|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:53 pm
Rsnbl Faith AshtonTSC Rsnbl Faith AshtonTSC Rsnbl Faith AshtonTSC I never said anything about the translation itself. I stated that it has been proven to have been changed over time, most prominently in the books we have yet to uncover the original manuscripts of. Take my words for their face value, not for what you personally think I'm trying to say. I am taking your word at face value, and I was merely stating that the bible is very accurately translated and preserved. Even the added verses and the like (which there really isn't that many) do nothing to change the over all message. We can take what we have and know that it is well preserved and is trustworthy in the message it conveys. (As for Original manuscripts, we have incredibly early manuscripts (earlier than many of the texts we take as historically accurate) preserved in the original language which it was written.) Now when you say 'strictly to the bible' I do need some elaboration, do you mean this as the Catholics mean it or do you mean it as in, "well this or that verse may be wrong so I'll go by my personal preference on this moral choice."? Precisely the latter of those two conclusions. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as well as living daily the basic morals and values taught by the Bible. However, there are certain guidelines or "morals" I can't stand by because of the conflict they present in this day and age. Oh, that is what I thought. This doesn't really seem like a conquerors stance, but rather a stance of cowardice against this day and age. We say homosexuality is wrong, but the world says it isn't, so I cannot go with what the bible says merely because they disagree. >.> I don't mean to sound rude on this.... but I think you should probably study yourself in fear and trembling. I could also be mistaken. That is a possibility. It's not that I particularly fear anything. I'm just strongly opinionated and choose to attain my morals and values from something other than a book that has been proven to be flawed. Such as the instance you provide, about gay marriage. I don't particularly see any problem with it because it doesn't ultimately affect me in any given sense, so why should I say that gays can't be married? Judge less ye be judged. I take certain morals and values from the Bible and then choose to supplement my own based upon my knowledge and opinion of being a generally good person. As I see it, I'm not going to hell for not actively combating gay rights/marriage. Neither do I, my issue with your judgement at the moment is that it is a flawed one. The Bible has proven additions to it but no proven flaws. As pointed out before despite the one verse which we know for almost certain was added, it does nothing to change the meaning being given within Scripture or even where the verse seems to be added. You are running off of the much more fallible man than the proven highly accurate Scripture given by inspiration of God. "Lean not on your own understanding." And not all morals are generally pain or negative based in the sense you are taking them, rather they are based on a certain code or premise found knitted within the confines of reality which is made reflecting the image of God. Essentially, the evidence of Nature itself (not corrupted nature) is a sign of morality in and of itself, which we often get confused by our own mistaken views. Paul in Romans points out the issue of homosexuality is within the nature of it as a corruption of a sanctity as established by God from the beginning of Creation, which is sexual intercourse between man and woman. (Respectfully a married man and woman.) He argues that it is "unnatural" and therefore not of God. This is not something which can be tossed out because you might feel differently, but is argued in a rationalistic sense by the studied Paul in Romans and even before hand argued by God in the old testament when talking about the spiritual law behind sexual conduct. That does not lead me to believe that I am any more wrong in my beliefs than you might be. It is by my own choice to do not explicitly adhere to all of the practices and beliefs in the Bible, that is my own prerogative. I have been called so crudely a "cafeteria Christian" for doing such.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:59 pm
AshtonTSC Rsnbl Faith AshtonTSC Rsnbl Faith AshtonTSC Precisely the latter of those two conclusions. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as well as living daily the basic morals and values taught by the Bible. However, there are certain guidelines or "morals" I can't stand by because of the conflict they present in this day and age. Oh, that is what I thought. This doesn't really seem like a conquerors stance, but rather a stance of cowardice against this day and age. We say homosexuality is wrong, but the world says it isn't, so I cannot go with what the bible says merely because they disagree. >.> I don't mean to sound rude on this.... but I think you should probably study yourself in fear and trembling. I could also be mistaken. That is a possibility. It's not that I particularly fear anything. I'm just strongly opinionated and choose to attain my morals and values from something other than a book that has been proven to be flawed. Such as the instance you provide, about gay marriage. I don't particularly see any problem with it because it doesn't ultimately affect me in any given sense, so why should I say that gays can't be married? Judge less ye be judged. I take certain morals and values from the Bible and then choose to supplement my own based upon my knowledge and opinion of being a generally good person. As I see it, I'm not going to hell for not actively combating gay rights/marriage. Neither do I, my issue with your judgement at the moment is that it is a flawed one. The Bible has proven additions to it but no proven flaws. As pointed out before despite the one verse which we know for almost certain was added, it does nothing to change the meaning being given within Scripture or even where the verse seems to be added. You are running off of the much more fallible man than the proven highly accurate Scripture given by inspiration of God. "Lean not on your own understanding." And not all morals are generally pain or negative based in the sense you are taking them, rather they are based on a certain code or premise found knitted within the confines of reality which is made reflecting the image of God. Essentially, the evidence of Nature itself (not corrupted nature) is a sign of morality in and of itself, which we often get confused by our own mistaken views. Paul in Romans points out the issue of homosexuality is within the nature of it as a corruption of a sanctity as established by God from the beginning of Creation, which is sexual intercourse between man and woman. (Respectfully a married man and woman.) He argues that it is "unnatural" and therefore not of God. This is not something which can be tossed out because you might feel differently, but is argued in a rationalistic sense by the studied Paul in Romans and even before hand argued by God in the old testament when talking about the spiritual law behind sexual conduct. That does not lead me to believe that I am any more wrong in my beliefs than you might be. It is by my own choice to do not explicitly adhere to all of the practices and beliefs in the Bible, that is my own prerogative. I have been called so crudely a "cafeteria Christian" for doing such. “For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water." - Jeremiah 2:13 Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." I am unsure whether I believe that those even exist. Though Paul also warns us that "if we are unfaithful He will remain faithful," though this is less than being faithful this is knowingly denying and teaching against Scripture because you have a different preference .-.... Which is very heavily spoken against in Scripture. This is why I say to study yourself in fear and trembling, and also remember in Scripture where those cry to the Lord saying "I have done thy work" and the Father replies "I have never known you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:15 pm
Rsnbl Faith ~ Spiritually alive? Forgive me if I cannot agree with you. Nor do I mean any disrespect towards you or anyone else, but the bible tells us that those who are not in Christ are dead, spiritually dead. So knowing the truth I do not need to know these other peoples walks in their own faith, I have all that I need to know already in that. I do not mean this to offend, but it is the Gospel truth, and as Paul points out, the Gospel is offensive, we can't stop that we can just be as loving as we possibly can. But there's your paradox: dismissing the spiritual experiences of others out of hand isn't loving. Saying they are spiritually dead based on your sacred text's statement, turning a blind eye to retain that trust in your text rather than actually looking at their lives and their practice, that's not loving. That's hateful. You have to measure in yourself whether it's more important to believe other people are simply not spiritual despite all evidence to the contrary, or whether it's more important to love others enough to open yourself to acknowledging that maybe they find truths elsewhere. Remember also that if your text can stand up to reality, then learning about others won't contradict its teachings. If your beliefs are firm, you can do other people the service of learning what they believe and why they believe it without it challenging them. Saying "I already know the truth, I don't need to bother learning about what other people think or believe" is.... just unbelievable. Shutting your ears and soul to other people because you don't want to learn about them is how prejudices and bigotry develop. Don't let yourself become that person out of fear. Remember to love. You can't love someone if you won't even let yourself try to understand them. Honestly your statement here is really at odds with the welcome I've felt at many of the churches I've visited. When you won't listen to others, you can't love, embrace, or welcome them. All you do is shut them out. And that makes me very sad to hear from a Christian. Quote: ~Atheist a Dogma? When I say Dogmatic, I am taking it from the Greek origins of the word rather than the changed definition we have today. "dogma
c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from L. dogma "philosophical tenet," from Gk. dogma (gen. dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," lit. "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English." Meaning Atheists can be very dogmatic, all humans are very dogmatic. So it isn't really that silly. You're using a historical use of the word rather than its modern meaning? OK. You should be more clear about that in future, and remember, etymology, while interesting, is not definition. Quote: ~ Atheist argument I am aware why they are doing it, I was arguing that their argument was silly and denies the spirit of the law. Then I said they will usually argue back because they do not understand the spirit of the law because they are too caught up on the letter of the law. .-. I thought I was rather clear on that... They're not actually caught up on the letter of the law. That's the point. They're using the letter of the law to emphasise that others are wrong in doing exactly that. They're saying "hey dude, you are wrong, check out how silly it is to do what you're doing". Clearer now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:54 pm
~Spiritually Alive? There is no paradox, what you teach is no apparent contradiction but a flat out contradiction. Deny Christ who says they are spiritually dead, and go ahead and say they are spiritually alive. What of the death of sin then, to which has killed their spirit? Are other forces than Christ stomping it down, have they also died to defeat death? Forgive me but you are not teaching Christ, you are teaching New Age Philosophy. And you assume I haven't studied other religions merely because I realize they are false? I'm well aware that Hindus believe in one god dreaming all other gods up and how we are all part of this one god. That these other gods they worship are merely beings which the god who dreams this world was proud of. Over the false teaching that they believe in multiple gods. I'm well aware that eastern karma does not hold the idea of good or bad karma, it is just karma. I'm well aware of Buddhas teaching of Nirvana and how they believe in no god, and of the Taoists of China and the Wiccans of the new world. (I do live in a town filled with them.) Forgive me I have studied other religions, and though there is some truth in them, it is not the truth of Christ which brings our Spirits back from the dead. Nor is any of that unloving at all, but Christ came that we might be raised from the dead. He died so we may live in Him. This is absolute love which is lost on your New Age idea's. The Christ who gave all, forsook all He had, and died so all men may live. If we deny that they are spiritually dead, then we deny the love of Christ. You in your modern acceptance don't preach love and acceptance, but denial of the truth which all love comes from. Forgive me, but what you teach seems to be down right Heresy. (Spent many hours studying other religions and have two friends who talk non stop about eastern religions. (They are Christian but find Eastern Religions interesting.)) P.S. I do not need to know other beliefs, I just need to know the right belief. (Just like, to know something is fake, I just need to know the real one good enough. No one who is trained to know fakes studies fakes, they study the real thing it is the same with beliefs.) ~Atheism a Dogma? Yeah, I am. The modern definition is not based on what we ought to follow, but is followed by how we use it. It is inconsistent, ever changing, unreliable. I rarely ever use modern definitions. Though you are right I should be more clear, I should hardly expect someone I've never talked to to realize something like that. ~Atheist Argument I'm well aware of what they are saying, I am arguing against that and calling their argument a foolish argument. Because we aren't supposed to follow the letter of the law as I have already pointed out, but the spirit of the law. _______ .-. You are no Orthodox Christian that is for sure, so far with my experience of this guild, there is only one Orthodox Christian other than me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
