Relativism in Christianity

[BVS]

I think there are plenty of posts that demonstrate that Scriptural interpretive methods can and do lead to a relativist approach in Christianity.

But who's to say what interpretation is right or wrong? I see the post between you and Dread and I don't see anyone proving without doubt their respective points. I see scripture that backs up both of your points.

People have been interpreting scripture to fit their views since the dawn of scripture. They did it in Jesus' time and they do it today.

I'm trying to find someone to give me evidence of how it's something new or even largely prevelent in Christianity as a whole today as the thread implies. I think their is an agenda when someone implies that and I'm trying to find someone to prove me wrong.

 

[Dreadsox]

I guess we can agree to disagree.....

There is the physical word and the spiritual world, and if I were better at remember verses, somewhere in the bible it warns of both.

As a Christian I can believe that spiritually there was a reason for Christ's death.

As a Christian I can also recognize that there had to have been a real reason, non-spiritual, of this world reason for the Jews to want him dead, to the point that Pilot decided to do it.

While there are spiritual reasons for what happened there is the physical world reasons that it happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to clarify, while I am looking globally at things, I never set out to contradict your Jesus quote. You may not have realized where I was going, and that is partially my fault. I am however not backing down on the above point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your baptism response, I asked a yes or no question. I was not looking for a diatribe, nor veiled insults about my ability to grasp your diatribe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I announced earlier in the thread, I was willing to take the Bishops side. Not an easy thing to do, for a person brought up believing everything opposite the 12 things the Bishop said. Not sure what to think, other than, if people come in here not to free their mind and look at things from another angle, what is the point to FREE YOUR MIND.........is it to spout out the same things we have been taught....without thinking about it?

I really am tired, and I do feel there are insults being thrown around. In two weeks I will not have time for this as my life will be changing. I am kind of bummed about this thread.

 

[Dreadsox]

But who's to say what interpretation is right or wrong? I see the post between you and Dread and I don't see anyone proving without doubt their respective points. I see scripture that backs up both of your points.

People have been interpreting scripture to fit their views since the dawn of scripture. They did it in Jesus' time and they do it today.

I'm trying to find someone to give me evidence of how it's something new or even largely prevelent in Christianity as a whole today as the thread implies. I think their is an agenda when someone implies that and I'm trying to find someone to prove me wrong.

Everything is about the agenda. One of the MAJOR weaknesses I find in looking a Spong's position is there is really nothing to scripturally back him up, from a literal standpoint.

I fully agree and believe he is on the money about the treatment of homosexuals. And I feel having read a few of his books, that he backs it up scripturally.

These 12 ideas are not remotley backed by scripture, and having studied Martin Luthor, I do not find them to be in the same vein.

I have taken a side in this thread, that quite honestly, is so difficult to argue, I am having a hard time, and you know how I love to take the opposite position just to get a conversation going.

 

[thacraic]

I guess we can agree to disagree.....

There is the physical word and the spiritual world, and if I were better at remember verses, somewhere in the bible it warns of both.

As a Christian I can believe that spiritually there was a reason for Christ's death.

As a Christian I can also recognize that there had to have been a real reason, non-spiritual, of this world reason for the Jews to want him dead, to the point that Pilot decided to do it.

While there are spiritual reasons for what happened there is the physical world reasons that it happened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to clarify, while I am looking globally at things, I never set out to contradict your Jesus quote. You may not have realized where I was going, and that is partially my fault. I am however not backing down on the above point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your baptism response, I asked a yes or no question. I was not looking for a diatribe, nor veiled insults about my ability to grasp your diatribe.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I announced earlier in the thread, I was willing to take the Bishops side. Not an easy thing to do, for a person brought up believing everything opposite the 12 things the Bishop said. Not sure what to think, other than, if people come in here not to free their mind and look at things from another angle, what is the point to FREE YOUR MIND.........is it to spout out the same things we have been taught....without thinking about it?

I really am tired, and I do feel there are insults being thrown around. In two weeks I will not have time for this as my life will be changing. I am kind of bummed about this thread.

Hiya Dread,

No way you was I insulting you. I promise you that, Dread. I think this stems from my comment about how simple it is? I asked if I was making it difficult for you to understand when I suggested maybe it was the way I put it forth? Meaning, was I talking about two different things,,, spiritual baptism versus baptism in water and I thought maybe you were referring to one or the other and that is where the confusion set in. But if you took what I said in anyway as an insult I do apologize.

At any rate, speaking of things going in one's life... I am getting the evil eye from my husband and the dreaded question. "You aren't going to be at this U2 site thingy again this weekend FFS?" So I have to go. But man I am realllllllllllly so sorry if you took what I was saying as an insult. I don't want to make anyone feel bad or angry!

Take care,

Carrie

PS: If you want to email me to clear up any misunderstanding feel free ok? thacraic@yahoo.com

 

[Dreadsox]

Its all good....

 

[thacraic]

But who's to say what interpretation is right or wrong? I see the post between you and Dread and I don't see anyone proving without doubt their respective points. I see scripture that backs up both of your points.

People have been interpreting scripture to fit their views since the dawn of scripture. They did it in Jesus' time and they do it today.

I'm trying to find someone to give me evidence of how it's something new or even largely prevelent in Christianity as a whole today as the thread implies. I think their is an agenda when someone implies that and I'm trying to find someone to prove me wrong.

Hiya BVS,

Do you want numbers or something? Statistics?I will do my best. In fact, I remember a list I read in regards to Christians and their beliefs. It listed percentages of people that believed or did not believe certain core principles, fundamentals if you will, of the Christian faith. I will find that if I can and post it, or if I get lucky, post a link to a site that has it.

In terms of churches as a whole, there are numerous demnominations that are fighting amoungst themselves over many issues - abortion, homosexuality, the Trinity, the belief that Christ is the ONLY way - just to name a few. Would you disagree?

I posted Spong's theses because there are elements of his views expressed in people's personal beliefs as well as varying churches of many denominations here in the States and throughout the world. Would you disagree?

Also, I was wondering, what agenda I would have for pointing any of this out?

Take care,
Carrie

 

[BVS]

Hiya BVS,

Do you want numbers or something? Statistics?I will do my best. In fact, I remember a list I read in regards to Christians and their beliefs. It listed percentages of people that believed or did not believe certain core principles, fundamentals if you will, of the Christian faith. I will find that if I can and post it, or if I get lucky, post a link to a site that has it.

In terms of churches as a whole, there are numerous demnominations that are fighting amoungst themselves over many issues - abortion, homosexuality, the Trinity, the belief that Christ is the ONLY way - just to name a few. Would you disagree?

I posted Spong's theses because there are elements of his views expressed in people's personal beliefs as well as varying churches of many denominations here in the States and throughout the world. Would you disagree?

Also, I was wondering, what agenda I would have for pointing any of this out?

Take care,
Carrie

But all of this you speak of has been a part of religion since the dawn of time. It's all about interpretation. It's all about perception. No human has 100% absolute truth, even with the Bible right in front of them. The Bible was not written by God, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The agenda is that some feel they have the absolute truth(I'm not saying that's what you are claiming). You know what, they are lying to themselves. No human can possible have the absolute truth. It's humanly impossible.

 

[thacraic]

But all of this you speak of has been a part of religion since the dawn of time. It's all about interpretation. It's all about perception. No human has 100% absolute truth, even with the Bible right in front of them. The Bible was not written by God, if it was we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The agenda is that some feel they have the absolute truth(I'm not saying that's what you are claiming). You know what, they are lying to themselves. No human can possible have the absolute truth. It's humanly impossible.

Hiya BVS,

Well if you are coming at if from the view that the Bible was not written by God then that does in fact allow different views on Scripture which in turn leads to realtivism. So which part of the Bible compells you to embrace Christ? Is it only the red letters? Is it only the parts that don't offend people? Which part of the Bible do you embrace and way?

Also, in your saying no human can possibly have the absolute truth, that it is humanly impossible, are you not attempting to state an absolute truth when saying that?

Take care,

Carrie

 

[Dreadsox]

What I am getting here is relativism=tolorance of others beliefs.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hiya BVS,

Well if you are coming at if from the view that the Bible was not written by God then that does in fact allow different views on Scripture which in turn leads to realtivism. So which part of the Bible compells you to embrace Christ? Is it only the red letters? Is it only the parts that don't offend people? Which part of the Bible do you embrace and way?

Also, in your saying no human can possibly have the absolute truth, that it is humanly impossible, are you not attempting to state an absolute truth when saying that?

Take care,

Carrie

Carrie,

With all due respect, you ar pretty good at the fine art of typing questions that are kind of insulting?

If I asked you the following:

What parts you embrace? Is it only the mistranslated ones that justify your beliefs? Is it only the parts that reaffirm societies prejudices? Which part of the Bible to you embrace and why?

You most likely would not take that too kindly.

 

[thacraic]

Carrie,

With all due respect, you ar pretty good at the fine art of typing questions that are kind of insulting?

If I asked you the following:

What parts you embrace? Is it only the mistranslated ones that justify your beliefs? Is it only the parts that reaffirm societies prejudices? Which part of the Bible to you embrace and why?

You most likely would not take that too kindly.

Hiya Dread,

With all due respect , I do not see how what I asked was insulting!! I asked BVS which parts he embraced! Only the red letters is in reference to believing only the parts of the Bible that contain the words Jesus spoke. The parts that don't offend anyone are those that do not speak of sin and the consequences thereof. As far as parts which are mistranslated, I have yet to see anyone show me which parts are in fact mistranslated(and I mean from the original text) and furthermore ones that reaffirm any predjudices in society. And if by prejudices you mean stating a difference between right and wrong and end up offending people, then yes, I embrace those portions of Scripture right along with the ones that speak of Love. That is the point I am making, they are all interrelated.

If one wants to say some of it is relative and other parts of it are not, based on whatever line of reason, that is relativism, which is the whole reason I started this thread.

So in short, if you were to ask me which parts of the Bible I embraced, I would say all of it. If you wanted to add to in the manner you did, I would address it and ask which parts reaffirm prejudices and are mistranslated. Then that would of course lead in to some goose chase of quoting passages, translating them from original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and end up not even addressing the nature of the original topic. I have seen it happen a lot here.

I have also seen people quote people, and leave out segments of a post that would explain the tiny part of the quote someone is addressing. I have seen how points are made and then instead of those points being given any notice, some non sequitur is what is addressed and then boom, off on another tangent steering away from the original topic put forth.

One last thing, when I see things that could be taken as insults I do one of two things. I keep in mind that it is text I am reading and because of that I can not tell what tone of voice it would be in if someone were actually speaking. The other is, if it comes across as blatantly condescending, I usually reply in the same manner but then end up feeling bad for it and admit I was being nasty then apologize. If I mean no harm in what I say to begin with, and there is confusion in realtion to it I try to clarify it immediately for the sake of the discussion and common decency.

If you see my manner of posting as insulting or rude or whatever, I can not offer you any other explination other that what I said above.

Take care,

Carrie

 

[Dreadsox]

Umm...I know what the red letters are. If you cannot see that your questions could be taken as a slap in the face to those who do not believe as you so be it. Quite honestly, I come here to free my mind, and throughout my three years here I have taken the opposite position on some very unpopular issue, because of that open mind. I am not going to derail the thread with another debate about translations. Clearly nothing I have posted on the topic made a world of difference.

So where does that leave me??????

LOL

Tired.

 

[thacraic]

Umm...I know what the red letters are. If you cannot see that your questions could be taken as a slap in the face to those who do not believe as you so be it. Quite honestly, I come here to free my mind, and throughout my three years here I have taken the opposite position on some very unpopular issue, because of that open mind. I am not going to derail the thread with another debate about translations. Clearly nothing I have posted on the topic made a world of difference.

So where does that leave me??????

LOL

Tired.

Ok... rebooted now... not lagging...

I am sorry you find this debate tiring....

If you are going to take questioning someones stance as a slap in the face then I should be boo hooing over how some people have reacted to things I typed. I don't though. Also, if everone at an internet forum or even in life, did not question things solely to avoid hurting someone's feelings then no one would engage in discourse over anything other than the weather.

I was not implying that you didn't know what the red letters are, by the way. I was telling you what I meant when I asked the question to begin with. I was explaing how I was wording my questions and why, and even still you found some sort of way to take offense.

As far as freeing my mind, my mind is very much free. It is much freer than it was when I was 19, a "Taoist", and working at GreenPeace. Thriteen years later here I am - thinking how I think, not because I was taught it but because I see the truth and hope and love and dare I say logic in it.

 

[BVS]

Hiya BVS,

Well if you are coming at if from the view that the Bible was not written by God then that does in fact allow different views on Scripture which in turn leads to realtivism. So which part of the Bible compells you to embrace Christ? Is it only the red letters? Is it only the parts that don't offend people? Which part of the Bible do you embrace and way?

Also, in your saying no human can possibly have the absolute truth, that it is humanly impossible, are you not attempting to state an absolute truth when saying that?

Take care,

Carrie

But the Bible wasn't written by God. Otherwise you wouldn't have books with the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. They would all be called God.

You know your condensation gets old, "do I only embrace the parts that don't offend?" What kind of nonsense is that. That would pretty much only leave "love your neighbor as yourself" now wouldn't it?

Let me put it this way, if it wasn't written in stone and handed down by God, or came out of Jesus mouth I don't take it as sin. One reference from one human in the Bible does not make anything sin.

No, by me stating that I nor anyone else will ever hold the absolute truth, I'm saying the rest of my life will be in searching. Whenever one stops the search and believes they do have the absolute truth is when they fall.

 

[thacraic]

But the Bible wasn't written by God. Otherwise you wouldn't have books with the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. They would all be called God.

You know your condensation gets old, "do I only embrace the parts that don't offend?" What kind of nonsense is that. That would pretty much only leave "love your neighbor as yourself" now wouldn't it?

Let me put it this way, if it wasn't written in stone and handed down by God, or came out of Jesus mouth I don't take it as sin. One reference from one human in the Bible does not make anything sin.

No, by me stating that I nor anyone else will ever hold the absolute truth, I'm saying the rest of my life will be in searching. Whenever one stops the search and believes they do have the absolute truth is when they fall.

Evidentally what I am seeing is that you believe the Ten Commandments and everything Jesus said to be God's word? Everything else is just a record of men saying things that applied only to their own societies at the time. Therefore much of what is in Scripture, does not apply to the world today and further more shouldn't because it is not God Himself saying these things? I think that is what you are saying? And if it is, then thats the thing... I see the Bible as having been written by God in its entirety so any sort of views that we express will never converge on a common ground.

What do you mean by condensation? I don't really understand what you mean by that? Do you mean I was trying to put you in a box and make a conclusion about what you think on everything based on all topics we have discussed? Condensing all your thoughts into one? Just maybe elaborate on that please?

As far as my asking if you embrace only the parts that don't offend (nonsensical or not) was in reference to those parts of the Bible that were not engraved in stone and are not in red letters, yet still convey a message of how one is to live. I guess you answered that?

I understand that faith in God is a quest and it is neverending, I do not discount that. Perfection will never be reached while we are bound by the flesh, so to speak, but we are to strive for it daily. Stating that the Bible provides the absolute truth that will guide us on our quest, does not set us up for a fall. On the contrary, it lays the path before us which we are to follow.

 

[BVS]

Evidentally what I am seeing is that you believe the Ten Commandments and everything Jesus said to be God's word? Everything else is just a record of men saying things that applied only to their own societies at the time. Therefore much of what is in Scripture, does not apply to the world today and further more shouldn't because it is not God Himself saying these things? I think that is what you are saying? And if it is, then thats the thing...

No that's not what I said, please reread my post. I said I do not allow man to define sin for me. If it wasn't directly from God or Jesus then I do not accept it as sin.

I see the Bible as having been written by God in its entirety so any sort of views that we express will never converge on a common ground.

I honestly think if God wrote the Bible things would be a lot clearer and we wouldn't be debating translations or intents some thousand years later. The Bible doesn't even claim it's written by God. For me to accept that God wrote the Bible would mean I would have to say God is falliable.

What do you mean by condensation? I don't really understand what you mean by that? Do you mean I was trying to put you in a box and make a conclusion about what you think on everything based on all topics we have discussed? Condensing all your thoughts into one? Just maybe elaborate on that please?

Actually I'm just moron and can't spell, I meant condescension. Your questions in some of your post can take on a very condescending tone.

I understand that faith in God is a quest and it is neverending, I do not discount that. Perfection will never be reached while we are bound by the flesh, so to speak, but we are to strive for it daily. Stating that the Bible provides the absolute truth that will guide us on our quest, does not set us up for a fall. On the contrary, it lays the path before us which we are to follow.

But you don't even own the original translation. How many different English versions alone are there? Each one words things differently. Certain words weren't even in there until the last 100 years. You have no clue as to what got lost or translated wrong. One word could be off and you'd be telling people what they are doing is a sin when it isn't. So no I'm not going to state that any human has the absolute truth set before them. That type of thinking will set you up for a fall. One man could have made one small translation mistake centuries ago and you'd be judging people for the wrong thing. That's why items that aren't backed up anywhere else in the Bible and are very implicit at best I will not use to judge any individual. Call it relativism or whatever you want.

 

[thacraic]

Hiya BVS,

Ok I don't know how to do the breaking of the quote thingy so I will have to just sorta post a seperate post without using the quote. My apologies for that....

Ok on the first one.... I guess I misunderstood what you meant then? Do you mean that you don't agree with people taking Scripture out of context and making conclusions based on that? Or do you mean that the Scriptures written by men are what should not even be considered? I am not certain what you are getting at, sorry.

Second point in regards to God writing the Bible and it being clearer if He "really" did write it. I think it is very clear on things. I may not understand them and I seek guidence on a lot of things but just because I don't understand them doesn't mean that negates the validity of them. I don't understand how God used Moses to part the Red Sea but I believe He did it. I don't understand why many things are wrong on a personal level(homosexuality for instance) but the Bible says they are so I accept it. Too, if you approach the Bible from the point of God didn't write every word, what is the point of believing any of it? Who is to say the parts about Jesus and what he taught are accurate? I also don't see anything in the Bible that would make one believe He is falliable?

Ok I see what you mean now. No you aren't a moron. Spelling is a minor issue in my opinion and is not indicative of a persons intelligence. As long as I know what you meant is what's important.

See, Dread was on about this too. I honestly do not see what I said that seemed condescending. If I may be kinda human here and sorta cheeky...I have never called anyone narcassitic or naive as you have. Never used the words holier than thou as you have. Those are just a few examples. I speak in a very direct manner and that translates over into my writing style. My asking you what I did in the manner I did was just my being direct. I was asking you what exactly you believe! I was like, so what do you believe? This or that or what? How is that condescending? When I have been nasty, I apologized for it. I apologized to you on a thread because on one post I was just annoyed and said feck it and was really sarcastic towards you. Dread thought I was insulting him which I wasn't. I was only asking what the craic was - did he not understand what I was saying etc. I was saying I was maybe making something complex that was simple and the way it came across evidentally was in a negative manner.

Actually there really arent that many translations in terms of original manuscripts. Instead of my typing all of this I can put a link here for you... http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm. That is a pretty credible site too. I don't get to go there often enough but I recommend the entire site not just that link. It is really solid information they put out there for you. I don't agree with some of it though... but overall the site seems kosher.

Finally in terms of using the Bible to judge people... Stating what is right and wrong is not judging people. I use the Bible as that which defines the epitomy of right and wrong. Standing behind that does not mean I am judging anyone. To judge would be to say, I am not a sinner but you are and here is why. We are all sinners, even Christians, which is why we are in no position to judge anyone.

To stand up for what is right and wrong does not mean you can not show love to your fellow man. To love and accept people regardless of who they are and what they do does not mean you have to agree with what they do in their life. What they do in their life is of no consequence in terms of the love you show them. You are to love all people regardless.

Take Care,

Carrie

 

[BVS]

Ok on the first one.... I guess I misunderstood what you meant then? Do you mean that you don't agree with people taking Scripture out of context and making conclusions based on that? Or do you mean that the Scriptures written by men are what should not even be considered? I am not certain what you are getting at, sorry.

Ok there are 10 commandments given to us by God. Jesus then came and backed up these commandments and also gave us other little nuggets of truth. These are what I consider law. Man does not define law. So if Paul says this is a sin or that is a sin and it's backed up nowhere else in the Bible then I'm not going to consider it law.

Second point in regards to God writing the Bible and it being clearer if He "really" did write it. I think it is very clear on things. I may not understand them and I seek guidence on a lot of things but just because I don't understand them doesn't mean that negates the validity of them. I don't understand how God used Moses to part the Red Sea but I believe He did it. I don't understand why many things are wrong on a personal level(homosexuality for instance) but the Bible says they are so I accept it. Too, if you approach the Bible from the point of God didn't write every word, what is the point of believing any of it? Who is to say the parts about Jesus and what he taught are accurate? I also don't see anything in the Bible that would make one believe He is falliable?

I'm saying if God did write the Bible and you believe God to be all powerful than his words would be clear to everyone. If God did write the Bible and you have this many people who aren't clear then God would have failed explaining himself therefore falliable.



The link you had was useful thanks but it didn't answer my question. You are still trusting man to do translastions and have different translations that say slightly different things than others. How can this be absolute truth?

 

[thacraic]

Alrighty....

Last post from me tonight. I did it again by the way... I was here at FYM for hours this weekend as well as swinging by the @U2 forum occasionally...

Ok there are 10 commandments given to us by God. Jesus then came and backed up these commandments and also gave us other little nuggets of truth. These are what I consider law. Man does not define law. So if Paul says this is a sin or that is a sin and it's backed up nowhere else in the Bible then I'm not going to consider it law.

Alright this works if you think that Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote. That would lead to the whole God-breathed debate. But ok so you don't think that it should be law because Paul (for instance) wrote it. I see why you say that, but I do not agree.

I'm saying if God did write the Bible and you believe God to be all powerful than his words would be clear to everyone. If God did write the Bible and you have this many people who aren't clear then God would have failed explaining himself therefore falliable.

God does not explain Himself. In the Bible (for whatever that is worth here) it says His mysteries no one can fathom (or phatom or however you spell it). That everyone does not agree on what the Bible means is to do more with us as humans not Him as God. But I see what you are saying yet do not agree.

The link you had was useful thanks but it didn't answer my question. You are still trusting man to do translastions and have different translations that say slightly different things than others. How can this be absolute truth?

Ok I see what you are saying here. But I believe without a doubt, that the everything was carefully translated and that link I gave you goes into great detail of explaining it. At any rate, what I am going to ask you is this....

The Ten Commandments and the things that Jesus said are the things which you adhere to as law, those are the things which you embrace as the basis of your faith. Tell me, who translated those passages?

 

[BVS]

Alright this works if you think that Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote. That would lead to the whole God-breathed debate. But ok so you don't think that it should be law because Paul (for instance) wrote it. I see why you say that, but I do not agree.

Does God inspired make Paul infallible. He could be inspired by but does this mean he has it right?

The Ten Commandments and the things that Jesus said are the things which you adhere to as law, those are the things which you embrace as the basis of your faith. Tell me, who translated those passages?

Man did, but the difference being is that there are several consitancies throughout the Bible and history that back these items up. Which the items of Paul (for example) don't have.

 

[Dreadsox]

How can this be absolute truth?

We have new words being translated into English that were never used before as of 1958.
Words that were not used before and words that no longer carry the same meaning.

Perception is reality, thus it is the truth.

 

[thacraic]

Hiya BVS,

Ok on the other things you pointed out, I think everything has been said on them that could be? If you want me to answer or whatever just let me know. I am going to address this though...

Man did, but the difference being is that there are several consitancies throughout the Bible and history that back these items up. Which the items of Paul (for example) don't have.

There are several consistency in history that point to what Paul spoke of. The societies he ministered in and the birth of the early chruch are all historical. If you are basing it on history then Paul work's would be very historically accurate. (Remember the "history lesson" as you put it in regards to something I said on another thread?)

But onto something you said in regards to man translating Scripture. You said man did, so you admit that man translated those passages. For whatever reasons you give, you are still trusting man to translate, which is exactly what you warned me against.

The Ten Commandments and the account of Christ's ministry... even those books which have those things in them were written by "man". The same person who wrote about his own account of being on Mt. Sinai and having God give him the Ten Commandments is the same person who wrote the laws in Leviticus. The four Gospels as your pointed out are called Matthew, Mark...etc because they are the one's who wrote these books. Men writing books that give an account of things from their persepctive. Furtherstill these books have been translated time after time and down the line by men.

So according to your logic because men wrote it and translated, we should not believe any of it. The fact that certain passages correspond to other passages would be of no consequence. The people who wrote these passages could have easily conspired with the other authors to make things appear any way they wanted if you are using the logic man (who can not be trusted to translate) wrote the Bible.

Take care,

Carrie

 

[BVS]

Hiya BVS,

There are several consistency in history that point to what Paul spoke of. The societies he ministered in and the birth of the early chruch are all historical. If you are basing it on history then Paul work's would be very historically accurate. (Remember the "history lesson" as you put it in regards to something I said on another thread?)

Yes I understand this, I'm saying there is no consitencies as far as anyone else preaching these things, Paul was alone in these teachings. So why should Paul's teaching be God's word?

But onto something you said in regards to man translating Scripture. You said man did, so you admit that man translated those passages. For whatever reasons you give, you are still trusting man to translate, which is exactly what you warned me against.

The Ten Commandments and the account of Christ's ministry... even those books which have those things in them were written by "man". The same person who wrote about his own account of being on Mt. Sinai and having God give him the Ten Commandments is the same person who wrote the laws in Leviticus. The four Gospels as your pointed out are called Matthew, Mark...etc because they are the one's who wrote these books. Men writing books that give an account of things from their persepctive. Furtherstill these books have been translated time after time and down the line by men.

So according to your logic because men wrote it and translated, we should not believe any of it. The fact that certain passages correspond to other passages would be of no consequence. The people who wrote these passages could have easily conspired with the other authors to make things appear any way they wanted if you are using the logic man (who can not be trusted to translate) wrote the Bible.

Take care,

Carrie

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, I'm sorry for that. I'm not saying stay clear of everything translated by man, where did I say that. I said anything translated by man can't be taken as absolute truth. It doesn't mean I don't believe or find the majority to be true, but there's reason and logic to those. When God is quoted as saying this is sin, Jesus backs that up, and there are many accounts by different people that seems very logical to believe. But when one man says this is sin and Jesus doesn't approach the subject and the 10 commandments don't speak about it, why should I take this as sin when there's no logic behind it?

We're going around in circles, so I won't speak any more about if the Bible is absolute truth or not. But the reason for this thread was that you state that relativism is running rampant today. You still have not have shown me how this is more true today than it was hundreds even thousands of years ago. Look at how many denominations we have in Christianity. You paticularly don't believe that women should have leadership roles in church because of some of the teachings Paul, this is a belief held by very few denominations of Christianity. Very few. So how is this not relativism? And if it is then really relativism has been there since the beginning, and then really unless you take everything in the Bible at face value then you are guilty of relativism. Then the majority of Christian denominations are guilty of this and in fact were based on it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Its all relative baby!

 

[thacraic]

Hiya BVS,

Wow I went a whole day without being at this forum! I need to prioritize! lol

Ok here we go.

Well in your warning against trusting man to do translations and stating that I have no clue as to what got lost in translation, to me seems like you are saying that it can not be trusted and therefore should not be seen as truth. Also for the sake of discussion, when I say truth I mean something that is absolute, unchanging and always relevant. To say absolute truth would be redundant on my part and I have said those words together often. At any rate...

When you say logic dictates and you base your conclusions about what to believe on logic and reason, you are still basing it on things written by man. Which according to what you said on at least two occassions would be unwise.You said how can this be absolute truth when man has translated it? So my question would be, how can you base logic and reason on things men have translated when you say not to trust men's translations?

Also, what about Moses having written the books which detail MANY sins. This same Moses was given the Ten Commandments and wrote of his account, the same way he wrote Leviticus and other books etc. Because Jesus did not make reference to homosexuality and Moses did does that mean at that point, what Moses wrote ceases to be true or relevant? Do you accept the books which Moses wrote as truth or only part of them?

Yes relatavism is running rampant. It is true more so today than hundreds or thousands of years ago. The way people view basic beliefs is different. I found the statistics of a poll of like 6000 teenage Christians which show their varying views on things. If you want I can post the findings.

As far as major differenes in say the early church and our modern day church, in the early church, women did not pastor churches, something you said very few denominations still adhere to, which isn't true actually. I mean the Southern Baptist Convention (a HUGE denomination) stated clearly only a few years ago that women are not to be in any authoritive role over men in the church. There are still Baptist churches that ordain women ministers but the majority of them do not. With that being the case, it is one example of a relativistic apporach to belief being present in Christianity. The acceptance of homosexuality as a sinless is relative and you can see it in the Episcopal church in their ordaining openly gay ministers, that is relativism, and is not something that was embraced or accepted by the early church or churches 100 years ago.

I agree that through the course of history denominations and the doctrines on which they are based has been an example of relativism. That is the problem with taking man's view of the Bible and applying it in place of what the Bible actually says.

Take care,

Carrie

 

[Dreadsox]

Sadly, many do not believe Moses wrote them. Biblical scholars believe there were at least four different authors of many parts attributed to Moses.

 

[thacraic]

Sadly, many do not believe Moses wrote them. Biblical scholars believe there were at least four different authors of many parts attributed to Moses.

Hiya Dread,

Yes I have heard that from some Biblical scholars but I have heard others say Moses wrote all of it. I have also heard that William Shakespeare wrote the Bible and that the Dead Sea's scroll state Jesus moved to the South of France and started a family with Mary Magdelene.

Take care,

Carrie

 

[Dreadsox]

Hiya Dread,

Yes I have heard that from some Biblical scholars but I have heard others say Moses wrote all of it. I have also heard that William Shakespeare wrote the Bible and that the Dead Sea's scroll state Jesus moved to the South of France and started a family with Mary Magdelene.

Take care,

Carrie

No, most people believe Jesus was not there with her. Sorry, he died, interesting conspiracy though.

I have yet to see any credible evidence towards Shakespeare writing the bible, but I have always found that amazing.

And yes, the tradition of Moses composing all of the first books is still being clung to like many of the traditionalists would love to have fed to its believers.

Sad to see so many conspiracies linked to a sincere post. One based upon historical research, theology, and actual evidence. Oh well, back to being tired.

The most interesting and possible theory out there now is that all of the following,

Adam
Noah
Shem, Ham & Japheth
Shem
Terah
Isaac
Ishmael, through Isaac
Jacob
Esau, through Jacob
Jacob’s 12 sons

Wrote Genesis. Tablets that have been found are divided differently from the Chapters in the Bible. The lasdt verse on the tablet, indicating who the author was. In our Bible, they tend to find there way as the 1st verse of the next Chapter. This would indicate that originally the verse on the tablet belonged with the preceding writing on the tablet, not the next chapter as our Bible today has it. This possibly indicates who wrote each section.

But, since clearly anything short of Moses is to be lumped with a conspiracy theory, I will go back to being tired.

 

[pax]

The theory states that Shakespeare is merely responsible for portions of the King James translation, not the actual, total Bible itself.

 

[BVS]

Well in your warning against trusting man to do translations and stating that I have no clue as to what got lost in translation, to me seems like you are saying that it can not be trusted and therefore should not be seen as truth. Also for the sake of discussion, when I say truth I mean something that is absolute, unchanging and always relevant. To say absolute truth would be redundant on my part and I have said those words together often. At any rate...

When you say logic dictates and you base your conclusions about what to believe on logic and reason, you are still basing it on things written by man. Which according to what you said on at least two occassions would be unwise.You said how can this be absolute truth when man has translated it? So my question would be, how can you base logic and reason on things men have translated when you say not to trust men's translations?

I've gone over this several times, you are twisting my words, ignoring my responses and I will no longer have this part of the discussion.

Also, what about Moses having written the books which detail MANY sins. This same Moses was given the Ten Commandments and wrote of his account, the same way he wrote Leviticus and other books etc. Because Jesus did not make reference to homosexuality and Moses did does that mean at that point, what Moses wrote ceases to be true or relevant? Do you accept the books which Moses wrote as truth or only part of them?

I'm not going to look it up right now, but didn't you even state in a post that Levitical law was societal and for that time and is no longer relavant in the the NT? So this really doesn't help your argument.

Yes relatavism is running rampant. It is true more so today than hundreds or thousands of years ago. The way people view basic beliefs is different. I found the statistics of a poll of like 6000 teenage Christians which show their varying views on things. If you want I can post the findings.

If you don't mind.

As far as major differenes in say the early church and our modern day church, in the early church, women did not pastor churches, something you said very few denominations still adhere to, which isn't true actually. I mean the Southern Baptist Convention (a HUGE denomination) stated clearly only a few years ago that women are not to be in any authoritive role over men in the church. There are still Baptist churches that ordain women ministers but the majority of them do not. With that being the case, it is one example of a relativistic apporach to belief being present in Christianity. The acceptance of homosexuality as a sinless is relative and you can see it in the Episcopal church in their ordaining openly gay ministers, that is relativism, and is not something that was embraced or accepted by the early church or churches 100 years ago.

I agree that through the course of history denominations and the doctrines on which they are based has been an example of relativism. That is the problem with taking man's view of the Bible and applying it in place of what the Bible actually says.

Southern Baptist, one denomination says women can't pastor and so my statement is false. Please. Reread my statement. Yes the Southern Baptist is a large denomination, in the states, but only cover a small area. In the whole scheme of things I would never use the Southern Baptist as an example of Christianity throughout. This denomination also denouced dancing for a long time which is absolutely not written in the Bible, so relavism is very alive in their denomination as well.