Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

LetsGetReal wrote: nygreenguy wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: The bible has no errors and couldn't or do you beleive God's power has limits?
LETSGETREAL , do you believe the bible is inerrant, or not. I have asked you several times, yet you avoid my question. Please respond as I am very curious! I'm sorry your question left the supposition that you believed it was serious and shouldn't be.

What is so hard to get about this toddytodd or NYgreen:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

Toddytodd are you mad because I backed up a Christian perspective with the Bible, and I know how could I dare do that..:roll:

Condescending would mean I believe I'm superior and I don't. I just believe you don't know what your talking about and now your going to try the play the role of the victim.

Calling someone or someone's opinion 'dumb' is childish and of poor taste. Again, it shows who we are dealing with when people try to have a discussion with you.
Here is a question for you though: Why would I be mad that you "backed up a Christian perspective with the Bible"? You are free to believe what you wish and I have no reason nor desire to change what you believe. You could believe Harry Potter is the bible as far as I care, it wouldn't matter to me until you try to force your belief on others. At this point, I haven't seen you try to force your belief on anyone in this thread, so it is senseless to think I would be mad.

[Eternal]

People, please debate the subject and not the person.


Cheers, Eternal
(Moderator)

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: I believe that he would pick people who wouldn't make these so-called "flaws" again your not only lowering Gods power, but his all-knowing side as well. You act like him choosing certain people and making certain situations occur is not his will. He did what he did because he planned it that way...

This is a belief of yours. I understand this, but in order for you to have any wieght of persuasion, you would have to be able to interpret this perfectly.

Is your Pastor perfect?

How is your INTERPRETATION of things not flawed?

There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. Any other presumption abou the Bible is an extension of that superstition and fallibility.

Quote: "God doen'st play dice", Albert Einstein If ever there was a more embarassing quote for theists to use, I don't know it.

Proof, again, that theists don't care for context, just a a nice catch phrase to support their point - even if the context of the quote contradicts their point.

[LetsGetReal]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I believe that he would pick people who wouldn't make these so-called "flaws" again your not only lowering Gods power, but his all-knowing side as well. You act like him choosing certain people and making certain situations occur is not his will. He did what he did because he planned it that way...

This is a belief of yours. I understand this, but in order for you to have any wieght of persuasion, you would have to be able to interpret this perfectly.

Is your Pastor perfect?

How is your INTERPRETATION of things not flawed?

There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. Any other presumption abou the Bible is an extension of that superstition and fallibility.

Quote: "God doen'st play dice", Albert Einstein If ever there was a more embarassing quote for theists to use, I don't know it.

Proof, again, that theists don't care for context, just a a nice catch phrase to support their point - even if the context of the quote contradicts their point. Have I ever stated that the way I interpret the bible is perfect?? Did I, because if so please point it out or are you attacking the poster, and not responding to the posts?

It's a belief backed up with scripture I see no contradiction with what I said and what any Christian should believe. So what is your point?

The word of God is always flawless, the interpretation of Man is not.

Please show me how my quote was out of context?

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I believe that he would pick people who wouldn't make these so-called "flaws" again your not only lowering Gods power, but his all-knowing side as well. You act like him choosing certain people and making certain situations occur is not his will. He did what he did because he planned it that way...

This is a belief of yours. I understand this, but in order for you to have any wieght of persuasion, you would have to be able to interpret this perfectly.

Is your Pastor perfect?

How is your INTERPRETATION of things not flawed?

There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. Any other presumption abou the Bible is an extension of that superstition and fallibility.

Quote: "God doen'st play dice", Albert Einstein If ever there was a more embarassing quote for theists to use, I don't know it.

Proof, again, that theists don't care for context, just a a nice catch phrase to support their point - even if the context of the quote contradicts their point. Have I ever stated that the way I interpret the bible is perfect?? Did I, because if so please point it out or are you attacking the poster, and not responding to the posts?

It's a belief backed up with scripture I see no contradiction with what I said and what any Christian should believe. So what is your point?

The word of God is always flawless, the interpretation of Man is not.

Please show me how my quote was out of context?

In order for you to claim that the word of god is flawless, you'd have to have evidence (maybe even proof) that this is true. In order for you to know this is true, you'd have to recognize perfection.

Are you capable of recognizing perfection? Could you be wrong about this?
Yes, of course you could.

So, there is no weigght behind your claim to say that god is "this or that", let alone, perfect.

(Your quote was in context to what YOU were talking about. My point was that it is out of context about what Einstein was saying, or what he believed. He did not believe in a personal god. So, you should have simply jus said it, and not attributed the quote to Einstein, since in the context of what he was talking about, it makes no sense. Understood?)

[LetsGetReal]

See again your not dealing with the OP which is against Forum Rules, he was asking for a CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE. A christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins. If thats not what you believe your perspective was never asked for.

Scriptural Basis for my comments:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: See again your not dealing with the OP which is against Forum Rules, he was asking for a CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE. A christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins. If thats not what you believe your perspective was never asked for.

Scriptural Basis for my comments:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

Very well, I will take this elsewhere and apologize to the entire Forum for my transgression.

Forgive me. :wink:

Quote: Hebrews 8:6-7
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

[LetsGetReal]

That verse is dealing with the corruption that was present throughout the Jewish people....:roll:

Take the verse out of context to try to prove your point....:wink:

[mODULAR mAN]

LetsGetReal wrote: That verse is dealing with the corruption that was present throughout the Jewish people....:roll:

Take the verse out of context to try to prove your point....:wink:

:wink:

But, I am bowing out of this convo, since I can't see how you are supposed to argue against a persons personal god without treading on some aspect of "ad hom'ism". Even Xians differ on the character of their god, so it seems incumbant that you (or "you" or "you") have different views about this mythical being. PLus, at the core is a personal choice to decide whether one believes the Bible is inerrant or not.

All is subjective with regard to religion. I was not trying to attack one person, but was trying to express the fact that this is purely interpretation from Prophet, to scribe, to church official, to believer. (For example, the "let he woho is without sin, cast the first stone" story was shown to be added 100's years later by a scribe who saw that a Priest had written it in the margins).

Knowing there are errors in the Bible should make one pause before they claim it is inerrant.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I believe that he would pick people who wouldn't make these so-called "flaws" again your not only lowering Gods power, but his all-knowing side as well. You act like him choosing certain people and making certain situations occur is not his will. He did what he did because he planned it that way...

This is a belief of yours. I understand this, but in order for you to have any wieght of persuasion, you would have to be able to interpret this perfectly.

Is your Pastor perfect?

How is your INTERPRETATION of things not flawed?

There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. Any other presumption abou the Bible is an extension of that superstition and fallibility.

Quote: "God doen'st play dice", Albert Einstein If ever there was a more embarassing quote for theists to use, I don't know it.

Proof, again, that theists don't care for context, just a a nice catch phrase to support their point - even if the context of the quote contradicts their point.

It appears you have just joined - welcome.
I would tend to agree with your position here. It would seem to me, that if the bible was perfect (flawless) and God wanted all of his children to go to heaven, there wouldn't be different branches of the same basic religion and understanding of things 'God' would be the same to everyone. I haven't seen this to be the case. Two people worshiping the same God reads the same verse or story, and can come away with two different interpretations - some times, these opinions can be contradictory to each other. That doesn't seem to be a cohesive understanding of the same thought or idea which you would expect for followers of the same perfect being. That is, assuming the desire of this perfect being is to lead everyone towards the same end result (heaven).
Quote: There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. The four Gospels, while telling the same story, have different accounts. I don't believe the intention was to mislead, however, by it does point to an imperfect book, inspired by a perfect God. Even when I was younger a reading the bible, that didn't makes sense.

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote:
It appears you have just joined - welcome.
thank you.
Quote: I would tend to agree with your position here. It would seem to me, that if the bible was perfect (flawless) and God wanted all of his children to go to heaven, there wouldn't be different branches of the same basic religion and understanding of things 'God' would be the same to everyone. I haven't seen this to be the case. Two people worshiping the same God reads the same verse or story, and can come away with two different interpretations - some times, these opinions can be contradictory to each other. That doesn't seem to be a cohesive understanding of the same thought or idea which you would expect for followers of the same perfect being. That is, assuming the desire of this perfect being is to lead everyone towards the same end result (heaven).

It is often said that if god was truly to relate his laws and wishes to people, the written language would be the worst way. Language changes over time, is inaccurate and translates poorly.

I don't know a better way, but an omniscient god would - I assume.

(Actually, I just came up with one: if you are not doing God's will, your skin turns bright pink, if you are doing gods will, you turn a warm shade of chartreuse.)

Quote: Quote: There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. The four Gospels, while telling the same story, have different accounts. I don't believe the intention was to mislead, however, by it does point to an imperfect book, inspired by a perfect God. Even when I was younger a reading the bible, that didn't makes sense.

I actually believe their intention was to embellish on stories they were copying - a benign form of lying, but they wouldn't have known how important their stories were going to be 2,000 years later.

It seems to me the evidence, and Occam's Razor, points to a group of superstitious men trying to assert their interpretation of how things should be, based on contemporary philosophy and in response to the harsh laws of the Jewish religious text.

[sLiPpY]

inmylineofsight wrote: Is this a possibility that even though god used man as a medium to wright the bible.The act of man physically wrighting the bible makes it a law of man even if its divinely inspired.

P.S. Im trying to keep my personal bias away from this subject. and not letting opinion or belief overcome facts//..

This is one I've thought about for quite some time.

1. If you're speaking of the "Book of Laws" contained within the Torah, those were translated into the Greek Sepuguit, and later into other Germanic languages.

2. In the translation process, words loose meaning. A modern example of this, would be an attempt to explain an American business or technical process to an individual from South America. The spanish language simply doesn't have the terminology for it, so it often takes paragraphs to explain what just one word might mean to an American.

Consider the two items above, and how those concepts might apply. Although the Bible as translated into English, contains many apparent absurdities. Some of these might be placed with the loss of cultural context, linguistic nuiance, and simply not having a similar word in English or another language available to convey the fuller meaning.

It is possible that I might agree with a Fundementalist "Bible Believing" Christian, if they were able to read Hebrew and understood the cultural context of the time for which those words were written.

btw..not even a scholar can assuredly do that.

I might even be persuaded to agree that those nuiances can be discerned through the help of what they would call the "Holy Spirit"

However, I'd venture that the majority of Christians are only aware of what their English bibles say, and take the context of the words to mean, what they perceive them to be today.

[LetsGetReal]

mODULAR mAN wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: That verse is dealing with the corruption that was present throughout the Jewish people....:roll:

Take the verse out of context to try to prove your point....:wink:

:wink:

But, I am bowing out of this convo, since I can't see how you are supposed to argue against a persons personal god without treading on some aspect of "ad hom'ism". Even Xians differ on the character of their god, so it seems incumbant that you (or "you" or "you") have different views about this mythical being. PLus, at the core is a personal choice to decide whether one believes the Bible is inerrant or not.

All is subjective with regard to religion. I was not trying to attack one person, but was trying to express the fact that this is purely interpretation from Prophet, to scribe, to church official, to believer. (For example, the "let he woho is without sin, cast the first stone" story was shown to be added 100's years later by a scribe who saw that a Priest had written it in the margins).

Knowing there are errors in the Bible should make one pause before they claim it is inerrant. The OP was asking from the views of a christian perspective was it not? So to talk about it from a non-christian perspective isn't going with what the thread was going for and hi-jacking it for ones own personal vendetta. What I said was from a christian perspective and backed up by scripture. Yours were arrogant comments to try to prove that there are so called "flaws" in the bible. You came across as someone who was trying to twist words to feel superior due to our belief in a "mythical being", :roll:.

All you've done this whole thread is try to hi-jack it and put your anti-christian spin on it which is again, breaking forum rules, because that wasn't the purpose of this thread.

And I love the little anti-christian ending you put about the scribe, oh how hilarious :lol:.

[mODULAR mAN]

inmylineofsight wrote: Is this a possibility that even though god used man as a medium to write the bible.The act of man physically writing the bible makes it a law of man even if its divinely inspired.

P.S. Im trying to keep my personal bias away from this subject. and not letting opinion or belief overcome facts//..



LetsGetReal wrote: The OP was asking from the views of a christian perspective was it not?
I was born a Xian, raised a Xian in a Xian country and am familiar with the Bible. Am I not Xian enough?

Quote: So to talk about it from a non-christian perspective isn't going with what the thread was going for and hi-jacking it for ones own personal vendetta. What I said was from a christian perspective and backed up by scripture.
You prefer to use scripture, I don't. Big deal. How do ou know those claims of divine inspiration are real? Lack of errors? There are errors.

How do you reconcile this? It seems the crux of the discussion.

Quote: Yours were arrogant comments to try to prove that there are so called "flaws" in the bible. You came across as someone who was trying to twist words to feel superior due to our belief in a "mythical being", :roll:.
It is a valid perspective. There are some Xians who don't believe the mythology in the Bible but take Jesus' words to heart; as one would consider wisdom from a philosopher.
Are they not "real" Xians?
Some Xians believe the Flood story, others believe it is a metaphor (or myth).

Some Xians believe Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, others think he was only raised spiritually.

I can't help this, and you can't either. You will have to accept that there are other interpretations of a book you claim as your Holy Book.

Quote: All you've done this whole thread is try to hi-jack it and put your anti-christian spin on it which is again, breaking forum rules, because that wasn't the purpose of this thread.
You keep saying that. I am trying to bow out, but I am compelled to answer statements addressed to me.

Forgive me. :wink:

Quote: And I love the little anti-christian ending you put about the scribe, oh how hilarious :lol:.

Quote: Turns out there are thousands of errors in the New Testament, Ehrman says, and several places where passages were added to early versions of the Bible.

Mysterious additions
Remember the classic story about the woman taken into adultery? She’s about to be stoned before Jesus confronts her accusers: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” The men say no more and walk away. Jesus looks up and asks the woman, “Is there no one who condemns you?” The woman says, “No one, Lord.” Jesus finishes the scene: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” It’s the ultimate story of forgiveness and compassion. Too bad the passage doesn’t exist in the earliest versions of the Bible, Ehrman says. It was added much later by scribes. Why? “A scribe heard the story, and thought that it exemplified Christ’s forgiving nature,” Ehrman says. “Maybe a scribe originally wrote it in the margin, and a later scribe thought that the story had been left out.”
http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2006/feature_05.php



The thread, if I'm not mistaken, is about the question of divine hand guiding the authors of the Bible.

I have shown in at least one part, the Bible was editted by scribes (though, some Apologists argue that this passage COULD HAVE been in the lost original, and re-added. OR, the scribes could have been divinely inspired.)

I'm sure you know about the many errors in the Bible, so we don't need to quote c.&v. However, the issue of a god transmitting a message to (fallible) humans for them to transcribe is an interesting philosophical dilemma.

John Smith used the same excuse and met with similar success as did the early writers of the Bible. Other Prophets of other religions have claimed divine intervention. I think if you are not disingenuous, all the methods and manners in which man has developed religions over time are pertinent to this discussion. They are facts, no?

So, philosophically speaking, if god were to transmit laws through the human mind (to which he gave free will, and is corrupted) it would be logical to think that the stream would be disrupted. Any book could claim it it is perfect, in fact, I would expect a human to write that ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks").

As I have shown it is likely that people claim divine guidance, yet, we have mutually exclusive religions: some of them are obviously wrong, but which ones?

My conclusion is, as the OP title suggests, that the law "given by god" is, in fact, the law of men with the belief they are inspired by god. But, even if I believed god existed, it would be impossible for an infinite being to impart infinite wisdom to a finite mind.

I'm sorry if my facts get in the way of your opinions or personal beliefs. :wink: I'm sory if I ruffled your feathers. I don't feel I need to pu**y-foot around my atheism, or refrain from commenting on the Bible. After all, I could just ask you "what do you mean by "god"?" And end the debate right now.

But, assuming that there was a god asking a man to take dictation, how would that person understand his infinite wisdom?

Quote: What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

—St. Augustine


More quotes:

THe Fundimentalist view:
Quote: Those who hold the view commonly designated as plenary and verbal inspiration claim that the biblical writers were divinely secured against any and all mistakes by virtue of their divine inspiration, and affirm, further, that that which constitutes the Bible a divine book is the fact that the Holy Spirit so dimated and guided the minds and pens of those who wrote as to make their writings free from mistakes of any and all kinds, whether it be mistakes of history or chronology or botany or biology or astronomy, or mistakes as to moral and spiritual truth pertaining to God and man, in time or eternity. According to this view of biblical inspiration, whatever the Bible says must be true because it is God's own Word; what it says is what God says.
Professor W.F. Tillett

Contrary views:
Quote:
A long, slow process brought the Gospels to their present form without any sign of divine initiative at the beginning or the end or at any point between the two; at a given time they were selected, from among many, by the Church authorities and the text of their content finally determined...The apostolic Epistles, authentic or not, are personal works called forth by particular occasions. Moreover a considerable part of them are forgeries, for which it would be unseemly enough to make God directly responsible...In short, the idea of God as author of books is a myth, if ever there was one, and a myth redolent of magic...The books reputed all divine are simply not filled with truth from beginning to end-far from it! They contain as many errors as books of their kind, written where they were, could be made to hold.
Alfred Loisy

Quote: From all this the conclusion follows that what we have here is not historical tradition of a factual resurrection...but an assertion of faith. The stories of imagined apparitions are, for the most part, apologetic constructions for buttressing belief by clothing it in material form. Whence it follows in this crucial case, as in that of miracles in general, that the only history we can glean from stories of supernatural magic is the history of belief.
Alfred Loisy

Quote: Now they say that this book is inspired. I do not care whether it is or not; the question is, Is it true? If it is true, it doesn't need to be inspired. Nothing needs inspiration except a falsehood or a mistake.
Robert Ingersoll

Quote: Of the authors...of many of the books, we are either in complete ignorance, or at any rate in doubt...Further, we do now know either the occasions or the epochs when these books of unknown authorship were written; we cannot say into what hands they fell, nor how the numerous varying versions originated; nor, lastly, whether there were not other versions, now lost.
Baruch Spinoza

Quote: We may, then, be absolutely certain that every event which is truly described in Scripture necessarily happened, like everything else, according to natural laws; and if anything is there set down which can be proved in set terms of contravene the order of nature, or not to be deducible there from, we must believe it to have been foisted into the sacred writings by irreligious hands; for whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected.
Baruch Spinoza.

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote:
It appears you have just joined - welcome.
thank you.
Quote: I would tend to agree with your position here. It would seem to me, that if the bible was perfect (flawless) and God wanted all of his children to go to heaven, there wouldn't be different branches of the same basic religion and understanding of things 'God' would be the same to everyone. I haven't seen this to be the case. Two people worshiping the same God reads the same verse or story, and can come away with two different interpretations - some times, these opinions can be contradictory to each other. That doesn't seem to be a cohesive understanding of the same thought or idea which you would expect for followers of the same perfect being. That is, assuming the desire of this perfect being is to lead everyone towards the same end result (heaven).

It is often said that if god was truly to relate his laws and wishes to people, the written language would be the worst way. Language changes over time, is inaccurate and translates poorly.

I don't know a better way, but an omniscient god would - I assume.

(Actually, I just came up with one: if you are not doing God's will, your skin turns bright pink, if you are doing gods will, you turn a warm shade of chartreuse.)

Quote: Quote: There are errors in the Bible. It appears to have been written by superstitious and fallible men. The four Gospels, while telling the same story, have different accounts. I don't believe the intention was to mislead, however, by it does point to an imperfect book, inspired by a perfect God. Even when I was younger a reading the bible, that didn't makes sense.

I actually believe their intention was to embellish on stories they were copying - a benign form of lying, but they wouldn't have known how important their stories were going to be 2,000 years later.

It seems to me the evidence, and Occam's Razor, points to a group of superstitious men trying to assert their interpretation of how things should be, based on contemporary philosophy and in response to the harsh laws of the Jewish religious text.

Quote: I actually believe their intention was to embellish on stories they were copying - a benign form of lying, but they wouldn't have known how important their stories were going to be 2,000 years later. That is an interesting way to look at it - I haven't thought of it that way before. I think it should be considered as a possibility by an honest person.
However, as a Christian, I tend to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to the writers thinking there was no intent to mislead. Although I don't have any proof of that personally, nor know of any (doubt there is any, actually).
Religion is funny that way - one takes from it what they are looking for and ignores what may already be available.

At any rate, it is good to have another thinker in the ranks at PCF

[mODULAR mAN]

toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I actually believe their intention was to embellish on stories they were copying - a benign form of lying, but they wouldn't have known how important their stories were going to be 2,000 years later. That is an interesting way to look at it - I haven't thought of it that way before. I think it should be considered as a possibility by an honest person.
However, as a Christian, I tend to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to the writers thinking there was no intent to mislead. Although I don't have any proof of that personally, nor know of any (doubt there is any, actually).
Religion is funny that way - one takes from it what they are looking for and ignores what may already be available.

At any rate, it is good to have another thinker in the ranks at PCF
:!oops: I hope I can justify your comment.

I do find it interesting. I am quite the atheist but find (forgive the term, but it is as I see it) mythology not only interesting, but meaningful.
I attibute no supernaturalism to the world, but find that the subconscious and metaphorical meanings are profoundly important.

I agree, religion IS funny that way.

[LetsGetReal]

You can't be born a christian, you can't be raised christian, and to live in a christian country still does'nt mean you're a christian. So your perspective again was not asked for.

Opinions are'nt facts, sorry :wink:

With every post you make you show more and more your lack of Christian theology. So if you would like to continue to post Non-Christian beliefs go ahead I'm tired of your idiocy.

As I repeat to you if you would like to see the christian perspective(what the OP was asking for, because he clearly stated he was keeping his beliefs out of the thread) on the belief that there could be errors in the bible:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

P.S. Toddytodd posting the same thing the last ignorant atheist thought up before him truly does'nt qualify him to be a thinker. I'm really getting sick of this crap if you don't know christianity please don't talk about.

Oh and since you like quotes here's some actual good ones:

"It is by rather an unlucky metaphor that we talk of a madman as cracked: for in a sense his not cracked enough. He is cramped rather than cracked; there are not enough holes in his head to ventilate it. This impossibility of letting in daylight on a delusion does sometimes cover and conceal a delusion of divinity. It can be found not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics. But this is exactly where the argument becomes intensely interesting;because the argument proves too much. For nobody supposes that Jesus of Nazereth was that sort of person. No modern critic in his five wits thinks that the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount was a horrible half-witted imbecile that might be scrawling stars on the walls of a cell. No atheist or blasphemer believes that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a monster with one mad idea like a cyclops with one eye. Upon any possible historical criticism, he must be put higher in the scale of human beings than that. Yet by all analogy we have really to put him there or else in the highest place of all." From The Everlasting Man-Chesterton

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg, or else he would be the devil of hell. Either this man was and is the Son of God; or else a mad man or something worst. You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him the Lord God. But let us not come out with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us, He did not intend to ..."

- C.S. Lewis

At the beginning of this preliminary negative sketch I said that our mental ruin has been wrought by wild reason, not by wild imagination. A man does not go mad because he makes a statue a mile high, but he may go mad by thinking it out in square inches.
Chesterton

[toddytodd]

mODULAR mAN wrote: toddytodd wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I actually believe their intention was to embellish on stories they were copying - a benign form of lying, but they wouldn't have known how important their stories were going to be 2,000 years later. That is an interesting way to look at it - I haven't thought of it that way before. I think it should be considered as a possibility by an honest person.
However, as a Christian, I tend to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to the writers thinking there was no intent to mislead. Although I don't have any proof of that personally, nor know of any (doubt there is any, actually).
Religion is funny that way - one takes from it what they are looking for and ignores what may already be available.

At any rate, it is good to have another thinker in the ranks at PCF
:!oops: I hope I can justify your comment.

I do find it interesting. I am quite the atheist but find (forgive the term, but it is as I see it) mythology not only interesting, but meaningful.
I attibute no supernaturalism to the world, but find that the subconscious and metaphorical meanings are profoundly important.

I agree, religion IS funny that way.


It seems that many people think being supernatural is breaking or superceding the natural rules and laws of nature (biology, physics, etc). To me, something supernatural doesn't break or go beyond the natural laws, only goes beyond our understanding of these laws.
But that is a tad off topic - sorry.
Back to one of the original questions: Is the bible the law of man? I am not sure how 'the law of man' phrase was meant to be understood by the poster. However, as a Christian, I think that since christianity isn't practiced by everyone, I don't think it would be considered the law of man.
Perhaps the phrase 'the law of man' is to be understood as a man-made religion or law. If that is the way the poster meant it, I could see it could be consider the law of man by many.

[toddytodd]

melchizedek22 wrote: its people missusing the Bible to push their own agenda thats the problem
example,"You are the salt of the earth"
Salt is white,God is Pro White man!
Sounds rediculous,but I could sell that to White racist everyday of the week!

Another problem is people defining others by their own (perhaps flawed) definition based upon a 2000+ year old book re-written many times by people of less than reputable status and/or by biased people. People can make the bible say basically anything they want, and then consider themselves correct, and everyone else wrong. That is an arrogant approach - to think they understand an all knowing being from this old book well enough to tell everyone else they are wrong. That is comical and sad at the same time. That arrogance and spouting of ill will, accusatory hatred and misrepresentation of God might just give them a "Free Pass" to hell....

[toddytodd]

LetsGetReal wrote: You can't be born a christian, you can't be raised christian, and to live in a christian country still does'nt mean you're a christian. So your perspective again was not asked for.

Opinions are'nt facts, sorry :wink:

With every post you make you show more and more your lack of Christian theology. So if you would like to continue to post Non-Christian beliefs go ahead I'm tired of your idiocy.

As I repeat to you if you would like to see the christian perspective(what the OP was asking for, because he clearly stated he was keeping his beliefs out of the thread) on the belief that there could be errors in the bible:
2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."

P.S. Toddytodd posting the same thing the last ignorant atheist thought up before him truly does'nt qualify him to be a thinker. I'm really getting sick of this crap if you don't know christianity please don't talk about.


I don't recall anyone saying their opinion were facts in this discussion. Anyone (christian or not) who would think their opinion is fact has a very limited (or non-existent) grasp on reality.
I think you have made your (half-hearted) point here - we all get it: It appears that those you can't agree with, aren't Christian. You might want to note: Your opinion (which, remember, isn't a fact) of if someone who claims to be a christian is or isn't correct, is irrelevant nor is it necessary to continue to promote that within this discussion.
When you can have a discussion without name calling, let me know. Until then, I will ignore all your posts, as well as should others.