Scripture/The Bible is God's Inspired, Inerrant, Infallible Word of Truth. (Mormons, presbyterian)
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.
Says everyone who has some pet sin that they want to excuse. I used to be "that guy." Now I realize there's no such thing as cafeteria Christianity.
What you describe is the narcissistic Christianity. If I was a terrible person, that means everyone else is too. That narcissistic Christian is incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. Some how what they did to be brought to their knees, is not really so bad, because others do it, too.
Give me a cafeteria christian any day. They are using the bible as a guideline, striving to live a good life. Narcissistic Christians use a cudgel.
Your pedestal of Jello is wobbly, very wobbly. You are still that guy.
How is it that you know these people's inner motivations? Have you actually discussed their beliefs with them?
Look, I used to be as you are and I really, really get the "all or nothing" mindset. I went right from fundamentalism to atheism because I didn't see the point of Christianity if the book was so full of myth and metaphor and symbolism that you would could wrest most any idea from its pages that you fancy.
What I didn't realize until later was that I and my Fundamentalist friends had been cherry picking and spiritualizing and rationalizing too, just within a different framework. The conceit I had as a Bibliolator was that it was possible to come up with a One True Objective Interpretation of every verse and passage and doctrine. I first ran into reality on that score at age 19 in Bible Institute. There was a group of students who were covertly indulging in hyperdispensationalism. So much for Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology and its seven dispensations. These guys were as convinced that the only binding scriptures were the Pauline letters, as my professors were that it was all holy writ. It was like listening to lawyers; you could see both sides until your head exploded.
Anyway what I can tell you about liberal Christians is that they believe in god, love him, and have meaningful spiritual lives, often with great humility. I don't agree with them anymore than I do with you, but I can tell you that they want god, and don't reject the book. They simply don't see either through the same lens.
Yes they see it through a different lens, one of their own making. Just like the Fundamentalists, they pick what they want. There is no true objective interpretation because it is not up to man to ... interpret. God does that, man has to learn from it. It really isn't hard, just throw out 90% of what is taught based on man's interpretation.
Yes it is ego, as they put their view above others and with no real support except their own claims.
Now many say they love God, but which God, The Trinitarian one, The Unitarian one, The Oneness one, etc., only one is correct, thus claiming to love a God who does not exist means you do not love the real God.
Just to hitchhike on this, all of the books of the NT were penned in the first century -- By 200AD, all of the books of the Bible as we know them, were in place and acknowledged by early believers.
Yep, they were using the copies they had and it was later that some decided to Ok what was already known and used.
That's about what I expect - and is one of the reasons I've largely dropped off the Christian forum. It's just that so many of the anti-Christian arguments on this forum are so far fetched, I thought it would be worthwhile for some of the real Christians to see that they are not alone here.
Many post in opposition to stifle or stop any real discussion of the Bible. They ned to get a real life.
Thank you for posting this. As you know, I believe in God, in Christ, and do appreciate the scriptures. But to try to force people to confess that the bible is infallible and inerrant is very Taliban-like IMO. To imply that a person is not a "REAL" Christian unless they hold such a belief about the bible is divisive and unloving and sophomoric.
Actually Paul was referring to the letters that were already in circulation. The NT as we know it was in use immediately as a new letter became available, they circulated those rapidly since they had no internet.
By the time 2nd Timothy was written they already had:
Matthew
Mark
Luke
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2nd Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1st Thessalonians
2nd Thessalonians
1st Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1st Peter
2nd Peter
Jude
Only the letters of John had not been written by the last quarter of the 1st century
Experiential revelation only comes as a confirmation of Scripture. Those who claim moore are simply exalting themselves.
And you have proof that all those early versions were passed among all groups of Christians? What about in the years before 60 C.E. where Paul's letters may have been around but not the gospels.
Are you stating abjectly that NOBODY became a Christian apart from the Bible you know? That Ethiopian that listened to Philip did NOT become a Christian---without a bible? Philip was carrying his KJV around on his person?
Do you even grasp how ignorant this sounds?
Finally, do you realize the very first list of possible canonized scripture wasn't developed until the heretic Marcion wrote them down in 140 C.E.? Before that they were basically floating in the wind among various villages.
Thank you for posting this. As you know, I believe in God, in Christ, and do appreciate the scriptures. But to try to force people to confess that the bible is infallible and inerrant is very Taliban-like IMO. To imply that a person is not a "REAL" Christian unless they hold such a belief about the bible is divisive and unloving and sophomoric.
Revelation 3
14 “Write to the angel of the church in Laodicea:
“The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God’s creation says: 15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, ‘I’m rich; I have become wealthy and need nothing,’ and you don’t know that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire so that you may be rich, white clothes so that you may be dressed and your shameful nakedness not be exposed, and ointment to spread on your eyes so that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and discipline. So be committed and repent.
Claiming both 1st and 2nd Peter were written by the same author is simply ludicrous. Textual critics of the Greek language point out how 1st Peter is far too much in an urbane cultured style of Greek to have been written by a fisherman from Galilee. In addition, Peter, with personal experience and knowledge of Jesus Christ, did not allude to this personal knowledge even once.
The idea of Silvanus being the real author or "secretary" begs to differ with the description of Silvanus as a courier. Further there is no evidence of Rome being called "Babylon" like she is in Ist Peter until the Book of Revelation was published around 90-96 C.E., dating the writing of 1st Peter to after that date (or at the very least it was edited by someone after that date).
There are 35 references to the Hebrew Bible in 1st Peter, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint, an unlikely source for Peter the apostle, but quite appropriate for Hellenized audiences, thus the use of the Septuagint helps define the audience. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard, let alone read, scripture from the Septuagint version.
Linguistically 2nd Peter is far more different than 1st Peter. It is the equivalent of reading a letter written by your father and another from your mother. Even though talking about the same subject you would know the letters weren't by the same author. In addition, 2nd Peter assumes its audience is familiar with a number of Pauline epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16), the author indicates that the Apostolic generation has passed (2nd Peter 3:4) and he has a differentiation between himself and the "apostles of the Lord and Savior." (2 Peter 3:2).
Further, 2nd Peter relies heavily on the shorter epistle of Jude, many passages being quite common with one another. In addition, 1st Peter is essentially traditional, drawing on Psalms, key chapters of Isaiah, and wisdom sayings, some of which are found elsewhere in the NT. 2 Peter however is much more allusive in style and dependent on more obscure sources.
Evangelical scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."
(Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edition, HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan 2005. ISBN 0-310-23859-5, ISBN 978-0-310-23859-1. p. 659)
Carson and Moo, like most fundamentalists however, ignore their own scholarship and conclude, "We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter's prima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status."
And that is the great mistake of fundamentalists. Everything must be cast in blacks and whites. There are no shades of grey. It is either all good and Godly or all evil and secular.
Like most things in life, like most Christians, the Bible is a mixture of both.
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.
I used to be "that guy." Now I realize there's no such thing as cafeteria Christianity.
