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 understand the history of pacifism among Quakers. And I also understand the selective pick and choosing of which tenets to embrace and which to reject. This is invariably presented as the rejected ones being faulty in some manner. But, lo and behold (and to no surprise), the 'faulty' scripture is always that which doesn't comport with the desired ideology. The faith does not follow the text, but the (important) text is selected for the pre-selected faith. The Quakers' beliefs are based on some of Jesus's teachings, as depicted in the Bible. That makes it a text-based faith. I'm just pointing out that it's really not rational to base a worldview on what's in a book when all the inconvenient parts need to be explained away in some manner.
Finally, the fundamentalists really aren't... fundamentalist. Thy just have a different preference for which passages to exalt and which to ignore.
Ha, there's a lot of truth in that. Lots of shrimp-eaters who will kick their gay kids to the curb.
But I was more referring to how the Bible is viewed overall, as just a guideline like the Quakers, something to be pulled apart and analyzed in historical context like the Episcopalians, a companion to Church Tradition like the Catholics, or the supposed actual Word of God.
For example there's a thread right now in Christianity on the subject of sola scriptura in which the Bible is referred to as a "Human operating and maintenance manual written by the inventor and His technicians", another way of saying the Bible was written via the divinity of God using human hands to write down what God wanted them to write. That is what defines a fundamentalist.
There seems to be some belief, even among a few atheists, that all 66 separate writings bound together in the volume called The Bible have to be taken as being of equal veracity, or none. It's part of a black/white, good/evil, right/wrong mindset. Not everyone thinks like that. It goes beyond simply picking and choosing which parts to believe. It's what one thinks the Bible actually is.
Are you going to go to a Quaker meeting and hear Bible verses read? Of course not.
You need a dose of Thrillo to set you straight about Jesus. Where is that guy when we need him?
Jesus is patiently waiting for the right time.
First, God's purpose is that Earth first be populated - Gen. 1:28
The passing of time has allowed for all of us to be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
Before Jesus' comes the good news of God's kingdom government would first be proclaimed world wide - Matt. 24:14; Acts 1:8
We are now at that global-international stage, the 'final phase' of the Bible being spread world wide.
This means we are nearing the 'final signal', so to speak, found at 1st Thess. 5:2-3.
When the powers in charge will be saying, " Peace and Security....." but that Rosy saying is just to lead people down that so-called Primrose Path because that saying of 'peace' is where that guy (aka Jesus) is when we need him.
Then, when that Rosy saying proves false is when Jesus takes the action of Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15.
We are already experiencing 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 and Rev. 6:8 as never before in history.
Thus, the coming 'time of separation' on earth is near at hand - Matthew 25:31-34,37
Ha, there's a lot of truth in that. Lots of shrimp-eaters who will kick their gay kids to the curb.
And even some who will suddenly decide gay is not so bad ... their basic issue is that they can't see things from the perspective of others, until it happens to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
But I was more referring to how the Bible is viewed overall, as just a guideline like the Quakers, something to be pulled apart and analyzed in historical context like the Episcopalians, a companion to Church Tradition like the Catholics, or the supposed actual Word of God.
Also in play: what "the word of god" is and what the implications of that are. I suspect that all those groups would affirm that the Bible is god's word -- they just have different views about what that means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
There seems to be some belief, even among a few atheists, that all 66 separate writings bound together in the volume called The Bible have to be taken as being of equal veracity, or none. It's part of a black/white, good/evil, right/wrong mindset. Not everyone thinks like that. It goes beyond simply picking and choosing which parts to believe. It's what one thinks the Bible actually is.
I don't know any atheists seriously saying it has to be taken in an all or nothing fashion, other than as a rhetorical argument to fundamentalists, who in spite of themselves still equivocate and make special pleadings about certain things. Because no one's dogma and practice can ever 100% avoid running into, as you mention, things like prohibitions about eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics.
And even some who will suddenly decide gay is not so bad ... their basic issue is that they can't see things from the perspective of others, until it happens to them.
Also in play: what "the word of god" is and what the implications of that are. I suspect that all those groups would affirm that the Bible is god's word -- they just have different views about what that means.
I don't know any atheists seriously saying it has to be taken in an all or nothing fashion, other than as a rhetorical argument to fundamentalists, who in spite of themselves still equivocate and make special pleadings about certain things. Because no one's dogma and practice can ever 100% avoid running into, as you mention, things like prohibitions about eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics.
Yep, every Sunday the Episcopal Church readers end each reading with "The Word of the Lord", to which the congregation dutifully responds, "Thanks be to God". It's part of the ritual.
But my priest when I was there would tell you in his sermon, "You won't be able to remember word for word what I said an hour from now. Everything in the gospels was not written down for years". He believed the only true sermon was that God wants us to love our neighbors. No matter what the readings were, he would turn them into that.
Yep, every Sunday the Episcopal Church readers end each reading with "The Word of the Lord", to which the congregation dutifully responds, "Thanks be to God". It's part of the ritual.
But my priest when I was there would tell you in his sermon, "You won't be able to remember word for word what I said an hour from now. Everything in the gospels was not written down for years". He believed the only true sermon was that God wants us to love our neighbors. No matter what the readings were, he would turn them into that.
As my priest says every week for the benediction: "My friends, life is short and we don't have much time to gladden the hearts of those who make the journey with us. So be swift to love and make haste to be kind."
Love, love, love that!
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 01-26-2023 at 11:29 AM..
Reason: My typo
Yep, every Sunday the Episcopal Church readers end each reading with "The Word of the Lord", to which the congregation dutifully responds, "Thanks be to God". It's part of the ritual.
But my priest when I was there would tell you in his sermon, "You won't be able to remember word for word what I said an hour from now. Everything in the gospels was not written down for years". He believed the only true sermon was that God wants us to love our neighbors. No matter what the readings were, he would turn them into that.
Speaking as an atheist who is familiar with the Bible, I cannot imagine why religious people are expected to be particularly opposed to war.
Sure, you can tease out anti-war ideas from scripture. But then, you can find support for almost anything in there. In the case of pacifism - or even less stringent tendencies toward peace - in order to do so, you have to ignore a lot of bits that are rather enthusiastic when it comes to war.
Isn't the Old Testament more warlike than the New Testament in your mind? Many see the New Testament as a new contract between God and humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
This sort of thing doesn't help any...
UN body condemns Quran burning in Sweden
Alliance of Civilizations and several Muslim-majority countries denounce stunt by Danish far-right party leader.
I can't help but feel like this is a needless provocation that seeks to divide as opposed to find common ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
QB, have you ever heard of the organization Christian Peacemakers? While they can't stop war, they go to places to help innocent people who are affected by conflicts. Their motto is "Getting in the way".
I knew a guy through a friend who was going to northern Iraq with them about ten years ago. At the time, Iran and Turkey were bombing the Kurdish area. Both countries wanted control of the region (and the USA provided bombing coordinates to Turkey because they supported them over Iran).
The Kurds in the region mostly raise sheep, and the would lose livestock in the bombings. The Peacemakers helped them move to the mountains with their animals during bombing season.
The guy I met had to have a living will in place and sign a paper verifying that he knew his life would be in danger and he was going voluntarily.
QB, have you ever heard of the organization Christian Peacemakers? While they can't stop war, they go to places to help innocent people who are affected by conflicts. Their motto is "Getting in the way".
They are a great group. They walked Palestinian children to and from school so the children aren't attacked by the Jewish extremists in Israel's Occupied Territory.
I am all for opposing war actions especially as the Military Industrial Complex and its donations to politicians are destroying our country and its foreign policy.
They are a great group. They walked Palestinian children to and from school so the children aren't attacked by the Jewish extremists in Israel's Occupied Territory.
I am all for opposing war actions especially as the Military Industrial Complex and its donations to politicians are destroying our country and its foreign policy.
We all are opposing war actions but Congress is not. Seems to me that we, the religious people, are rendered ineffective due to separation of church from state. The church is not waging war. The secular state is.
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.
Of course not.
Smart priest!
