The bible

Defender of Honor said:
Not my responsiblity to prove a thing to an atheist, you picked your road,now walk it!
Click to expand...

I am. I'm just sad that you are so unfamiliar with your own faith that you cannot talk about it in any detail. I mean it's abundantly clear that I know more about Christianity than you do and unlike you I've actually read the Bible front to back.

I understand, you are afraid, perhaps. I don't want you to be afraid so I'll leave you to it. Enjoy your faith as you understand it.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Defender of Honor said:
But you Don't believe there's a God?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. But you do. As such I'm asking YOU how you understand 1 Sam 15:3 and the other slaughters commanded by God.

YOU believe in God, the question is HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT.
Click to expand...

It's a good question, but I think it's important to add something here. This is only a thorny issue if you believe that the bible is the word of God. As a Pantheist, I don't. I think that some of its passages may be divinely inspired, but that certainly doesn't include Sam 15:3.
 
Phoenyx said:
It's a good question, but I think it's important to add something here. This is only a thorny issue if you believe that the bible is the word of God. As a Pantheist, I don't. I think that some of its passages may be divinely inspired, but that certainly doesn't include Sam 15:3.
Click to expand...

Oh most assuredly. I personally don't believe that God commanded a genocide of the Amalekites. If a genocide was started against them it was 100% the Israelites under Saul who did it. Even if there actually WAS a God I cannot believe He commands the kind of bloodshed shown in much of the Pentateuch.

The weird thing is, when you run up against a Christian so many of them are unwilling to admit that this might be false. They feel the need to create an exegesis to explain the bloodthirsty god of death as the same God who so loved the world he gave his only begotten son to die for their sins.

Perhaps it is an echo of the Marcionite heresy battles of long ago.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Oh most assuredly. I personally don't believe that God commanded a genocide of the Amalekites. If a genocide was started against them it was 100% the Israelites under Saul who did it. Even if there actually WAS a God I cannot believe He commands the kind of bloodshed shown in much of the Pentateuch.

The weird thing is, when you run up against a Christian so many of them are unwilling to admit that this might be false. They feel the need to create an exegesis to explain the bloodthirsty god of death as the same God who so loved the world he gave his only begotten son to die for their sins.

Perhaps it is an echo of the Marcionite heresy battles of long ago.
Click to expand...

I'd never heard of the Christian Marcionite sect, thanks for bringing it up. For those who'd like some information on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I am. I'm just sad that you are so unfamiliar with your own faith that you cannot talk about it in any detail. I mean it's abundantly clear that I know more about Christianity than you do and unlike you I've actually read the Bible front to back.

I understand, you are afraid, perhaps. I don't want you to be afraid so I'll leave you to it. Enjoy your faith as you understand it.
Click to expand...

I'm sad that you're "sad".
 
Phoenyx said:
It's a good question, but I think it's important to add something here. This is only a thorny issue if you believe that the bible is the word of God. As a Pantheist, I don't. I think that some of its passages may be divinely inspired, but that certainly doesn't include Sam 15:3.
Click to expand...
This is an informative thread. It exposes the nonreaders. There's an ethics 101 book that compares Christianity to Marxism. Both give you community, both require blind devotion, both promise you salvation. Whereas most will tell you Christianity and Marxism are not compatible, they're a better fit than democracy and capitalism.
 
When you look at the codependency government has with the people, it was somewhat surprising that dems and/or blue states were submissive to lockdowns and vaccines. Our political thinktank gods had to shocked to see religion defy authority.
 
goat said:
This is an informative thread. It exposes the nonreaders. There's an ethics 101 book that compares Christianity to Marxism. Both give you community, both require blind devotion, both promise you salvation. Whereas most will tell you Christianity and Marxism are not compatible, they're a better fit than democracy and capitalism.
Click to expand...

It's possible to be a Christian and not have blind devotion to any particular version of the bible. Which brings up another point, which is that there are various biblical canons amoung the various Christian denominations, and that Judaism itself has its own version, which Wikipedia labels as both the jewish bible and the Torah:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
 
Phoenyx said:
It's possible to be a Christian and not have blind devotion to any particular version of the bible. Which brings up another point, which is that there are various biblical canons amoung the various Christian denominations, and that Judaism itself has its own version, which Wikipedia labels as both the jewish bible and the Torah:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
Click to expand...

Technically, the Torah is just the five books of the Pentateuch (Books of Moses), whereas the TaNak is the entire collective Hebrew bible.

I think the Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have all 27 books of the New Testament, but the overall organization of their bibles is different, and the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox might have a few extra OT books
 
Phoenyx said:
It's possible to be a Christian and not have blind devotion to any particular version of the bible. Which brings up another point, which is that there are various biblical canons amoung the various Christian denominations, and that Judaism itself has its own version, which Wikipedia labels as both the jewish bible and the Torah:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Table
Click to expand...
Government can't rely on blind devotion either, but they get enough obedience to be god-like. Plato went mad trying to force a state religion. I took a deep dive on gnosticism and was able to trace it to 700 BC Greece. Parts of Christianity go back to ancient Egypt and Babylon. It's a composite religion.
 
Cypress said:
Technically, the Torah is just the five books of the Pentateuch (Books of Moses), whereas the TaNak is the entire collective Hebrew bible.
Click to expand...

Looking at the Wikipedia article again, I see that you're right about the Torah. I just didn't understand it the first time. It then mentions the Nevi'im, of which the Jewish bible only includes some.

Cypress said:
I think the Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have all 27 books of the New Testament, but the overall organization of their bibles is different, and the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox might have a few extra OT books
Click to expand...

It seems there's a bit more variation then that. Just going with the first 2 variations in Wikipedia's table, the jewish bible and western traditions all not considering the Prayer of Manasseh as part of their canon, but Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East all do.

1 Esdras is even more varied, with the western traditions again not considering it canon, and Eastern/Oriental/Church of the East varying.
 
goat said:
Government can't rely on blind devotion either, but they get enough obedience to be god-like.
Click to expand...

Every bit of questioning counts.

goat said:
Plato went mad trying to force a state religion. I took a deep dive on gnosticism and was able to trace it to 700 BC Greece. Parts of Christianity go back to ancient Egypt and Babylon. It's a composite religion.
Click to expand...

Aye.
 
Phoenyx said:
Looking at the Wikipedia article again, I see that you're right about the Torah. I just didn't understand it the first time. It then mentions the Nevi'im, of which the Jewish bible only includes some.



It seems there's a bit more variation then that. Just going with the first 2 variations in Wikipedia's table, the jewish bible and western traditions all not considering the Prayer of Manasseh as part of their canon, but Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East all do.

1 Esdras is even more varied, with the western traditions again not considering it canon, and Eastern/Oriental/Church of the East varying.
Click to expand...

Nevi'im is one part of TaNaK.

TaNaK is a Hebrew acronym which stands for the three part division of the Hebrew bible: Torah (the five books of the Pentateuch), Nevi'im (The Prophets), the Ketuviim (The Writings).
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Oh most assuredly. I personally don't believe that God commanded a genocide of the Amalekites. If a genocide was started against them it was 100% the Israelites under Saul who did it. Even if there actually WAS a God I cannot believe He commands the kind of bloodshed shown in much of the Pentateuch.

The weird thing is, when you run up against a Christian so many of them are unwilling to admit that this might be false. They feel the need to create an exegesis to explain the bloodthirsty god of death as the same God who so loved the world he gave his only begotten son to die for their sins.

Perhaps it is an echo of the Marcionite heresy battles of long ago.
Click to expand...

I think the reason you rarely can't get a message board 'christian' to rationally defend and discuss their religion is because they don't actually understand the theology and history of Christianity.

It's only a minority of world Christianity that embraces Sola Scriptura, most specifically the Protestant traditions of Lutheranism, Reformed Protestantism, and Baptists.

Holding the bible out as the one and only inerrant religious authority, and practicing a strict form of biblical literalism is considered heterodox in Catholic, Orthodox, and even some High Protestant traditions.

A strictly literal reading of scripture is generally considered an affront to God in other Xtian traditions, because human language is utterly insufficient to render the infinity of God, and multiple levels of textual interpretation have to come into play, including allegory, metaphor, and always balanced against other sources of religious tradition and authority
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
It's only a minority of world Christianity that embraces Sola Scriptura, most specifically the Protestant traditions of Lutheranism, Reformed Protestantism, and Baptists.

Holding the bible out as the one and only inerrant religious authority, and practicing a strict form of biblical literalism is considered heterodox in Catholic, Orthodox, and even some High Protestant traditions.
Click to expand...
I have pointed this out to you before but you tend to ignore facts.......specifically, Reformed Protestantism, which encompasses my segment of Christianity does not believe in inerrancy...
they believe that the Bible is infallible, which is inherent in Sola Scriptura.....

The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth,” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the Apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.
Click to expand...

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose."
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility#:~:text=Biblical%20infallibility%20is%20the%20belief,fail%20to%20accomplish%20its%20purpose.%22
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top