literal Southern Baptist, I can't perceive that an omnipotent being would allow the Bible, in effect his biography, to contain mistakes, but I do see why these more liberal interpretations are gaining ground. As science learns more and these gaps to insert God diminish, intellectual believers are needing to find a means to hold onto their beliefs, so they have invented this "the Bible isn't really the message, Jesus is the message" mantra. This relatively new acceptance of this theology provides an easy "out" when pressed on substance because the believer can simply state that the questioner really isn't being led by Jesus to understand the message and is therefore unqualified to inquire. It's a very convenient cafeteria-style religion.
The mistakes do not impact knowledge of God nor any teaching, instruction, etc. The variations with very few exceptions are minor as to spelling or a number. Even the extended readings that are suspect, do not really impact teaching.
The mistakes do not impact knowledge of God nor any teaching, instruction, etc. The variations with very few exceptions are minor as to spelling or a number. Even the extended readings that are suspect, do not really impact teaching.
You obviously haven't been reading many posts on these threads. Here are just a few examples of disagreements:
1. Literal Hell.
2. Everyone will be saved.
3. The tri-omni God.
4. Genesis 1: literal.
5. Once saved, always saved.
6. Faith only/Faith with works.
7. Old Law, New Law, or both.
These are just a few, and I think these speak to the very basis of Christianity.
The Bible makes sense to me, but in no way like YOU think it makes sense. It was written by perhaps sixty or seventy writers and edited by perhaps a thousand more. It contains infallibly everything that one needs to learn about coming to terms with God. But it is not an infallible science or social book. It reflects limited, sometimes cruel cultural views. It isn't easy to grasp. It requires a lifetime of work to get the slightest impression of what is going on.
I'm not trying to single you out Warden, but I've seen this argument many times before from others and it doesn't hold up for me. I'm curious though, would you discount God's power to influence scripture? I feel that by saying the Bible is not infallible or bogus is some areas because of edits is the same as saying God is not powerful enough to choose what will and won't be maintained in scriptures. By that reasoning, do you believe God is not omniscient and all-powerful?
I'm not trying to single you out Warden, but I've seen this argument many times before from others and it doesn't hold up for me. I'm curious though, would you discount God's power to influence scripture? I feel that by saying the Bible is not infallible or bogus is some areas because of edits is the same as saying God is not powerful enough to choose what will and won't be maintained in scriptures. By that reasoning, do you believe God is not omniscient and all-powerful?
If God had promised a book, you would have a point. Since He didn't, I'd suggest that you look to the guide Jesus promised.
You obviously haven't been reading many posts on these threads. Here are just a few examples of disagreements:
1. Literal Hell.
2. Everyone will be saved.
3. The tri-omni God.
4. Genesis 1: literal.
5. Once saved, always saved.
6. Faith only/Faith with works.
7. Old Law, New Law, or both.
These are just a few, and I think these speak to the very basis of Christianity.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with a differences, that is man's interpretations instead of letting God so so through the scriptures. We were warned BY Jesus and Paul, etc., that such would occur as men followed their own thoughts. Kinda picking and choosing what verses to use and ignoring the others.
I'm not trying to single you out Warden, but I've seen this argument many times before from others and it doesn't hold up for me. I'm curious though, would you discount God's power to influence scripture? I feel that by saying the Bible is not infallible or bogus is some areas because of edits is the same as saying God is not powerful enough to choose what will and won't be maintained in scriptures. By that reasoning, do you believe God is not omniscient and all-powerful?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with a differences, that is man's interpretations instead of letting God so so through the scriptures. We were warned BY Jesus and Paul, etc., that such would occur as men followed their own thoughts. Kinda picking and choosing what verses to use and ignoring the others.
They speak to the weed filled field.
Archmage was correct asking the question he/she asked. Why would an all-loving God, one that supposedly wants everyone to come to him, allow a book to be so confusing and so open to interpretation? This gives all Christians carte blanche to criticize any other Christian who disagrees with him/her by claiming misinterpretation. On the bright side, it does speak to the credibility (or lack of it in this case) of the Bible, the only source for the story of your Jesus BTW.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
