Church... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-28-2004, 12:58 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

I guess I'm really interested in specifics. For example, I learned that some of the Bible stories I'd been told since birth were incorrect. For example, David didn't hit Goliath in the head with his stone, he shot him in the privates, and when Goliath keeled over in pain, David lopped his head off. The Battle of Jericho most likely never happened, it's just an analogy. The Flood story as told in Genesis is probably a reinterpretation of what we would consider a "pagan" flood story including the pagan god Ba'al. The wise men and shepherds often depicted in Christmas plays and nativity scenes are from two completely different birth narratives, neither of which mention the other. Zaccheus may not have been the "wee little man", it may have been Jesus who was too short to be seen.

Whoa...where do you get the documentation to claim such things? Yes. I do not believe you.
__________________

__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 04:12 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy



Whoa...where do you get the documentation to claim such things? Yes. I do not believe you.
Documentation for what? You don't really need any additional documentation to doubt the Flood story in the Bible since there are other Flood stories similar to the one in the Bible, but are older. You don't need documentation to prove that most Christian nativity scenes and Christmas plays are wrong because they show shepherds and wise men together is wrong b/c in the Bible they never are together - the Bible itself is enough documentation to disprove the common misonception of the Christmas story.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 04:18 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by stammer476


In God's Kingdom, different churches have different roles to play, and it's up to the individual to find which church best gives them what they're looking for. I currently attend a more contemporary church, and I admit that there are times when the music is as mind-numbing as a Britney Spears poetry reading contest, but the way in which people are finding God for the first time in a relevant setting that speaks to their situation is something I'll sacrifice the spritual depth of the hymnal for. But that's just me. My personal worship to God is something I'm in charge of, and I don't need a church with whatever style of worship to make that happen.

We all have different styles and we all have different tastes. Christians are a mixed bunch of nuts, and let's let them have their own flavor. Division over worship styles, power point presentations, the color of the carpet, etc. have divided too many church for too long. Jesus' last words before committing his life to the cross were not, "worship with hymns/bands" or "stick to traditions" but " . . . may they [Christians] be one as we [Jesus and the Father] are one. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:22-23)
Excellent points, especially the last paragraph. The question some people would now ask is why does Christianity/worship have to be relative? I think a lot of traditionalists would argue that our lives should be relevant to Christianty, not Christianity should be relevant to our lives.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 04:39 PM   #49
Refugee
 
stammer476's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,058
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
The question some people would now ask is why does Christianity/worship have to be relative? I think a lot of traditionalists would argue that our lives should be relevant to Christianty, not Christianity should be relevant to our lives.
Deciding that Christianity is relevant depends upon your defintion of Christianity. In its purest sense, Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus as your personal Savior for the forgiveness of your sins. Music styles are just a side piece that builds from your personal relationship with Christ. So as far as I'm concerned, as long as the controversy is not a "salvation issue," it is open to each individual's choice. That is the freedom we have in Christ, to not have to follow an organized religion with its set of rules and regulations, but to follow the teachings of the Bible and worship God the way he has best created us to.

Christianity has always changed and morphed in its approach to remain relevant to each generation. The things that many traditionalists today see as "pure and true Christianity" are simply things that were added to appeal to the generations of the past. Don't forget, the hymns some consider the most true and meaningful methods of worship today were scandelous when they first hit the church pew, and were given many of the same critiques that contemporary worship is given now.

As my pastor once said, when it comes to the church, the methods must change, but the message must stay the same.
__________________
stammer476 is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 05:11 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Documentation for what? You don't really need any additional documentation to doubt the Flood story in the Bible since there are other Flood stories similar to the one in the Bible, but are older. You don't need documentation to prove that most Christian nativity scenes and Christmas plays are wrong because they show shepherds and wise men together is wrong b/c in the Bible they never are together - the Bible itself is enough documentation to disprove the common misonception of the Christmas story.
Well you weren't questioning christmas nativity scenes or plays in your first post, you were questioning the Bible and that is where I question you.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 05:13 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
Well you weren't questioning christmas nativity scenes or plays in your first post, you were questioning the Bible and that is where I question you.
Please...no need to be dramatic. You were the one who made inflammatory comments about 9/11 back in 2001, and I think a lot of people questioned what was going on in your head.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 06:17 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:53 AM
I wish I remembered my comments from back then. I'm sure I have a slight idea as to what they were about but I truly don't remember. I have had some growing up to do since 2001 that I still need to carry on with.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-28-2004, 07:27 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


Well you weren't questioning christmas nativity scenes or plays in your first post, you were questioning the Bible and that is where I question you.
I'm not sure what exactly you're refering to. If you can quote the post you're thinking of I can explain myself better.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 03:55 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

I guess I'm really interested in specifics. For example, I learned that some of the Bible stories I'd been told since birth were incorrect. For example, David didn't hit Goliath in the head with his stone, he shot him in the privates, and when Goliath keeled over in pain, David lopped his head off. The Battle of Jericho most likely never happened, it's just an analogy. The Flood story as told in Genesis is probably a reinterpretation of what we would consider a "pagan" flood story including the pagan god Ba'al. The wise men and shepherds often depicted in Christmas plays and nativity scenes are from two completely different birth narratives, neither of which mention the other. Zaccheus may not have been the "wee little man", it may have been Jesus who was too short to be seen.

all of ...that.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 08:52 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


all of ...that.
and what's so traumatic about what I said? I'm not sure what you're getting at...I never said the Bible was false. I'm not really sure what other explainations I can give. David didn't hit Goliath in the head with the stone, it's only our modern translations that mistranslate the original word. Jericho never fell at the time described in the Bible (it fell a few times due to earthquakes I believe) and carbon dating proves this so I was recently taught that it's commonly accepted that the story of Jericho's fall is an allagory or metaphor. The Flood story in Genesis is probably a re-write of the epic of Gilgamesh or both of these were interpretations of a third, older source. I already mentioned Jesus' birth narratives.

EDIT: I believe in the infallibility, not inerrancy, of the Scriptures.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 09:41 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Alright...thanks for explaining.

Cheers
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 10:13 PM   #57
Refugee
 
stammer476's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,058
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
I guess I'm really interested in specifics. For example, I learned that some of the Bible stories I'd been told since birth were incorrect. For example, David didn't hit Goliath in the head with his stone, he shot him in the privates, and when Goliath keeled over in pain, David lopped his head off. The Battle of Jericho most likely never happened, it's just an analogy. The Flood story as told in Genesis is probably a reinterpretation of what we would consider a "pagan" flood story including the pagan god Ba'al. The wise men and shepherds often depicted in Christmas plays and nativity scenes are from two completely different birth narratives, neither of which mention the other. Zaccheus may not have been the "wee little man", it may have been Jesus who was too short to be seen.
Sorry, Lies. I can't help you here. I'm a seminary graduate and I've never even HEARD of these explanations. I've gone through my share of liberal scholarship, but I'd go back and check sources before I'd stand behind some these examples. The ones that stick out the most to me: Jesus being the short one, not Zaccheus; Goliath getting hit in the groin. Just for your sake, I'll ask a Hebrew professor-friend of mine about the last one, but it would be new to me.

Quote:
I believe in the infallibility, not inerrancy, of the Scriptures.
I'm not challenging this statement at all. I'm just honestly curious: what is the difference? If something is infallible, is it not inerrant? Or are you just saying that you believe the intent of the Scriptures or the original documentation of the Bible is inerrant, not the present version we have today?
__________________
stammer476 is offline  
Old 03-29-2004, 11:21 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by stammer476


I'm not challenging this statement at all. I'm just honestly curious: what is the difference? If something is infallible, is it not inerrant? Or are you just saying that you believe the intent of the Scriptures or the original documentation of the Bible is inerrant, not the present version we have today?
what type of seminary did you go to? I'm not saying that with a negative tone, I'd really like to know. I go to a private college, Christian Reformed (Calvinist) with the main Christian Reformed seminary. Infallibility vs. inerrancy is something I've been taught since grade school and when it comes up in theology lecture here, we laugh b/c we have to suffer through learning it AGAIN.

Calvinism is a denomination that believes in the infallibility of Scripture - that it is the complete truth on everything it claims to be the truth on. For example, the stories in the Bible are not all correct scientific fact, but they are in the Bible for a purpose and message that is true. For example, say Jericho never fell as it did in the Bible. The story is infallibly true because it's proof that God does have the power to knock down a city. Calvinists use the doctrine of infallibility because we believe that scripture and science complement, not contradict, each other.

Inerrancy, however, is the belief that EVERYTHING in the Bible is 100% fact.

As for Goliath getting hit in the groin, we learned that in some Biblical theology class but my prof. was an ordained Presby minister. I believe she said the word we use as "head" or "forehead" was often used in the slang of that time to mean the groin area. All of the guys in the class agreed that it makes much more sense for Goliath to get hit in his groin, a region not traditionally protected my armor, and then double over in pain so David could chop of his head. I think our Prof. said besides the translation of the word, if Goliath was wearing his armor, he would've had a helmet on, and no little stone could really knock him out. But again, as a Calvinist I believe in the infallibility of scripture and the point here is that if the litte man is on God's side, he can defeat the big man against all odds. The details don't change the way I interpret the purpose of the story.

As for Zaccheus, I have no proof on that one, it was more for humor's sake. That arguement came up in a history lecture where some Prof. commented that the way the verse is worded in the Bible (the newer English translations at least, NIV I'm assuming) is actually unclear on who is the "wee" man.

Hope I explained those ok.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 04:28 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:53 AM
Yeah, what Stamer476 said was my initial reaction. Most of the things you claimed to be as true are only assumptions.

Cheers
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-30-2004, 04:40 PM   #60
War Child
 
iacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Bootleg's claims aren't assumptions any more than Stammer's are. There are many different ways to translate a text.

My own understanding falls in line with Bootleg's. The OT is loaded with allegory and myth.
__________________

__________________
iacrobat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com