Thread: For An Intelligent Conversation On Spirituality/Religion

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

I anyone whose truly intent to follow Christs' teachings and his example is a true Christian.

I like it!!

Originally Posted by paco

This is where the difficulty comes in. A Christian believes the Bible is the truth and if made to say anything other than what it says'[IN CONTEXT], is bending the truth.

Actually. According to your definition....the apostles weren't Christians....because there was no new testament yet. In fact by your definition anyone living BEFORE the new testament was compiled (because it wasn't written as a book, bible means BOOKS, it's a compilation of writings compiled by people living a long time AFTER the writers had passed away) is not a Christian.

I'll just go by the definition that Paul the apostle and the other apostles used....Christian=follower of Christ.

Just like a Buddhist (flip, don't think I spelled that right) is a follower of Buddha and a Muhammedan is a follower of Muhammed.

It has NOTHING to do with what scripture you believe in or even if you don't believe in scripture at all.

It's defined by whom you're trying to emulate.

If I'd be trying to emulate Obama, I'd be an Obamaian.

Originally Posted by paco

How many think the world would be a more sociable, peaceful,equitable place if the commandments [less the worship ones] just the man to man ones, were followed?

do you mean

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Seems to me that 6-9 are in pretty much every judicial system, so I'm thinking they're fairly basic for our functional societies. That would suggest they are not particularly exclusive to the Christian God. As far as 5 goes, I would submit that this seems lot more prevalent in non-christian cultures, or could be a result from not a very developed society.

So, sure, if people abide by these general rules life would be much nicer, but I don't see what that's got to do with Christianity. Some 3500 years later it seems that all societies still have to rely on punitive action to enforce these things.

Of course in our time we've deemed some other things to be equally or more important, i.e. do not have sex with people younger than certain age, have a single husband/wife, etc.. None of these seem to have been as important to God as honoring one's parents or not wanting somebody else's property. But in our society pedophilia is deemed much bigger offense than say theft or insult. Looks like we can't really take a very Biblical approach to life anymore.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is called the "No true Scotsman" or the Self sealing fallacy. (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) You're judging "Christians" by your own definition. Many Christians have a different definition, some that would even exclude you.


The problem is that you're arguing that the Bible supports it's own infalibility, yet another christian who feels the Bible may be in error couldn't accept that assertion.

Here's something else to think on. Consider these two statements; A)"the Bible is either all true, or it's not", & B)"the Bible is either all true, or it's all false". These two statements are not the same. In the case of "A", there is still the possibility of some of the bible being true, though some of it is false. Statement "B" says that if one thing in the bible is false, it negates the truth of every other statement in there. I think many Christians would agree with statement "A", that if something in the bible were shown to be wrong, it would not really undermine their faith. Would it undermine yours?

I would have to say YES because then my Infallable GOD would be fallible, however with all the talk of possible mistakes then the showing of something it states as being incorrect may not reflect the author but maybe the translator.

So my point iS being made from the view that the ORIGINAL TEXTS were the inerent word of God as stated here: 2 Peter 2 :20-21 ²⁰But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ²¹for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Now to accept this one must believe in God and His Word. again FOR THOSE WHO WON'T BELIEVE IN GOD NO EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE ; AND FOR THOSE WHO DO BELIEVE NO EXPLANATION IS NECESSARY.

Originally Posted by paco

So my point iS being made from the view that the ORIGINAL TEXTS were the inerent word of God as stated here: 2 Peter 2 :20-21

What if the unfaillability part is a mistake that is not present in the original? You will be completely wrong and dogma can't get you back on the right track at all.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is called the "No true Scotsman" or the Self sealing fallacy. (No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) You're judging "Christians" by your own definition. Many Christians have a different definition, some that would even exclude you.

Another problem is that you're arguing that the Bible supports it's own infalibility, yet another christian who feels the Bible may be in error couldn't accept that assertion.

Here's something else to think on. Consider these two statements; A)"the Bible is either all true, or it's not", & B)"the Bible is either all true, or it's all false". These two statements are not the same. In the case of "A", there is still the possibility of some of the bible being true, though some of it is false. Statement "B" says that if one thing in the bible is false, it negates the truth of every other statement in there. I think many Christians would agree with statement "A", that if something in the bible were shown to be wrong, it would not really undermine their faith. Would it undermine yours?

No, I defer to my God's Word believing HIM to be all knowing and infallible.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

No, what you believe a true christian to be will say that.

My definition of a true Christian is someone who tries to follow Christ. No matter what he believes that Christ taught.

That's where the word Christian comes from. From trying to be like christ. Don't turn it into "if you don't believe EVERY word of the bilble you're not a christian."

Believing the bible might make you a biblican.....not a christian.

To follow Christ is to believe Him and if Christ believes all scripture is God's word and He IS God, than i would think the follower should also believe all of it is true. And if the belief that Christ is not God incarnate then it is being said that Christ is a Liaror a madman, because He did claim to be GOD.

Originally Posted by paco

To follow Christ is to believe Him and if Christ believes all scripture is God's word and He IS God, than i would think the follower should also believe all of it is true.

Forgive me Sir but I have yet to read a passage in any bible where Jesus says all scripture is the word of God.

Originally Posted by gugi

What if the unfaillability part is a mistake that is not present in the original? You will be completely wrong and dogma can't get you back on the right track at all.

Did you not read the last statement of the post?

Originally Posted by paco

To follow Christ is to believe Him and if Christ believes all scripture is God's word and He IS God, than i would think the follower should also believe all of it is true

Right, but if you allow for the possibility that the scripture you're reading isn't the exact one that it was written down originally that opens a rather wide gap in the logic.
Again, what if the 'scripture=God' bit was not present in the original?

Your only logically consistent alternative is to take the view that the current Bible is exact representation of God and any discrepancies with the original texts are insignificant. Which however may be demonstrably false.