english catholics to american evangelicals: Bible not literally true - Page 3 - 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 10-09-2005, 02:28 PM   #31
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
We've been through all this before. It is far easier to follow God your own way when you get to rip out the pages you don't like.
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I understand where you are coming from and see how we've taken different paths to Christ.
nb, I am curious...why are you willing to grant the existence of "different paths to Christ" for the latter case but not the former?
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 02:50 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
nb, I am curious...why are you willing to grant the existence of "different paths to Christ" for the latter case but not the former?
I think a couple of things may explain the statements. First, I must go under the assumption that when someone makes the initial declaration that they are a believer in Jesus Christ; I am not in a position to say "no you are not". Only God knows their heart.

Now, it may be subsequently revealed that the Jesus Christ they declare is not the Jesus from Scripture. That is a far deeper process than occurs here.

Another factor will be the portion of Scripture we are discussing. In the context of our recent discussion, no where in Scripture is justification tied to whether or not women have authority over men in the church. But God hasn't just given us the keys to justification, but a larger body of material that we are to use to guide our lives as believers. I think God would want us to earnestly grapple with the things that contradict our instincts or natural desires.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 02:57 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 08:39 AM
What do you grapple with, Crusader?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 03:07 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Martin Luther decided there were several books in the Old Testament he didn't like. Actually, of course, he was choosing the Jerusalem canon over the Alexandrian canon. There are passages in the Alexandrian canon, II Macabees to be precise, that refer to praying for the dead and Purgatory, which is why we accept these in the Catholic Church. But, the whole canon thing confuses me. Why consider one canon the Word of God and not the other one? Any comments on this?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 05:53 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Martin Luther decided there were several books in the Old Testament he didn't like. Actually, of course, he was choosing the Jerusalem canon over the Alexandrian canon. There are passages in the Alexandrian canon, II Macabees to be precise, that refer to praying for the dead and Purgatory, which is why we accept these in the Catholic Church. But, the whole canon thing confuses me. Why consider one canon the Word of God and not the other one? Any comments on this?
As a side note, I've often questioned whether II Maccabees truly explains the Catholic idea of purgatory (in reality, it does not; it's actually a description of the traditional Jewish / Sadducceean idea of the afterlife, "Sheol," which has more in common with the ancient Greek concept of "Hades") or whether it was merely an excuse to cover up the fact that we borrowed the basic concept of "purgatory" from Zoroastrianism ("Hamistigan"; place where those equally good and evil are frozen in stone until the coming of the Saoshayant ["Savior/Messiah"]). In fact, I would bet that "purgatory" is yet another "gift" to Christianity from my favorite Manicheanist heretic cum "Christian father," St. Augustine. Manicheanism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-09-2005, 07:42 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


As a side note, I've often questioned whether II Maccabees truly explains the Catholic idea of purgatory (in reality, it does not; it's actually a description of the traditional Jewish / Sadducceean idea of the afterlife, "Sheol," which has more in common with the ancient Greek concept of "Hades") or whether it was merely an excuse to cover up the fact that we borrowed the basic concept of "purgatory" from Zoroastrianism ("Hamistigan"; place where those equally good and evil are frozen in stone until the coming of the Saoshayant ["Savior/Messiah"]). In fact, I would bet that "purgatory" is yet another "gift" to Christianity from my favorite Manicheanist heretic cum "Christian father," St. Augustine. Manicheanism was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism.

Melon
Yes, Augustine was a Manichean before he became a Christian. It could be that he carried over some of his ideas. There's no doubt that Judaism and Christianity were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 07:46 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Ah there's truth and there's truth, isn't there. Couldn't be arsed grappling with this thread but I heard the soundbite version of the story and that's enough for me. I now live in soundbites because I am a falling-down drunk, it's more efficient that way.

I doubt very much any english catholics actually said the bible isn't literally true, it's probably more that they said the truth needs to be understood in historical context, or somesuch commonsense thing. Good guess, yes?
Yeah. So, um, hmmm.

sounds of the crickets
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 12:37 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
What do you grapple with, Crusader?
With many things, especially with years of bible studies.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:12 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Of course there's scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. We all know that God is limited by the universal laws he created!
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:18 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
Of course there's scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. We all know that God is limited by the universal laws he created!


this is potentially a very interesting statement -- could you unpack this? what do you mean?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:31 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




this is potentially a very interesting statement -- could you unpack this? what do you mean?
I was actually being sarcastic.

I just find it so ironic that people would question God's word because of what they view as scientific inaccuracies. I believe God created our universe and all the laws we're restricted by. I believe he even created the concept of time! God is everywhere and every time, he has always been and always will be, he has no beginning and no end! Why should we push science on a God like that?

Some so-called spiritual men put all of their faith in science and none in God. Is that really faith at all?
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:33 PM   #42
Refugee
 
XHendrix24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,496
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780

Some so-called spiritual men put all of their faith in science and none in God. Is that really faith at all?
And some put all of their faith into the idea of God that they have in their heads without attempting to reconcile it with the real world.

Which do you think is a better idea?
__________________
XHendrix24 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:40 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 12:39 PM
My point is that there's a time and place to push science. Trying to apply the laws of science to the spiritual realm is completely silly and futile.

God can't be reconciled with our "real world" because God isn't limited by the same puny minds we are.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:41 PM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


I was actually being sarcastic.

I just find it so ironic that people would question God's word because of what they view as scientific inaccuracies. I believe God created our universe and all the laws we're restricted by. I believe he even created the concept of time! God is everywhere and every time, he has always been and always will be, he has no beginning and no end! Why should we push science on a God like that?

Some so-called spiritual men put all of their faith in science and none in God. Is that really faith at all?


oh. sorry.

well you're working from a base set of assumptions that not everyone shares -- in fact, your view is very much in the minority, both in the US and certainly across the world.

it's lovely that you believe things, but i thought you were going to tell us what you thought.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-10-2005, 06:41 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:39 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
My point is that there's a time and place to push science. Trying to apply the laws of science to the spiritual realm is completely silly and futile.

is the converse true, then?

creationistic superstitions like ID are emphatically not science -- so they have no place in a science classroom?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 07:39 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