Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Muslims Versus Christians - Who will win? Aren't they alike?

Muslims Versus Christians - Who will win? Aren't they alike? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:40 PM
 
True = My Interpretation
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Who said it wasn't? Ironically, they weren't happy with the Bible as it stood alone and could not allow their teaching to stand sola scriptura.
It just seems entirely arbitrary, albeit convenient, to say that the Bible is a sort of elemental "truth" in terms of devoutly following Jesus' commands, and Catholicism is "extra-Biblical," when the Bible itself has been edited, added to, and re-interpreted for the same kinds of motives that you might object to in the context of the papacy. In that sense, what one could refer to as the "architecture" of the Catholic Church is no further from God than what is attributed to Jesus in the Bible. In either case you are displaying a significant amount of faith of human interpreters.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Wasn't it Thursday? Three days and three nights, rose on Sunday? Or maybe it was Friday-Monday; the memory is admittedly failing.
I believe it was just three days, with no mention of nights. Not three 24 hour periods. Some have suggested a 40-hour period, as God was pretty stuck on the number 40, which would be two nights and three (partial) days if he died at noon on Friday (the "6th hour") and rose at 8am on Sunday. I think that's getting a bit too focused on the details.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Exactly. Not to mention, for dcmacdaddy's edification, that AFAIK there are some protestant sects that claim to follow their lineage straight through to the earliest times. As I understand it Martin Luther was revolutionary, but he wasn't the first by any means. (Of course not sure how much of this is revisionist history.)
ML just had a big set of balls. There were many why challenged the Catholic Church for it's institutions, most were silenced in a very non-Biblical fashion.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Yeah you're right - I think it's the act of drunkenness, not drinking itself. Of course the straight arrows I know make some sort of analogy to how alcohol is stronger today and how you can get drunk off one drink/beer, etc. etc. Doesn't seem to explain the part about Jesus making more wine for wedding guests who were supposedly too drunk to appreciate it, but I'm sure they explain it away adequately.

greg
I do believe God never intended for a breathalyzer test to determine drunkenness. Today's definition of drunkenness I think is a little different. The wine Jesus made was considered very good, and by cultural definitions of the time, that meant strong.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
True = My Interpretation
True=Biblical

How can you define Christianity by anything else other than the source?

What does "true" equal to you?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
It just seems entirely arbitrary, albeit convenient, to say that the Bible is a sort of elemental "truth" in terms of devoutly following Jesus' commands, and Catholicism is "extra-Biblical,"
How is that "arbitrary" by ANY means?!? The Catholic Church doesn't even follow basic tenants of Bible doctrine.
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
when the Bible itself has been edited, added to, and re-interpreted for the same kinds of motives that you might object to in the context of the papacy.
Not all translators motives are the same as in the context of the papacy. Scholars not only study the biblical texts, but texts around the same times so as to increase their understanding of the dialects of the biblical authors. Their goal is an accurate translation either word for word, phrase for phrase, or concept by concept. I believe there are less errors in a word for word translation, though that does make the text very difficult to read.
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
In that sense, what one could refer to as the "architecture" of the Catholic Church is no further from God than what is attributed to Jesus in the Bible.
According to you.
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
In either case you are displaying a significant amount of faith of human interpreters.
That is why I do not rely on a single translation, but often refer to multiple versions during my studies. And on areas I am unsure on I contact colleagues who have studied ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
True=Biblical

How can you define Christianity by anything else other than the source?
You seem to be missing the part where the source is prone to infinite interpretation.


Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
What does "true" equal to you?
True would be whatever the actual facts behind the Bible are. Which we'll never get, unless we get a time machine or god himself comes down from the heavens and clears the matter up on his way to Vegas.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I believe it was just three days, with no mention of nights. Not three 24 hour periods. Some have suggested a 40-hour period, as God was pretty stuck on the number 40, which would be two nights and three (partial) days if he died at noon on Friday (the "6th hour") and rose at 8am on Sunday. I think that's getting a bit too focused on the details.
I thought there was some bit about Jonah's three days and three nights going on somewhere... I dunno
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
look, to have an honest dialog here, you're going to have to be honest and not twist words.
I am replying to the words you stated explicitly. Nothing more.

You stated "a true Christian does not add or take away from the Bible, but devoutly follows all of Jesus' commands."
Jesus' commands occur ONLY in the Gospels. If you wish to amend your definition of what constitutes a "true Christian" so as to include more than just "Jesus' commands" then maybe we can expand the scope of our debate.

Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
look, to have an honest dialog here, you're going to have to be honest and not twist words.
I am replying to the words you stated explicitly. Nothing more.

You stated "Catholic does not equal Christianity . . . "
I replied asking about your definition of Christianity when Catholicism did equal Christianity? You replied that the 1000 years of history--from ""the beginning of papal rule, right to the nailing of the 95 Theses"--was a "legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church".


YOU are the one who is so focused on asserting that Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity.
YOU are the one who is so focused on delimiting what makes a "true Christian" when there are well over one hundred different sects of Christianity making the same claim.

Don't you get it: YOU'RE claim to be able to assert what makes a "true Christian" are no more valid than any other Christian's claims. YOU'RE Christian sect's definition of what constitutes Christianity is no more, and no less, valid than a Pentecostal's claims, or a Catholic's claims, or an Anglican's claims. They are all the same claim.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
How is that "arbitrary" by ANY means?!? The Catholic Church doesn't even follow basic tenants of Bible doctrine.
It's arbitrary if your goal is to be someone who "devoutly follows all of Jesus' commands." The Bible is not a primary source. As I understand it, there is significant agreement among scholars that the earliest texts in the New Testament were written at least a couple of decades after Jesus' death. You are banking that one subset of people's claims to divine interpretation is more reliable than another subset's, which to me seems arbitrary.

Stuff about translation
I specifically did not mention translation. I'm referring to what actually made it into the source material that comprises what is translated and studied as "The Bible," (or more specifically, the New Testament).

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You seem to be missing the part where the source is prone to infinite interpretation.
Or that the source is in and of itself a completely arbitrary assemblage of writings.

Railroader uses circular reasoning typical of religious debates. Beliefs are based on writings in holy book X but the validity of holy book X can only be confirmed by the writings within holy book X. There is NO external reference to which can be tested the validity of the claims in holy book X.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I am replying to the words you stated explicitly. Nothing more.

You stated "a true Christian does not add or take away from the Bible, but devoutly follows all of Jesus' commands."
Jesus' commands occur ONLY in the Gospels. If you wish to amend your definition of what constitutes a "true Christian" so as to include more than just "Jesus' commands" then maybe we can expand the scope of our debate.
I am beginning to think you are intentionally misunderstanding things. You are twisting things. To truly understand Christianity you only need to follow Jesus' teachings. If you only had Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John you'd be fine. But...

Originally Posted by Railroader
To truly understand the New T, you must understand the Old T. The New T. fulfillment of Old T. prophecies. The Old T. stories of man's attempts to earn righteousness, and the revelation of man's sin nature. And finally, God's grace and redemption in the New T.

There is also great songs of encouragement, praise, and worship written in there that do not relate to teaching. Proverbs is also for the building of wisdom.

And I will add that Paul and the other epistles and revelation all further explain Jesus' teachings.
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I am replying to the words you stated explicitly. Nothing more.

You stated "Catholic does not equal Christianity . . . "
I replied asking about your definition of Christianity when Catholicism did equal Christianity? You replied that the 1000 years of history--from ""the beginning of papal rule, right to the nailing of the 95 Theses"--was a "legalistic extra-Biblical version of the Church".
Do you think that "Catholic does not equal Christianity"=Catholics are not Christians? Cause I sure don't.
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
YOU are the one who is so focused on asserting that Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity.
Ummm... no I am not. I am the one saying that Catholicism=Christianity. Christianity=Christianity.
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
YOU are the one who is so focused on delimiting what makes a "true Christian" when there are well over one hundred different sects of Christianity making the same claim.

Don't you get it: YOU'RE claim to be able to assert what makes a "true Christian" are no more valid than any other Christian's claims. YOU'RE Christian sect's definition of what constitutes Christianity is no more, and no less, valid than a Pentecostal's claims, or a Catholic's claims, or an Anglican's claims. They are all the same claim.
What Christian sect am I?
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Or that the source is in and of itself a completely arbitrary assemblage of writings.
You really think it was "arbitrary"?
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Railroader uses circular reasoning typical of religious debates. Beliefs are based on writings in holy book X but the validity of holy book X can only be confirmed by the writings within holy book X. There is NO external reference to which can be tested the validity of the claims in holy book X.
So, you are saying, that I am saying, that there are no other sources to support, validate, or corroborate events in the Bible? Where did I say that?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
The Bible is not a primary source.
Correct. There are many, many more writings (in Greek and Hebrew) that talk about the Christian God that are not included in the canonical Bible.

Of course, this leaves out the matter of what selections were made for inclusion by the initial compilers of the Bible. The Christian God did NOT appear to an assembly of early Church scholars and present to them a list of the texts he wanted included in the Bible. The choices of what texts to include in the Bible were decided at several early ecumenical councils with St. Augustine and Athanasius being the most influential in determining inclusion and order.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Railroader uses circular reasoning typical of religious debates. Beliefs are based on writings in holy book X but the validity of holy book X can only be confirmed by the writings within holy book X. There is NO external reference to which can be tested the validity of the claims in holy book X.

Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
So, you are saying, that I am saying, that there are no other sources to support, validate, or corroborate events in the Bible? Where did I say that?
Nope. Your reply to me is about the content of the Bible whereas my point was about the formation of the Bible. You are replying to a statement I did not make.

Just to be super-clear you I will state my claim again with extra details.

I think that there are many sources of information about the history of the early Christian Church.
I think the Bible is an arbitrary assemblage of some of those early sources into a textual whole (perceived as a whole by those who did the assembling).
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 31, 2010 at 05:46 PM. Reason: for greater precision of expression.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
What Christian sect am I?
Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter to our debate.

You could belong a Christian sect with 10 believers and your beliefs would be no more, and no less, valid than a Christian sect with 10,000 or 100,000 believers.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I am beginning to think you are intentionally misunderstanding things. You are twisting things. To truly understand Christianity you only need to follow Jesus' teachings. If you only had Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John you'd be fine.
OK.

If I want to truly follow Christianity I "only need to follow Jesus' teachings".
Jesus' teachings are found ONLY in the Gospels.
So, I "only need to follow [the Gospels]".

Then why do you include the "But..." in your post?
Why do you continue to natter on about needing the Old Testament to understand the New Testament?
Everything in the Bible outside of the Gospels should be irrelevant to a "true Christian" that has the Gospels (i.e.: Jesus' teachings) right in front of them, right?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Correct. There are many, many more writings (in Greek and Hebrew) that talk about the Christian God that are not included in the canonical Bible.

Of course, this leaves out the matter of what selections were made for inclusion by the initial compilers of the Bible. The Christian God did NOT appear to an assembly of early Church scholars and present to them a list of the texts he wanted included in the Bible. The choices of what texts to include in the Bible were decided at several early ecumenical councils with St. Augustine and Athanasius being the most influential in determining inclusion and order.
I thought you said it was "arbitrary"?!?! I am sooooo confused.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
OK.

If I want to truly follow Christianity I "only need to follow Jesus' teachings".
Jesus' teachings are found ONLY in the Gospels.
So, I "only need to follow [the Gospels]".

Then why do you include the "But..." in your post?
Why do you continue to natter on about needing the Old Testament to understand the New Testament?
Everything in the Bible outside of the Gospels should be irrelevant to a "true Christian" that has the Gospels (i.e.: Jesus' teachings) right in front of them, right?
The sun gives heat. Do I need to examine everything about the sun and know everything about the sun to know that it gives off thermal energy? Is my knowledge extended by understanding what gasses make up the sun and the chemical reactions that take place to cause the sun to give off thermal energy to know that the sun give heat?

A man can become a Christian just by believing and following Jesus' teachings in the 4 Gospels, but the man's knowledge and understanding will be greater and have much more depth when he considers all of the Bible.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter to our debate.

You could belong a Christian sect with 10 believers and your beliefs would be no more, and no less, valid than a Christian sect with 10,000 or 100,000 believers.
Oh really? Not according to the Bible.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I thought you said it was "arbitrary"?!?! I am sooooo confused.
What don't you understand?

There are X number of historical writings related to the life of Christ and/or the early history of Christianity.

A subset of these writings (X - N) were arbitrarily chosen to form what we know today as the Bible.

Take, for example, Paul. There is debate as to his authorship over some of the Pauline Epistles. But apart from that, there are other confirmed writings of his--and writings speculated to be by his hand--that are not included in the Bible. So, who and why decided to select the 13 Pauline epistles for inclusion in the Bible? Someone did, and that act of selection makes the formation of the Bible arbitrary.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
. . . but the man's knowledge and understanding will be greater and have much more depth when he considers all of the Bible.
Perhaps then you should not make absolutist statements.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter to our debate.

You could belong a Christian sect with 10 believers and your beliefs would be no more, and no less, valid than a Christian sect with 10,000 or 100,000 believers.
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Oh really? Not according to the Bible.
Here you go again with your unclear statements. WHAT in my statement is "not according to the Bible"?

It would really help if you used the active, declarative voice in your posts. Like this: "Your statement is incorrect according to the Bible because [insert reference to specific passage(s) in the Bible that contradict my statement]". See how easy that is to do.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
The sun gives heat. Do I need to examine everything about the sun and know everything about the sun to know that it gives off thermal energy? Is my knowledge extended by understanding what gasses make up the sun and the chemical reactions that take place to cause the sun to give off thermal energy to know that the sun give heat?
Well, you would need to understand the basics of thermodynamics to understand that the heat you feel when the sun is shining is actually caused by the sun but is not a result of direct transference of heat from the sun to the earth. (Understanding the basics of thermodynamics is also what allows you to understand why it can be hot even when it is cloudy. It allows you to understand that directly seeing the sun is not necessary to obtain heat from the sun.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Here you go again with your unclear statements. WHAT in my statement is "not according to the Bible"?

It would really help if you used the active, declarative voice in your posts. Like this: "Your statement is incorrect according to the Bible because [insert reference to specific passage(s) in the Bible that contradict my statement]". See how easy that is to do.
I thought you said you had read the Bible. I guess you didn't remember much.

Matthew 7:21-23
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
What don't you understand?

There are X number of historical writings related to the life of Christ and/or the early history of Christianity.

A subset of these writings (X - N) were arbitrarily chosen to form what we know today as the Bible.

Take, for example, Paul. There is debate as to his authorship over some of the Pauline Epistles. But apart from that, there are other confirmed writings of his--and writings speculated to be by his hand--that are not included in the Bible. So, who and why decided to select the 13 Pauline epistles for inclusion in the Bible? Someone did, and that act of selection makes the formation of the Bible arbitrary.
Do you know the definition of arbitrary? I don't think you do.

There were some very clear reasons why some text were approved and some weren't. It was not without great thought and meditation. It was not done by people who were unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Well, you would need to understand the basics of thermodynamics to understand that the heat you feel when the sun is shining is actually caused by the sun but is not a result of direct transference of heat from the sun to the earth. (Understanding the basics of thermodynamics is also what allows you to understand why it can be hot even when it is cloudy. It allows you to understand that directly seeing the sun is not necessary to obtain heat from the sun.)
But you still know that the sun gives you heat. You don't need to know any of that to accept the fact that the sun gives heat. I don't need to know the basics of thermodynamics to know that the sun gives heat. My son is 4 and he knows that the sun gives heat (I will admit, he is pretty smart for a 4 year old, but he knows nothing about thermodynamics).
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
That is why I do not rely on a single translation, but often refer to multiple versions during my studies. And on areas I am unsure on I contact colleagues who have studied ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
What versions of the Bible do you read?

I have an RSV, a KJV/RSV interlinear, and a NIV.
I like the RSV for semantic accuracy, the KJV/RSV for historical context, and the NIV for everyday readability.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
But you still know that the sun gives you heat. You don't need to know any of that to accept the fact that the sun gives heat.
Umm, actually you do need to know some of those things. Otherwise you are taking it on faith that the observation that bright sun = heat from the sun is True in all circumstances.

Except, if you believed that heat comes from the sun only when it is bright and hot, you would NOT know that cloudy sky = heat from the sun is True as well. And, you would REALLY NOT know that cloudy sky on -20F overcast day = heat from the sun is True as well.

Does your 4-year-old son know that on a -20F day in February with a cloud-filled sky that the sun is still providing heat to the planet? If not, then he doesn't really "know" that the sun gives heat. But, this is a question about epistemology (How doe we know what we know?) which is another whole separate realm of discussion. So, I will let this tangent fall by the wayside.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't matter to our debate.

You could belong a Christian sect with 10 believers and your beliefs would be no more, and no less, valid than a Christian sect with 10,000 or 100,000 believers.
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Oh really? Not according to the Bible.
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Here you go again with your unclear statements. WHAT in my statement is "not according to the Bible"?

It would really help if you used the active, declarative voice in your posts. Like this: "Your statement is incorrect according to the Bible because [insert reference to specific passage(s) in the Bible that contradict my statement]". See how easy that is to do.
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
I thought you said you had read the Bible. I guess you didn't remember much.

Matthew 7:21-23
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Care to explain how you think this passage from Matthew contradicts my statement? How about using the following.

Matthew 7:21-23 contradicts your statement [about the size of the sect of believers you belong to being irrelevant to the validity of the claims of your sect] because Matthew 7:21-23 is interpreted to mean . . .
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 31, 2010 at 07:45 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Do you know the definition of arbitrary? I don't think you do.

There were some very clear reasons why some text were approved and some weren't. It was not without great thought and meditation. It was not done by people who were unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
Yes, I do know what arbitrary means.

What were those "very clear reasons why some text were approved and some weren't" for initial inclusion in the Bible. Where is the document that explains the "very clear reasons why some text were approved and some weren't" for initial inclusion in the Bible?
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Aug 31, 2010 at 09:06 PM. Reason: incorrect punctuation.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 08:44 PM
 
Nah, I'm done here.

Cheers.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 08:53 PM
 
So no one knows much about Islam I guess.

Catholic does not equal Christianity, but what equals Islam?

Shunni? Shi'ite? Shi'a?

What's are the 'true Muslim beliefs'?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
GlennBeckRushLimbaughSarahPalinFoxNewsChristians! -Bush
GoreClintonLiberalMediaLiberalSchoolsLeftistSocial istMuslimsCommunistsAnchorBabiesTerroristBabiesGay sIllegallImgrants! - Kenyan Muslim Hussein Obama


Did I miss anything else?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Nah, I'm done here.

Cheers.
Sorry you don't want to continue. It was fun. Cheers to you, as well!
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So no one knows much about Islam I guess.

Catholic does not equal Christianity, but what equals Islam?

Shunni? Shi'ite? Shi'a?

What's are the 'true Muslim beliefs'?
Good question. What are the beliefs of a "true Muslim"?

Are Sunni beliefs the beliefs of a "true Muslim"?
Are Shi'ia beliefs the beliefs of a "true Muslim"?
Are Wahabi beliefs the beliefs of a "true Muslim"?
Are Sufi beliefs the beliefs of a "true Muslim"?
How do these beliefs compare to one another in their trueness/fidelity to the beliefs of a "true Muslim"?


And how do these various Muslim beliefs compare to the beliefs of the different sects of Christianity?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
hyteckit  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2010, 09:54 PM
 
The Sunni and Shia split reminds me of King Henry VIII and his split from the Roman Catholic church to form the Anglican church.

The Origins of the Sunni/Shia split in Islam


The Shia Imam has come to be imbued with Pope-like infallibility and the Shia religious hierarchy is not dissimilar in structure and religious power to that of the Catholic Church within Christianity.

Sunni Islam, in contrast, more closely resembles the myriad independent churches of American Protestantism. Sunnis do not have a formal clergy, just scholars and jurists, who may offer non-binding opinions.



I wonder how much political power the Catholic Pope and the Shia Pope have.

Who has more political power in Iran? Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the Shia Pope.

Ruhollah Khomeini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like the Shia Pope has more power. After all, he is the Supreme Leader of Iran.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2010, 05:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Nah, I'm done here.

Cheers.
Wow, from a guy decrying a civilized debate is impossible here, yet when given one quits.
These true believers don't really want to be questioned about their true beliefs do they.

Sad really.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Shhhh. Don't mention the apocryphal texts, the Gnostic texts, the possible Gospel of Thomas, or any of the recent extra-Biblical discoveries (Dead Sea Scrolls, Q texts).

Heaven forbid there be any acknowledgement that the creation of the Bible was in and of itself a deliberate act on the part of early Church fathers to demarcate the limits of what constitutes Christianity and what constitutes being a "true Christian". Railroader doesn't realize he is about 17-18 centuries too late to decide what constitutes being a "true Christian".
Need to correct you. Q is a theory about the sources of Jesus' teaching found in Matthew and Luke but not Mark. While some scholars think there may have been a Q text, most seem sure Q are really oral traditions that Matthew and Luke recorded separately without reference to a common text. Q is not an "extra-Biblical discovery." For myself, I think Mark wrote first, Luke copied Mark and added the oral traditions, and Matthew copied from Mark and Luke.

The Gnostic texts really tell us nothing about early Christianity and are just an odd curiosity.
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Wasn't it Thursday? Three days and three nights, rose on Sunday? Or maybe it was Friday-Monday; the memory is admittedly failing.
Jesus wasn't dead 3 days. He was "raised on the third day," which means the third day of his death. Friday was the first day of his death, Saturday the second, and Sunday the third. The fact that Railroader couldn't explain this simple fact demonstrates how little he understands the Bible.
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Who said it wasn't? Ironically, they weren't happy with the Bible as it stood alone and could not allow their teaching to stand sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura is an intellectual joke. The contents of the Bible are the product of tradition and church leadership. There are many products of tradition, most importantly the Apostle's Creed, which states exactly what a Christian is expected to believe. To say one follows sola scriptura but not tradition or church leaders is simply an illogical assertion. Scripture is the product of tradition and church leaders, not an alternative to it.
The wine Jesus made was considered very good, and by cultural definitions of the time, that meant strong.
Nonsense, it meant it tasted good. Jeez, what a silly assertion.

Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
True=Biblical

How can you define Christianity by anything else other than the source?
I keep needing to say this: Christianity is defined in the Apostle's Creed, a non-Biblical text.

Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
How is that "arbitrary" by ANY means?!? The Catholic Church doesn't even follow basic tenants of Bible doctrine.
Uh, what? Care to give a single example? Without the made-up "facts" like "Catholics worship Mary" and "Catholics worship idol statues."
Scholars not only study the biblical texts, but texts around the same times so as to increase their understanding of the dialects of the biblical authors. Their goal is an accurate translation either word for word, phrase for phrase, or concept by concept. I believe there are less errors in a word for word translation, though that does make the text very difficult to read.
Some translations are simply impossible. For instance, when Jesus talks with Nicodemus, it is impossible to translate to English because the Greek word "again" had two meanings: again and above. Jesus was saying a man needs to be "born from above" but Nicodemus thought he was saying "born again." This conversation is impossible in English. Hilariously, so-called "born again Christians" are the modern product of this misunderstanding, since Jesus was actually saying we must be "born from above."
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
A man can become a Christian just by believing and following Jesus' teachings in the 4 Gospels, but the man's knowledge and understanding will be greater and have much more depth when he considers all of the Bible.
This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin.

The Gospels are only semi-biographies of Jesus' life. You can learn to follow Jesus' example or teachings from those books, but they are extremely light on theology. For that, you need Paul. The authentic Pauline letters are the real basis of Christianity. The Gospels say what Jesus did, but Paul teaches what a Christian is supposed to believe. You could reconstruct Christianity with only Paul's letters, but you couldn't do the same with the Gospels. The fact that so many Christians today lend too heavily on the Gospels but don't understand Paul is the cause of the misunderstanding and divisions in Christianity today.

For instance, if you only had the Gospels and decided to follow Jesus' example, you might end up living a celibate life with no property. But you wouldn't know anything about the meaning of the crucifixion, since the Gospels don't discuss the hows and whys of that event. You need Paul for that.

What's really funny about Railroader's comments on the Catholic Church is that the Church only expects it's members to adhere to the required (Pauline) beliefs and recommended ethics, but not necessarily follow the (Gospel) example of Jesus. Only the priests are expected to live exactly as Jesus lived. The Catholic Church knows that the way of Jesus' life isn't a model for everyone, but Railroader seems to think it is, while at the same time advocating the complete elimination of celibate priesthoods, so that no one ever emulates Jesus' life ever again.

Going back to Paul and discussions of "real Christianity," the beginning of the reunification of the Christian Church is already here, and it is the exact opposite of the Reformation. It's called "The New Perspective on Paul," a scholarly movement begun in the Protestant world and now the official theology of the Catholic Church. It complete decimates Martin Luther's stupid theology and finally tells the world what Paul was really saying.

If you want the short version: "Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus" is completely wrong. Paul really said: Salvation by Grace through Jesus' Faithfulness to God. In other words, it is not our faith in Jesus that brings salvation, it is Jesus' faithfulness to God that brings salvation. It is not the faith of the believer that saves, it is Jesus' faithfulness, which means Jesus' obedience to God, an obedience which led straight to the cross. Believers attain salvation by mystically partaking of Jesus' sacrifice during the Lord's Supper - mystically consuming the body and blood of Jesus.

Hence, if you don't belong to a church, or you belong to a church that doesn't practice the Lord's Supper, you are not saved. That's you, Doofy. Get your ass to church.

Martin Luther told the world that we are saved by faith, not works. But Paul said we are saved by "works" - the action of Jesus' obedience to God's commands, which lead to his death, and our "work" of participating in the Lord's Supper. Martin Luther had it completely backwards.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 07:59 AM
 
Oh hey look, someone finally figured out exactly what the Bible means. I guess we can all go home now!
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh hey look, someone finally figured out exactly what the Bible means. I guess we can all go home now!
Yup.

/end thread
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 12:21 PM
 
James chapter 2:17-26 has that covered.
17
So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18
Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
19
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
20
Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25
And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Wow, from a guy decrying a civilized debate is impossible here, yet when given one quits.
These true believers don't really want to be questioned about their true beliefs do they.

Sad really.
Actually, Railroader knows when to back off when the discussion is obviously going nowhere.

It's sad that you let the argument stay between he and dcmacdaddy when you surely have so much to add to it, instead of the snipe post after he leaves.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh hey look, someone finally figured out exactly what the Bible means. I guess we can all go home now!
I've figured nothing out. I'm just telling you what modern scholars are saying about it. They've learned more about the Bible in the past 100 years than the entire 1800 years previous.

I also wanted to tweek Doofy's nose, since he claims you don't need to go to church to be a Christian.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2010, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I also wanted to tweek Doofy's nose, since he claims you don't need to go to church to be a Christian.
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
You can't that at an AoG service.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2010, 04:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Actually, Railroader knows when to back off when the discussion is obviously going nowhere.

It's sad that you let the argument stay between he and dcmacdaddy when you surely have so much to add to it, instead of the snipe post after he leaves.
Going nowhere for him because it wasn't going his way and then quitting is sad.
He wasn't considering anything that went against his view.
That isn't a discussion, it's listen to me or I'm taking my toys home.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2010, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can't that at an AoG service.
I'm fair sure you can't get the blood of Christ from "Joe's Communion Supplies LLC" either.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2010, 03:55 PM
 
Edit: Deleted. Never mind.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2010, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader View Post
Edit: Deleted. Never mind.
Don't mind at all.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2010, 04:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Don't mind at all.
You're a bit pointless really, ain't ya?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2010, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
You're a bit pointless really, ain't ya?
My point was made, sorry you missed it.
Not surprised really.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,