• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bible "skills", Bible "study" ......

D

Descartes

Lifer
Always seemed rather paradoxical to me. God's word presented to man, but only if you're literate, and intelligent enough to comprehend the text. Misinterpret said text not lest thee be condemned. Better yet, lets let man teach man how to interpret God's word. That makes sense...

Why would God have to use the inherently fallable (and thus, in many cases, seriously, seriously corrupt) man to promulgate His word? What necessitates a spiritual conduit, and why the abstraction between those who feel they're closer to God (missionaries et. al) and God Himself? By saying they "feel they're closer to God", I simply mean that they feel that God has called on them to educate the ignorant. God is unfathomably omipotent, yet He uses man to reach His children.

Sorry to bring up yet another thread like this, but I was working on a project for a client (who produces education material for the above) and the topic came up. 🙂



 


<< Do you have a constructive question or topic? Or are you here just to troll your way into another flame war? >>



Neither, just looking for comments, but thank you for your response! 🙂
 


<< Do you have a constructive question or topic? Or are you here just to troll your way into another flame war?

nik 🙂disgust::|) >>

Man you'd think that if you're as sick of these threads as you say you are you'd stop clicking on them...

l2c
 
This discussion seems to assume god exists so all of you "christians are dumb, god is fake" wankers can stay the hell out.

<< Always seemed rather paradoxical to me. God's word presented to man, but only if you're literate, and intelligent enough to comprehend the text. Misinterpret said text not lest thee be condemned. Better yet, lets let man teach man how to interpret God's word. That makes sense... >>

What better medium exists for the transmission of ideas other than written word? Through translation the bible seems to change enough as it is. Imagine if it wasn't written down. And yes, putting something in writing does require some modicum of education on the part of the intended reader. But how else would you expect it to be done? There's only two ways to know something. It must be insinctual or you must learn it. AFAIK, according the bible man's nature is inherently evil, which means the will of god isn't instinctual. That only leaves learning. And the only way to learn is through a teacher. Teachers are men. What other options are there?

<< Why would God have to use the inherently fallable (and thus, in many cases, seriously, seriously corrupt) man to promulgate His word? What necessitates a spiritual conduit, and why the abstraction between those who feel they're closer to God (missionaries et. al) and God Himself? By saying they "feel they're closer to God", I simply mean that they feel that God has called on them to educate the ignorant. God is unfathomably omipotent, yet He uses man to reach His children. >>

How else could he spread "the word"? Angelic professors? Even angels are fallible according to the bible. The only perfect option would be if god individually taught each and every one of us. If I were him, I wouldn't want to personally teach billions upon billions of ungrateful brats either.

And what are you talking about "spiritual conduit"? It's always been my understanding that nobody is closer to god than anybody else. According to the christian religion, everyone is a sinner, but also everyone is a child of god. Some are just more familiar with the text and therefore more qualified to teach it.
 
God is unfathomably omipotent, yet He uses man to reach His children.

Here is your problem. When I tell somebody about how great Jesus is, I am doing it because I want them to know this great truth. I also do it because God told me to, in his aforementioned Word.

God don't need me to reach anyone. When I evangelize, I get the benefit. The wonderful benefit of obeying my Lord and telling his Good News.

Now, nobody get's Saved unless God calles him. You can talk till you're blue in the face, and it won't do ANY good unless God is at work.

God don't depend on US. We depend on Him.
 


<< This discussion seems to assume god exists so all of you "christians are dumb, god is fake" wankers can stay the hell out. >>

What about those who only think that religions are irrational?
 


<< What about those who only think that religions are irrational? >>

It's OK Elledan, at least you're a wanker with a well thought out opinion. 😉
 


<<

<< What about those who only think that religions are irrational? >>

It's OK Elledan, at least you're a wanker with a well thought out opinion. 😉 >>


Whew... I feel honored 😉😛
 


<< Always seemed rather paradoxical to me. God's word presented to man, but only if you're literate, and intelligent enough to comprehend the text. Misinterpret said text not lest thee be condemned. Better yet, lets let man teach man how to interpret God's word. That makes sense...

Why would God have to use the inherently fallable (and thus, in many cases, seriously, seriously corrupt) man to promulgate His word? What necessitates a spiritual conduit, and why the abstraction between those who feel they're closer to God (missionaries et. al) and God Himself? By saying they "feel they're closer to God", I simply mean that they feel that God has called on them to educate the ignorant. God is unfathomably omipotent, yet He uses man to reach His children. >>


It's fairly simply:

Almost all religions have some kind of sacred text which is used to teach the followers of that religion about that religion.

Now, we suddenly got the rather logical conclusion that none of the gods of these religions teach its followers personally because otherwise there would only be those religions of which the god(s) would truly exist.

Since this doesn't happen (and it doesn't seem like it ever will), we're left with two possible conclusions:

1. There are no gods.
2. There's a reason why these gods (for as far as they exist) find that a single text, a couple of texts or no text at all are sufficient to teach their followers everything.

However, since just of the bible there are more different interpretations than the bible has pages, #2 seems highly unlikely.
This leaves us with another two conclusions:

1. The gods simply don't give a damn about their followers and might find their arguments rather amusing.
2. There are no gods.

But because the followers of all religions seem to be convinced that their gods DO care about them, we're left with the following conclusions:

1. The gods are playing tricks with their followers.
2. The followers of these religions are simply misguided and there are no gods.

Now, which one seems more likely? 😉
 
Bwahahahaha! Oooo boy my response here is going to put me smack in the line of fire from both sides:



<< Always seemed rather paradoxical to me. God's word presented to man, but only if you're literate, and intelligent enough to comprehend the text. >>


Right - shouldn't there have been something left by God to share the Bible's message? Shouldn't God have left us some kind of guide?



<< Misinterpret said text not lest thee be condemned. Better yet, lets let man teach man how to interpret God's word. That makes sense... >>


Exactly - if the Holy Spirit guides each person individually in interpretting the Bible, then why are SO many people of different interpretations? Did Bob interpret it right or did Frank?

Why didn't God leave us an interpreter???



<< Why would God have to use the inherently fallable (and thus, in many cases, seriously, seriously corrupt) man to promulgate His word? >>


Exactly - fallible man would always have a distinct chance of getting it wrong. The only way would be to have an infallible guide on earth that interprets God's teachings - especially as the world changes. Jesus never addressed cloning, did he? He couldn't, it didn't exist!

So the guide would have to remain infallible and present on Earth for the rest of our existance - applying God's teaching to every day life.

But an infallible guide? What - could he pick lottery numbers then??? No - the guide would need only be infallible when officially presenting God's word.


<< What necessitates a spiritual conduit, and why the abstraction between those who feel they're closer to God (missionaries et. al) and God Himself? By saying they "feel they're closer to God", I simply mean that they feel that God has called on them to educate the ignorant. God is unfathomably omipotent, yet He uses man to reach His children. >>



Direct communication would leave us no choice but to believe (or go mad) thereby negating our freedom to choose. Again - common man is fallible and messes things up. God should have left us a guide... a church built on a rock that the gates of hell would not prevail against. A church that whatsoever it bound on earth was bound in heaven. A church with a direct line of successors from Peter the apostle himself.

A church that's core teachings (dogma) have NEVER changed in the 2000 years since Christ. A Church that has survived not only spersecutions, but scisms, and most amazingly - its own corrupt humanity.

2000 years since the time of Christ. One direct line.

This is the faith of the Roman Catholic Church.



<---- Zips up flame suit. Buckles on Belt of SuperFlameStopping. Braces for impact. Battens the hatches.

🙂
 


<< 2000 years since the time of Christ. One direct line >>

More like 2005 years, actually. Later estimates placed the birth of Jesus at around 3 BC 😉

BTW, there are much older religions than Christianity, which haven't changed much either, e.g. Hinduism.
 


<< If I were him, I wouldn't want to personally teach billions upon billions of ungrateful brats either. >>




The problem is that god is all powerful. He can create the universe but is unwilling to teach everyone about himself on an individual basis? I won't follow a god who won't do his own dirty work.
 


<< Whew... I feel honored 😉😛 >>




You should feel honoured! 😛



Anyway, my problem with religion is that god never manifests himself. If you listen to the bible, he regularly helped out folks in the old days (parting the red sea, giving commandments etc), but why do we never see him nowadays? or at least send a angel or two...anything at all?

And if you're gonna try and answer my question, try and do so without telling me I need faith.
 


<<

<< Whew... I feel honored 😉😛 >>




You should feel honoured! 😛 >>

Well, excuse me for using American English! 😀





<< Anyway, my problem with religion is that god never manifests himself. If you listen to the bible, he regularly helped out folks in the old days (parting the red sea, giving commandments etc), but why do we never see him nowadays? or at least send a angel or two...anything at all? >>


The same issue can be found with most religions.

 
Just thought I'd note an ironic story regarding my missionary "friend." You see, we were friends before I found out how hypocritical, and quite simply evil, she was. One example...

She does not work, so she has to quite literally beg for financial support. Every so often everyone having any involvement with her whatsoever receives and email. In this email, she request prayers for God to deliver money to her. She requests that we please pray that God gives her n dollars so that she can continue to spread the gospel. Now, I ask, why would anyone asking God for something have to ask another human? I find it extremely deceitful. She's says, "it's not your money, it's God's money." When she's in financial need, I guess God suddenly becomes the CPA of the universe. This is why I speak of the spiritual conduit. Why can I not simply have my own relationship with God, a relationship provided to me BY Him without having to affix a label to it? I don't feel that I should have to listen to the musings of others in order to further understand my relationship, nor do I feel I should have to assimilate the beliefs of others simply out of ubiquity.

According to many, I'm going to hell. I feel so fortunate to have others who understand God well enough to make such a judgement call.

Anywho, this in conjunction with the text I read earlier is what sparked this discussion so I thought I'd offer up a story 🙂
 


<<

<< If I were him, I wouldn't want to personally teach billions upon billions of ungrateful brats either. >>




The problem is that god is all powerful. He can create the universe but is unwilling to teach everyone about himself on an individual basis? I won't follow a god who won't do his own dirty work. >>


He is not unwilling. Back in the early days of Christianity, after Jesus had died and risen, he came to his disciples and right before he went back to heaven he told them he was leaving his Spirit with them. What kind of a world do you think we'd live in if God the Father was always coming down in a cloud to tell each and every person about himself? To me, that would seem a bit too much. He left the HS here and his Word here so that we could read about him and through the guidance of the HS and the opening of our hearts we could find him and ask him for forgiveness through Jesus.

Optimus:
You always post things that make me think hard about why I've chosen to not convert to Catholicism. But I still contend that if God didn't want us to read his word and figure it out ourselves we would have no access to it. I agree with a lot of the things that Catholicism says, but not all. I think there are things the Catholic church has said are vital to Christianity that the Bible never states as vital. It seems to me through my studies of the Bible that it says we are saved by having faith in Jesus that He died on the cross taking our sins upon himself, and that no amount of good works will help us get into heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Catholic church doesn't agree with this, so I can't become Catholic.
 
The earth vilently shook and the ground beneath opned with a terrible roar. Out through the fire and brimstone walked the son of the devil himself. and he said unto thee..........."dude you're getting a Dell!"
 


<< The earth vilently shook and the ground beneath opned with a terrible roar. Out through the fire and brimstone walked the son of the devil himself. and he said unto thee..........."dude you're getting a Dell!" >>



I was not expecting that at all, thus I LMAO! 🙂
 


<< What kind of a world do you think we'd live in if God the Father was always coming down in a cloud to tell each and every person about himself? >>



Why does he have to come down from the sky? He's omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. He should be able to appear and disappear as needed. You know, he doesn't even need to do that. All he'd have to do is to materialize a pamphlet about himself to everyone at the same time. Title it "I am God, Hear Me Roar" or something to that extent. Maybe he doesn't even need to do that. It's clear that he can alter mental capacity and memory (like that one story where he makes everyone speak a different language to scatter them). So he could just talk to all 6 billion of us at the same time through his intrinisic telepathic abilities. Now you tell me which one's more effective: 1) an army of door-to-door solicitors, preachers, witnesses or 2) direct neural conversation with everyone?
 
LadyJessica,

I like your thought process... seems like God has not kept up with technological advances... or is it the rigidly defined religions which have not caught up because they base their entire belief system on an ancient book?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

l2c
 
One way to look at it is that our faith is being tested. But then you get back to, what the heck is the point of that if God is all knowing, omnipotent/omnipresent, etc. What is the point of creating pain and misery if he can create pure love. So ultimately we can see that this is really just human sociology at play; people want to feel like they're on the "inside" of something holy, so in order for that to be, everyone else has to be on the outside. Just like high school cliques, religions thrive on exclusivity. That out of the way, there is much that can be be learned from religious texts, so don't completely throw them out the window. When you start to understand what is really being said by Jesus, Buddha, and so forth, the wall will crumble, and you'll find that it's all good, in the highest sense. So, I think it's important not to let the flaws in literal interpretations discourage you from taking the core messages seriously.
 
This is an old issue with Christianity (and probably with other religions I suspect). Some denominations believe the Bible is god's word that communicates directly with people, other denominations believe an interpreter is necessary to translate the god's word to the masses. Before I became an agnostic I used to believe in the former (I used to be Seventh-Day Adventist, a Protestant denomination). Not because I got an answer from 'divine providence' or anything, it just seemed like the letter was too prone to being abused by the church. When the church has the power to dictate the god's word, and people authorize that power, the church practically has unlimited political, social, and economic power. I think Martin Luther saw through the B.S. when he nailed his 95 theses on the church door.
 
Actually God tried direct text once . . . the first Covenant. He gave Moses the original and he fvcked it up. From then on God said . . . I'm paraphrasing b/c I wasn't there . . ."I don't care what you believe just believe in something greater than yourself". I can't think of any religion that doesn't obey this basic tenet. For those so enamored with themselves that they believe in nothing greater than self . . . they live their whole lives as a journey with a end. Believers (in anything) live their whole lives anticipating a new beginning.

The Christian Bible is unlikely to be the inerrant word of God b/c it's various writers disagree. Before any English iterations the first standard Bible was a Latin text, the Vulgate, produced in the 4th-5th centuries. John Wyclif produced an English version from the standard Latin before his death in 1384. He's credited with such expressions as "graven image". The Church decided he svcked, destroyed copies in 1415 and in 1482 dug him up and burned him . . . don't piss off the church. William Tyndale attempted to write a "common man" version but was exhiled in 1520 and subsequently arrested and executed in 1536. He did finish a New Testament "complete with anti-Catholic notes. They were banned in 1525 but by 1535 Henry VIII commissioned Miles Coverdale to produce a Bible. He used Tyndale extensively. The Great Bible was published between 1539-1541 and was the first translation sanctioned by the English Church. Protestant exiles used Tyndale's work to craft the Geneva Bible (1560) during the reign of Catholic Queen Mary. To date it is considered the translation most faithful to the original text. Protestant Queen Elizabeth requested a less-contentious tome which led to the Bishop's Bible (1568) the 2nd official English Bible. Then King James authorized the KJV in 1607 which used mainly the Bishop's Bible but also all other English texts except Wyclif. Today's KJV is shorter than 1611 b/c they omit the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Protestants do not accept them as divinely inspired, while Catholics consider them deuterocanonical (secondary).

Jesus predicted this outcome himself Mark Ch7 . . . (focus 6-13) but the whole chapter is pretty good.

Ref (KJV, "Brush Up Your Bible" M.Macrone)
 
Interesting points there, Descartes. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge they were condemned. Seems that it would take knowledge to correctly interpret the word of God though. Hmm. Paradox?

What better way of conveying information to us than the written word? God supposedly created us. He could have very easily hard-coded into us that he exists. He could have coded our genes to spell it out literally when viewed under a microscope. But instead he leaves writings in cryptic text.

"God don't depend on US. We depend on Him."
So why is he constantly telling us to worship him?
First commandment: No gods other than The Lord.
Second commandment: No images of God; it supposedly degrades him
Third commandment: Improper use of his name.
Fourth commandment: Honor the work God did

God certainly seems to demand a lot of attention from us. If we don't worship Him we are sent to Hell. Sounds like he depends on us for something.


Direct communication would leave us no choice but to believe (or go mad) thereby negating our freedom to choose
It doesn't strip us of freedom any more than saying a tree is green does.


Descartes, your story about the missionary needing money. Heck, Jesus was able to provide divine support in the form of food and drink for people in the desert. Has he just lost his magic touch?

and that no amount of good works will help us get into heaven
Kind of sucks. I still repeat it: someone said that, if Osama bin Laden were to truly convert to Christianity, he'd go to Heaven, while a generous, selfless atheist would go to Hell, despite a life of helping others. Um, how's that again?


BaliBabyDoc, you made another good point in there. Humans have taken God's word and adapted it to suit their own desires. It seems that God is allowing this to continue. I'd be kind of ticked off if people were twisting my teachings to suit themselves and gain followers.
And think of the copyright violations!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top