Things that have been bothering me. - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

loK2thabrain · 12-22-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules

Yep, you are correct on this sir. NOBODY gave me nor anybody else the right to say...
so why dont we keep it like that! ?

keeping it like that would, in this case, mean all christians should take everything in the bible literally.

you're admitting you have no right to pick and choose, yet you seem to think it is okay to do just that.

don't see the logic behind this

Arouet · 12-24-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

This will be useful:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...lecture20.html

About 20 mins in if you want to skip ahead for some reason.

I'm about 6 lectures in (listen to them in the car on the way to work.) Really interesting stuff! Thanks for the link! Really, everyone should take a listen.

vixticator · 12-27-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

I'm about 6 lectures in (listen to them in the car on the way to work.) Really interesting stuff! Thanks for the link! Really, everyone should take a listen.

Cool, good to hear.

BigErf · 12-29-2009, 09:40 PM

What I am posting comes from this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...nt-god-670130/

I found this part really interesting as it relates to the theme of this thread. From: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/sa...fFire-Eby.html

Quote:

"...which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God" (Lk. 3:38). Adam - the SON OF GOD! God has a wayward sinner for a son, that wayward boy sprang, originally from the heart of God after a creaturely manner. He was created out of the glory of God and was a radiant creature, more radiant than an angel; and that boy, dead in scarlet sins, is still God's son, but he is a prodigal son. Some fathers may disown their sons, but the Father of the prodigal son never said that that wayward boy of His was not His son. The Bible says that such become the children of the devil; but, nevertheless, God still has a double claim upon them: they are His by creation; and they are His by right of redemption. They are dead in trespasses and sins. They need to be saved, to be converted, regenerated. They need to repent and come home; but when they do, the sorrowing Father is made glad and says, "For this My son was dead, and is alive again; be was lost, and is found." God is a bereaved God. It brings sorrow to our hearts, too, to think that our God and Father is bereaved of His children!

But to whatever depths of depravity, destitution, emptiness, sorrow, pain, and disaster the prodigal finally comes, it is good for him, for it ultimately destroys the pride and arrogance, the independence and selfhood, and the wickedness and rebellion in his heart. It would be well worth our time to consider prayerfully the deep import of the piercing words of the prophet: "Your own wickedness shall correct you, and your backslidings shall reprove you" (Jer. 2:19). Those who suppose that hell and the lake of fire represent the eternal doom of the sinners of Adam's race are ignorant and understand nothing whatever of God's great laws, and purposes, and dealings in judgment. The apostle Paul wrote to Timothy about two apostates in the Church: "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim. 1:19-20).

Were these two reprobates turned over to Satan to be tormented for ever in the lake of fire? Nay I They were delivered unto Satan that they might LEARN! Learn what? "Learn NOT TO BLASPHEME. " It should be obvious to every thinking mind that as soon as the lesson had been learned, the apostle called Satan off the case, and the erring one was restored to God and His people!

BigErf · 12-29-2009, 10:16 PM

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/sa...fFire-Eby.html

Quote:

We often forget that God not only allows Satan and sin and evil, but that He also uses them. Again and again, when trouble stalks his path, a man turns back to the God he has despised. When his wife dies, or his children go wrong; when loss and disaster fall upon him, again and again he will seek the God he has neglected. Many of our men who fought in past wars found that danger and privation turned their minds toward God. Foxholes cure atheism, they say. Weeks on a lifeboat adrift in the ocean do something to a man, and he is often a very different person when he lands on shore again. That is not because God coerces the man, but because God brings upon him such experiences that change his attitudes and priorities. And God brings such experiences upon men, not in vindictive hatred, but in love. He is too wise to err, too loving to be unkind!

Moonshine · 12-30-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigErf

This was really good!

There was one part where she said:And it got me thinking about how true this really is. A lot of people read the Bible thinking it's a book of law rather then seeing it from another perspective. She also mentions that Torah is often translated to mean "Law" whereas it should be regarded more of a "teaching". When one reads the Bible from a "teaching" point of view the answers are only given when the individual works within to draw conclusions that point to what is right and what is wrong.

What a Masterpiece!

I really don't get it...as I became confronted with truths about the bible that were unsettling/just plain obviously did not make sense from an intellectual point of view, the logical conclusions I would draw would be "hmmmm...this does not make sense, something isn't right here"

When I see Christians on here confronted with these things in the bible, there's always some elaborate flowery explanation to conveniently piece everything together. You dont like that law? That's ok! The bible isnt really a rule book it's just kind of open to interpretation and you will arrive at your own truth! Was the existence of Jesus open to interpretation too? Or is that story supposed to be taken at literal face value? How do you guys go on living while selectively picking and choosing what you do and do not take literally in the bible?

Have any of you heard of Occum's razor?

starvingwriter82 · 01-01-2010, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonshine

I really don't get it...as I became confronted with truths about the bible that were unsettling/just plain obviously did not make sense from an intellectual point of view, the logical conclusions I would draw would be "hmmmm...this does not make sense, something isn't right here"

When I see Christians on here confronted with these things in the bible, there's always some elaborate flowery explanation to conveniently piece everything together. You dont like that law? That's ok! The bible isnt really a rule book it's just kind of open to interpretation and you will arrive at your own truth! Was the existence of Jesus open to interpretation too? Or is that story supposed to be taken at literal face value? How do you guys go on living while selectively picking and choosing what you do and do not take literally in the bible?

Have any of you heard of Occum's razor?

It's like you skipped the entire thread.

Now, obviously I'm not going to defend everything ever said by every theist, which is how you seem to be lumping things together here, but to any reasonably well informed person, different sections of the Bible are written in different styles. For example, when reading a history text, there's the expectation of a different level of accuracy, than when you read, say, poetry. The Bible has both. Would you expect the same level of literal truth from all parts if I gave you a history text of the 20th century which included a poem by Robert Frost? When, finding that Frost said things that are not literally true, would you toss the whole thing?

Obviously there's no concrete way to argue against the straw man you've provided. Give specific examples of passages you find contradictory or offensive, and maybe someone here will be able to give you the appropriate theological and historical background. All you're basically saying right now is "I'm unaware of the context, so the Bible is stupid! lolz I win!"

luckyme · 01-01-2010, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starvingwriter82

It's like you skipped the entire thread.

Now, obviously I'm not going to defend everything ever said by every theist, which is how you seem to be lumping things together here, but to any reasonably well informed person, different sections of the Bible are written in different styles. For example, when reading a history text, there's the expectation of a different level of accuracy, than when you read, say, poetry. The Bible has both. Would you expect the same level of literal truth from all parts if I gave you a history text of the 20th century which included a poem by Robert Frost? When, finding that Frost said things that are not literally true, would you toss the whole thing?

Obviously there's no concrete way to argue against the straw man you've provided. Give specific examples of passages you find contradictory or offensive, and maybe someone here will be able to give you the appropriate theological and historical background. All you're basically saying right now is "I'm unaware of the context, so the Bible is stupid! lolz I win!"

And it's amazing how which ones are in which category change over time as needed, never mind the various interpretations that can be put to them to support the current conditions. How did xtrians, say, 300 years ago have it so wrong? All the while making the same argument as above, although their specific ones are of course now disclaimed.