Do Fundies all practice what they preach?

[WendigoAgogo]

3 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

@WendigoAgogo, I never characterized any of your post as being unfair. Yes, I do think it was denigrating, at least at the end. Even that doesn't bother me, I know we have all sorts of beliefs or not here. That is my point. You are new, and can say whatever your heart desires, but the culture is such here that we aren't divided by personal beliefs. I guess I am talking about respect for the beliefs of others, that's all. Unless its crazy fundamentalism of course, then have at it! Welcome to FJ, I mean that. 

I tend to take people at their word so when you accused me of denigration I believed that you meant it quite literally. I believed you genuinely felt I had sullied, defamed, or attacked your character and beliefs in some way, and said things that were unfair.  I don't believe that I did those things and it certainly wasn't my intent.

I was raised to never question biblical teachings and to view critical thinking as the pathway to hell. I failed at that as a child and I still do. If you view me questioning my beliefs and the beliefs of others as disrespectful then I 'm not sure where we go from here. I question everything constantly. I am also willing to change my point of view when presented with convincing evidence that can be proven. Otherwise, everything else falls into the realm of 'What if'. That's the best I can do.  Obviously what I had to say struck a sour note with you.  I can absolutely respect your right to feel bothered by it and I do. Thank you for the welcome. and have a great day. =)

13 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

And, welcome, @WendigoAgogo.

 

 

Thank you so much.

[SilverBeach]

3 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

@SilverBeach, I thought @WendigoAgogo's post was fine.  I saw a series of rhetorical questions and not denigration.  

Lengthy discussions and debates about religious beliefs have always happened here.  Interestingly, we seem have more people who identify as Christian (and sometimes even as Fundie) than we did in the old days.  There have been plenty of heated debates here over the years too.

I'm an atheist. I'm very critical of some aspects of Christianity and extreme Fundamentalism in general.   I try to limit my criticism to what I think are ugly beliefs and erroneous teachings.  I don't mock or attack other member's faith or get personal about it.  Neither did the post you are objecting to.

My oft stated mantra is that I try to respect true faith if I see it - even when I do not share that faith.  It is hypocrisy I can't stand.

And, welcome, @WendigoAgogo.

 

And that's what makes FJ wonderful. Mileages vary. Of course, as an atheist, she said nothing that you would personally find denigrating. I haven't seen any lengthy debates about personal beliefs in the year or so I have been active.

There was indeed some mocking in the post, perhaps we differ on the definition of mocking. We will have to agree to disagree because tone is interpreted differently by different people depending on their perspective.

Look, I'm very critical of some aspects of atheism, but I respect those who are sincere, as do you. I am not here to defend my personal beliefs or question the beliefs of others. To each her own.

Welcome aboard again, @WendigoAgogo.

[SilverBeach]

3 minutes ago, WendigoAgogo said:

I was raised to never question biblical teachings and to view critical thinking as the pathway to hell. I failed at that as a child and I still do. If you view me questioning my beliefs and the beliefs of others as disrespectful then I 'm not sure where we go from here. I question everything constantly. I am also willing to change my point of view when presented with convincing evidence that can be proven. Otherwise, everything else falls into the realm of 'What if'. That's the best I can do.  Obviously what I had to say struck a sour note with you.  I can absolutely respect your right to feel bothered by it and I do. Thank you for the welcome. and have a great day. =)

Thank you so much.

I see where you are coming from. Suffice it to say that I am not a bible literalist. Nor am I a traditional Christian. Questioning is fine, I do it all the time. Many of us are on a spiritual journey here, I sure am. 

I don't want to hijack or derail but I do want to address the specifics of your post, which I will do in a PM. Don't worry, I'm about as far from a proselytizing/evangelizing person as you can get, but I do have a theological perspective you may appreciate. I do not believe that the bible is inerrant, some would say I am a heretic but that matters not to me. 

My welcome to you is sincere, you seem thoughtful and will be an asset to the board.

[louisa05]

5 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

I see where you are coming from. Suffice it to say that I am not a bible literalist. Nor am I a traditional Christian. Questioning is fine, I do it all the time. Many of us are on a spiritual journey here, I sure am. 

I don't want to hijack or derail but I do want to address the specifics of your post, which I will do in a PM. Don't worry, I'm about as far from a proselytizing/evangelizing person as you can get, but I do have a theological perspective you may appreciate. I do not believe that the bible is inerrant, some would say I am a heretic but that matters not to me. 

My welcome to you is sincere, you seem thoughtful and will be an asset to the board.

As a Catholic, I don't believe the Bible is an instruction book for daily life. It absolutely is no such thing. That is the first problem I had with the post. 

I actually just finished reading an interesting book on the Bible called "Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties". One of the first points the author makes is that the Bible is not an instruction book. He also points out that just because the Bible records it that does not mean that it endorses it. Then there is the problem of genres--there are many in the Bible. Then there is the matter of context and authorship--the Old Testament, for example, was written by ancient people who lacked a modern understanding of the world. 

The issues the poster brings up are indeed a unresolvable if you insist that every word is absolutely literal and that it is intended to be a manual for daily living and ignore things like genre and context. But that kind of fundamentalist interpretation is not the only one nor has it been the predominant one in the history of Christianity. 

[SilverBeach]

@louisa05, not to mention the issue of translations of translations, and interpretations of translations!  The bible is not really a book, it is a library of books, the authorship of many being questionable. Even what's canon and what's not is a debate. I posted elsewhere how much simplistic bible understanding, spoken like gospel truth (see what I did there?) annoys me.

[louisa05]

Just now, SilverBeach said:

@louisa05, not to mention the issue of translations of translations, and interpretations of translations!  The bible is not really a book, it is a library of books, the authorship of many being questionable. Even what's canon and what's not is a debate. I posted elsewhere how much simplistic bible understanding, spoken like gospel truth (see what I did there?) annoys me.

It is why sola scriptura makes no sense to me. 

(Also, Protestants have traditions whether they want to admit it or not). 

 

[SilverBeach]

Just now, louisa05 said:

It is why sola scriptura makes no sense to me. 

(Also, Protestants have traditions whether they want to admit it or not). 

 

You have a point, I am not a good Protestant because I don't really believe in sola scriptura. That turns a book into an idol, as far as I am concerned. Sometimes, spiritual things must be discerned spiritually.

Not sure I understand your traditions comment.

[raised in rebellion]

@WendigoAgogo You might like this story. 

Am I posting links right? They look screwy on my phone...

[louisa05]

Just now, SilverBeach said:

You have a point, I am not a good Protestant because I don't really believe in sola scriptura. That turns a book into an idol, as far as I am concerned. Sometimes, spiritual things must be discerned spiritually.

Not sure I understand your traditions comment.

Being Catholic, we believe that theology, doctrine and practice is based on both scripture and tradition. The Protestant mainline denominations I grew up around (I did not grow up Catholic and we moved often and lived in small rural communities that would typically only have one or two churches, so we attended many different denominations) taught quite uniformly that tradition has no place in church either in theology/doctrine or practices. It may have been emphasized because of some anti-Catholic sentiment that was probably rooted in the arrival in this state of larger numbers of Catholics immigrating from eastern Europe after towns were established and dominated by Protestant European immigrants and homesteaders from the eastern U.S. Even 100 years later, there was a strain in some of these communities between the Catholic descendants of Eastern European immigrants and the Protestant descendants of those who got there first. 

So I constantly heard growing up that Protestants don't have tradition and don't have liturgy. That both mean a church is "dead". 

Except they do have traditions and they do have liturgy. They just refuse to call it that. It is "just the way we do things" or some such thing. 

[WendigoAgogo]

57 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

As a Catholic, I don't believe the Bible is an instruction book for daily life. It absolutely is no such thing. That is the first problem I had with the post. 

I actually just finished reading an interesting book on the Bible called "Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties". One of the first points the author makes is that the Bible is not an instruction book. He also points out that just because the Bible records it that does not mean that it endorses it. Then there is the problem of genres--there are many in the Bible. Then there is the matter of context and authorship--the Old Testament, for example, was written by ancient people who lacked a modern understanding of the world. 

The issues the poster brings up are indeed a unresolvable if you insist that every word is absolutely literal and that it is intended to be a manual for daily living and ignore things like genre and context. But that kind of fundamentalist interpretation is not the only one nor has it been the predominant one in the history of Christianity. 

I am a former Catholic. It has no bearing really but since you mentioned it..

That book sounds like something I'd be interested to read so thank you for mentioning it. My lack of belief doesn't prevent me from studying it as I still find it all pretty fascinating.

I am inclined to agree that it isn't an instruction book though other denominations treat it as such.

Interesting point about recording not meaning endorsing. It seems that, as most things religious, is up to ones interpretation or what one was taught. For instance Republican Rep. Jon Hubbard, Pat Buchannan, and Michelle Bachman, just to name a few, all believe that slavery was good and that the bible firmly supports it.  While I find the idea reprehensible, I also believe the bible was unfortunately vague on the matter.

What do you mean when you say there are many genres in the bible? Initially I thought you meant many as in different versions but your use of the word "in" makes me thing otherwise. Would you mind explaining?

If scripture is the word of god and god knows all, the fact that those who wrote it down were from an ancient time should have no bearing. A god who is omniscient is surely capable of ensuring that his word  is clearly understood by all and that it stands the test of time.

If you choose not to take scripture as the literal word of god, how do you determine which portions are meant to be taken literally and which are meant to merely be a loose example or suggestion? Where in the bible do you find instructions on how to make this determination?

It is true that fundamentalist interpretation is not the only one. I don't believe I claimed otherwise.  The bible has been interpreted in so many ways it's difficult to tally accurately and that's not counting its offshoots. They all have one thing in common though much like the Qur'an, Torah, Book of Mormon, and Satanic Bible etc. They're all the only one that is correct. I actually think they all have some valuable tidbits. In fact the Fundies would do well to take a page from the Satanic Bible as it pertains to intimacy and consent. They're they only ones in my view who've managed to get that bit exactly right.
 

 

 

[louisa05]

@WendigoAgogo Genre = a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.

The Bible contains poetry, allegory, narratives, history, epistles (letters), etc... We can't read Genesis the same way we read the Psalms or read the Psalms the same way we read the epistles. 

It is also important to note that the way history was written in ancient times and the way history is written today are extremely different. Ancient historians, both in the Bible and in other sources, did not focus on the factual interpretation of events based on verifiable sources the way historians do today. 

The book I mentioned is by Trent Horn. It is from a very conservative viewpoint and I did not agree with every point, but as a convert I found it to be a very informative look at not only the issue at hand but at how the Bible is interpreted in Catholicism. 

The fact that the Bible was written by ancient people in the context of their own time is inescapable. God's omniscience does not eliminate the limitations of the writers unless you believe (as I think some fundies do) that "inspired" means that the humans who wrote it were merely taking cosmic dictation. The Catholic church and most mainline Protestant churches have never made that claim. 

As for determining what is literal and what is not...genre plays a part in that. Poetry is not literal. Allegory is not literal. What is the origin and context of the book in question? The Catholic Bible has 73 books; Protestants recognize 66 of those, and we can't just interpret them all the exact same way. And, yes, there are no instructions within it. BUT no writer of a scriptural text was setting out to write scripture. (As an aside, that means that when scripture is referenced in the New Testament, the reference is to OT Hebrew scripture, not those writers' own texts). So they also weren't giving directions as to how to interpret scripture. That is where tradition and study comes in. 

 

 

 

[WendigoAgogo]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

@WendigoAgogo Genre = a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.

The Bible contains poetry, allegory, narratives, history, epistles (letters), etc... We can't read Genesis the same way we read the Psalms or read the Psalms the same way we read the epistles. 

It is also important to note that the way history was written in ancient times and the way history is written today are extremely different. Ancient historians, both in the Bible and in other sources, did not focus on the factual interpretation of events based on verifiable sources the way historians do today. 

The book I mentioned is by Trent Horn. It is from a very conservative viewpoint and I did not agree with every point, but as a convert I found it to be a very informative look at not only the issue at hand but at how the Bible is interpreted in Catholicism. 

The fact that the Bible was written by ancient people in the context of their own time is inescapable. God's omniscience does not eliminate the limitations of the writers unless you believe (as I think some fundies do) that "inspired" means that the humans who wrote it were merely taking cosmic dictation. The Catholic church and most mainline Protestant churches have never made that claim. 

As for determining what is literal and what is not...genre plays a part in that. Poetry is not literal. Allegory is not literal. What is the origin and context of the book in question? The Catholic Bible has 73 books; Protestants recognize 66 of those, and we can't just interpret them all the exact same way. And, yes, there are no instructions within it. BUT no writer of a scriptural text was setting out to write scripture. (As an aside, that means that when scripture is referenced in the New Testament, the reference is to OT Hebrew scripture, not those writers' own texts). So they also weren't giving directions as to how to interpret scripture. That is where tradition and study comes in. 

 

 

 

Preaching to the choir so to speak. Former Catholic remember?

By defining "Genre" you've confirmed something I already knew. Especially since it means 'a category characterized by similarities' but in the very next breath you say in essence that they cannot all be read the same as they are all different. I'm pretty sure I grasp your meaning regardless, based on your entire response. I didn't want to jump to any conclusions earlier.

It sounds like you're saying that the bible is not the immutable word of god after all but merely a book written by historians. If that's the case, then we are in agreement. I look at it in similar fashion to the Aesops Fables I enjoyed as a child. It's a book full of creative stories meant to teach us some things of value and that's it. Nobody can argue "Thou Shalt Not Kill' for example, but it hardly takes divine intervention to figure that out. When a child kills a gold fish accidentally, they know something bad happened without having to be told.

I doubt I'll agree with everything Mr. Horn has to say either but that wont stop me. I'm looking forward to it.

You wrote; "God's omniscience does not eliminate the limitations of the writers unless you believe (as I think some fundies do) that "inspired" means that the humans who wrote it were merely taking cosmic dictation."  

The bible is said to be a divine inspiration by many. What you've stated here would seem to be in direct conflict with what the bible itself says.  In 2 Peter 1.21 it says, 'Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God'. Corinthians makes mention of the bible being, "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit". Deuteronomy mentions  god himself making 'a proclamation' via Moses. Isaiah mentions  God himself predicting what would come to pass and having it writ down by way of prophecy. None of these things seem to support the idea that the bible was limited to the abilities of ancient writers with limited language and the inability to see into the future.  Instead it seems to put forth rather clearly that the words written are direct quotations from the god/the holy spirit. I'm not arguing for either side, just point out discrepancies.

Once again we come down to whether or not the bible is to be viewed as poetry and allegory written by simple men from a simpler time, or proclamations and prophecies 'Spoke from God' himself to those who wrote it down. Tradition and study isn't saying a whole lot when you examine it closely. All it really means in this case is that in the 4th century some people came to an agreement over the intent and meaning in this book and we decided long ago that they were correct. Those same also decided to omit certain passages from the bible based on their personal best interest, making those omissions and the resulting misunderstandings and confusion part of that tradition. How different would things be if they hadn't removed The Gnostic Gospels; the Gospels of Thomas, The Gospels of the Lord, The Gospels of Mary, The Gospels of the Pistis Sophia, and the Coptic Gospels? It's like an opera with no overture.

 

[louisa05]

You aren't grasping genre. 

Some of the Bible is poetry (Psalms for example). Some is allegory (Job). Some are letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, etc...). Some are histories but written by ancient historians that did not hold to the standards of modern history (Judges for example). The Gospels are essentially biographical narrative--again written by people who did not write in the historical standards of modern times. Matthew did not use footnotes or give us a bibliography. 

I did not contradict myself in anything I wrote about that. 

The notion of divine dictation is not implied in the passages you cite. Because there was no divine dictation (The Holy Spirit was not whispering in anyone's ear or moving anyone's pen), the limitations of the understanding of the time are evident in the text. The creation narratives are the perfect example of this. The story itself is based on the understanding of the time. The explanation of seas and sky make no sense based on modern science. But that is also not the point of the passage. What are we to learn from those narratives that is inspired and the immutable word of God? Not that the sky is some sort of dome. We know that is not true. We are to learn that all things were created by God. Does that mean man was made of dust on the sixth day? No. But that is not the main point. 

It requires a lot more sophistication of understanding than a fundamentalist interpretation allows for. And you say that you do not believe that a fundamentalist interpretation is the only one, yet you are using one. 

 

[Cleopatra7]

On 9/23/2016 at 9:15 PM, WendigoAgogo said:

Preaching to the choir so to speak. Former Catholic remember?

By defining "Genre" you've confirmed something I already knew. Especially since it means 'a category characterized by similarities' but in the very next breath you say in essence that they cannot all be read the same as they are all different. I'm pretty sure I grasp your meaning regardless, based on your entire response. I didn't want to jump to any conclusions earlier.

It sounds like you're saying that the bible is not the immutable word of god after all but merely a book written by historians. If that's the case, then we are in agreement. I look at it in similar fashion to the Aesops Fables I enjoyed as a child. It's a book full of creative stories meant to teach us some things of value and that's it. Nobody can argue "Thou Shalt Not Kill' for example, but it hardly takes divine intervention to figure that out. When a child kills a gold fish accidentally, they know something bad happened without having to be told.

I doubt I'll agree with everything Mr. Horn has to say either but that wont stop me. I'm looking forward to it.

You wrote; "God's omniscience does not eliminate the limitations of the writers unless you believe (as I think some fundies do) that "inspired" means that the humans who wrote it were merely taking cosmic dictation."  

The bible is said to be a divine inspiration by many. What you've stated here would seem to be in direct conflict with what the bible itself says.  In 2 Peter 1.21 it says, 'Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God'. Corinthians makes mention of the bible being, "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit". Deuteronomy mentions  god himself making 'a proclamation' via Moses. Isaiah mentions  God himself predicting what would come to pass and having it writ down by way of prophecy. None of these things seem to support the idea that the bible was limited to the abilities of ancient writers with limited language and the inability to see into the future.  Instead it seems to put forth rather clearly that the words written are direct quotations from the god/the holy spirit. I'm not arguing for either side, just point out discrepancies.

Once again we come down to whether or not the bible is to be viewed as poetry and allegory written by simple men from a simpler time, or proclamations and prophecies 'Spoke from God' himself to those who wrote it down. Tradition and study isn't saying a whole lot when you examine it closely. All it really means in this case is that in the 4th century some people came to an agreement over the intent and meaning in this book and we decided long ago that they were correct. Those same also decided to omit certain passages from the bible based on their personal best interest, making those omissions and the resulting misunderstandings and confusion part of that tradition. How different would things be if they hadn't removed The Gnostic Gospels; the Gospels of Thomas, The Gospels of the Lord, The Gospels of Mary, The Gospels of the Pistis Sophia, and the Coptic Gospels? It's like an opera with no overture.

 

I think it's worth mentioning that the concept of Biblical inerrancy, one of the guiding principles of American Protestant fundies, is less than 200 years old. Until the Reformation, scholars always read certain passages as allegorical; even Augustine of Hippo said that the Genesis account of creation shouldn't be taken literally, because the idea of the world being created in six days would make pagans laugh at Christianity. Once the Reformation occurred, the sola scriptura stance was developed as a way of jettisoning things like Purgatory, the various Marian cults, the monastic life, etc., but Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al still wouldn't have been believers in Biblical inerrancy as commonly understood today. Like the Quiverfull movement, Biblical inerrancy is a distinctively modern concept that is in response to modern concerns, and is not characteristic of Christian beliefs or practices in the pre-modern or early modern periods.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 23/9/2016 at 11:19 PM, louisa05 said:

It is why sola scriptura makes no sense to me. 

(Also, Protestants have traditions whether they want to admit it or not). 

 

As a former cradle Catholic I don't have a good opinion of tradition and I can understand why Protestant denominations want to underline that they have nothing to do with THAT tradition. After all the RCC has only tradition to justify concepts like purgatory, Mary and the saints as intercessors, indulgences, women's exclusion from priesthood and from ecclesiastical hierarchy, apparitions, immaculate conception and many other concepts that are fundamental to the RCC but that are nowhere to be seen in the bible.

What I meant to say is that I find unquestioned acceptance of tradition as much as problematic as bible inerrancy as is interpreted by fundies.

[louisa05]

9 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

As a former cradle Catholic I don't have a good opinion of tradition and I can understand why Protestant denominations want to underline that they have nothing to do with THAT tradition. After all the RCC has only tradition to justify concepts like purgatory, Mary and the saints as intercessors, indulgences, women's exclusion from priesthood and from ecclesiastical hierarchy, apparitions, immaculate conception and many other concepts that are fundamental to the RCC but that are nowhere to be seen in the bible.

What I meant to say is that I find unquestioned acceptance of tradition as much as problematic as bible inerrancy as is interpreted by fundies.

Purgatory is mentioned without the name in one of the OT books Protestants removed.

Did I say tradition cannot be questioned? I  pretty sure I did not since I do not believe that. It would be odd to say something I do not believe.

[fundiefan]

So, "true believer" never made it back to answer any questions. 

I guess that one day was boring at home and someone wanted a new place to play.

[CyborgKin]

On 9/24/2016 at 5:36 AM, WendigoAgogo said:

So many questions. How do you follow a guidebook to life so to speak, that is missing chapters and so full of contradictions?

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
 

How does one let their light shine in order that people can see it while simultaneously hiding it and keeping it a secret so that only god knows what you've been up to? Even Houdini couldn't have pulled this one off.
 

According to the bible, you should judge all things, but also judge nothing until the lord comes. So its for THE LORD to judge unless you decide you are spiritual in which case, judge your little heart out. In fact, judge EVERYTHING.  Que????

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

If you decide you are dealing with a fool, since you can make that judgment being a spiritual person but also not make that judgment at all, do you answer not the fool in question or go ahead and answer him?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

 

It appears that Judas rose from the dead just like Jesus so why isn't that discussed in greater detail? I mean, the man died twice for crying out loud! Surely the fact that he hung himself and also imploded is worthy of more than just a brief mention? If somebody hung himself and then came back and suddenly had his bowels gushing out in front of me, I can't imagine I'd shrug that off so casually!

"And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." (MAT 27:5)

"Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

 

Are we all hopeless sinners, or not? I can see why people go for the "We're all disgusting sinners" angle as that gives you a much better position from which to control people. Still, are we, or aren't we?
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

Was it really gods intention for us to live life feeling like unworthy, judgmental sinners? Talk about setting a person up to be a depressed failure. Why would he send himself to earth in order for himself to die for us in order to save us from himself when we were made in his image? Is it because he too is a judgmental sinner? I can't speak to the sin aspect, but he sure was judgmental. Have you ever noticed how many people he killed in the bible? He was getting his smite on from day one. Also, what's with the cruel pranks? 'Hey you, kill your child". ' No wait, haha just kidding.'

What really gets me is that god killed hundreds of thousand of people in the bible and satan only told someone to eat an apple and killed about ten people total but he's the bad guy in the story? Wouldn't it be interesting if we had it all backwards? I mean satan is given credit for leading folks astray in every way possible and doing all manner of horrible things. Wouldn't it blow your mind if the satan of the bible was actually god and the biblical god was actually satan?

That would explain the deliberate obfuscation, the swath of dead left in his wake, terrorizing people by making them thing they have to kill their children, and so forth.  Imagine judgement day comes and god says, "How on earth was he able to fool so many of you with a poorly written book? Look at the things that book lead you to justify and do? You used that book to subjugate and abuse women and children, justify wars, ignore the poor, judge each other mercilessly, slowly destroy this wonderful planet I gave you, and all other manner of awfulness. You spent your entire life feeling unworthy despite the obvious greatness that is the gift of my creations and you sincerely thought you were doing the work of a kind and loving god?  Despite the constant inner conflict you still chose to keep following this guy? Even when it made no sense whatsoever? You gotta be kidding me! Seriously?"

I could do this all day. So many questions...

 

I hope you don't mind if I have a go.

Matthew 5 vs Matthew 6: I think this is telling us on the one hand we can't hide away and keep our faith to ourselves, but on the other hand it's not about drawing attention to ourselves but to God.

1 cor 2 vs 1 cor 4: different kinds of judging.  Looking at the amplified version to pick up some of the nuance:But the spiritual man tries all things [he examines, investigates, inquires into, questions, and discerns all things], yet is himself to be put on trial and judged by no one [he can read the meaning of everything, but no one can properly discern or appraise or get an insight into him].
1 Corinthians 2:15 AMPC

That's why it says 'make judgments about all things' rather than 'judge all things'.  It's not the 'be a judge' kind of judgement in chapter 2.

Proverbs 26: you need to your your judgement to determine which instruction applies to a given situation.  Sometimes there's no point in getting involved as you'd just get brought down the the fool's level and he'd remain unteachable, at other times a fool just needs to get told and just might actually get the point.

Also, do you really think the writer was so dumb as to accidentally contradict himself in adjacent sentences?  No, it's clearly a rhetorical device.

Judas and the field
when the priests bought the field with Judas's money they technically bought the field on his behalf so he kinda bought the field.  Cos they couldn't put that money back in the temple treasury.  So Judas didn't go and buy the field in person (and likely didn't know about the field at all) so he only died once.  As for the body bursting maybe he was hanging around for a while before anyone noticed so... well the situation got messy.

As for the are we sinners or are we not, 1 John 3:9 is talking about those 'born of God'.  They were just as much sinners as all other people but have now been transformed and freed.  Such people would have to know that Ecc 7:20 and 1 John 1:8 were talking about them as they once were.

Quote

 

Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Mt 9:10‭-‬13 NKJV

 

Of course the Pharisees were just as much sinners as the others but they didn't want to admit that so they wouldn't be willing to listen to any calls to repentance.  (Though a few did.)

Quote

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Ro 5:8‭-‬11 NKJV

We have to know we are sinners to repent of sin, but being God's enemies doesn't prevent Him from going to extreme lengths to save and reconcile with us.

Quote

that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it  is the gift of God, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Eph 2:7‭-‬8‭, ‬10 NKJV

So I don't think the message of the Bible should leave us in a state of depressed failure.

[ChairmanMeow]

 

13 hours ago, fundiefan said:

So, "true believer" never made it back to answer any questions. 

I guess that one day was boring at home and someone wanted a new place to play.

Or...she couldn't answer the questions!

[feministxtian]

I see the OP has not returned in 6 weeks...interesting....

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, feministxtian said:

 

I see the OP has not returned in 6 weeks...interesting....

 

But not surprising and very typical, alas. 

[ladyamylynn]

3 hours ago, feministxtian said:

I see the OP has not returned in 6 weeks...interesting....

Aww, I wanted to play with the fundie. 

[devoe364]

On 9/23/2016 at 3:19 PM, louisa05 said:

It is why sola scriptura makes no sense to me. 

(Also, Protestants have traditions whether they want to admit it or not). 

 

I disagree. Not all Protestants do. Anglicans or Episcopalians are classified as Protestants, we do not follow sola scripture, at least not in the way that Fundies and other Protestant groups do. Lutherans are typically very similar. 

http://www.virtueonline.org/sola-scriptura-and-anglican-way-gavin-dunbar

[ladyamylynn]

14 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I disagree. Not all Protestants do. Anglicans or Episcopalians are classified as Protestants, we do not follow sola scripture, at least not in the way that Fundies and other Protestant groups do. Lutherans are typically very similar. 

http://www.virtueonline.org/sola-scriptura-and-anglican-way-gavin-dunbar

She was saying they have traditions, not that they follow Sola Scriptura.

[feministxtian]

3 hours ago, ladyamylynn said:

Aww, I wanted to play with the fundie. 

Me too...I need a new hobby. The morons on Christian Forums are becoming less fun and more idiotic by the day.