How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[invulnerable23]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Actually, the words of those friends are canon - it's part of the canon, as Job is canon for Evangelical Christians. God chastising the friends is also part of canon, given that God chastises them in Job.

"Canon" was not the right word for my usage. I meant that their words hold in them no truth except the truth of how not to be.

Interesting discussion.

[invulnerable23]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

This perfectly displays why religious doctrine completely fails at falsification.

Does it ever bother you that know one can call your beliefs into question?

Are you comfortable in the fact that you are your own justification?

Being an evangelist, how can you justify proselytisation when your own beliefs are inherently subjective and impervious to argument?

I'm not sure what being an Evangelical and proselytizing people has to do with reconciling certain scripture passages. But, to humor you, considering that I believe Hell is a real place, as is Heaven, conversion to Christianity is the only way for salvation, according to my beliefs. Conversion of the heart is required. In the same way as, I'm sure, you wouldn't allow a drowning family member to die, I wouldn't let a family member go to Hell, as I see it (assuming you can swim).

What's more, I'm not sure how justifying myself came into it... I was talking about reconciling scripture passages with the whole of scripture.

He points this out in his treatment of the bible. Does the bible seem wrong? Human error! Does the bible seem right? Its God of course!

You misunderstand. There are no mistakes in scripture. All of it is truth, in so much as showing people a true thing. Back to Job's friends. It specifically mentions them as being wrong at the end of the book, and we are then obviously not supposed to use their words as the reality of things. But it's still truth in that this is how not to act.

Did I ever mention human error? I believe I was talking about how certain things said in scripture should be looked at in context.

He even goes so far as to say that God will let us know some things, but won't let us solve other mysteries. If this isn't the biggest intellectual cop-out, I don't know what is: "If something makes sense, run with it; if something doesn't make sense, run with it."

If you understand the mysteries of your own existence, please, explain them to me. If not, then sit in with the rest of humanity in not knowing everything.

I suppose because I hold to the God of the Bible, that means I must have more of the answers, like you. I don't remember Jesus telling people about the relationship of Time to God, or how Evil is permissible in the grand scheme of things. The truth is, we are not God. I don't see how you can nitpick about my not knowing all things, when you are not any closer.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by invulnerable23

I'm not sure what being an Evangelical and proselytizing people has to do with reconciling certain scripture passages. But, to humor you, considering that I believe Hell is a real place, as is Heaven, conversion to Christianity is the only way for salvation, according to my beliefs. Conversion of the heart is required. In the same way as, I'm sure, you wouldn't allow a drowning family member to die, I wouldn't let a family member go to Hell, as I see it (assuming you can swim).

What's more, I'm not sure how justifying myself came into it... I was talking about reconciling scripture passages with the whole of scripture.

Here is my point:

It is a matter of subjective faith or knowledge that you accept the bible as being completely correct, and this particular understanding is the basis of your belief in God. I am having a difficult time imagining any other manner by which someone can verify the contents of the bible or any other religion for that matter.

If this is the case, and you understand that your belief is founded in your own subjective experience, how can you expect anyone to want to listen to you proselytize or relate at all to what you are saying.

After all, is there any amount of proselytizing I could do to turn you against your Christian beliefs?

[invulnerable23]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Here is my point:

It is a matter of subjective faith or knowledge that you accept the bible as being completely correct, and this particular understanding is the basis of your belief in God. I am having a difficult time imagining any other manner by which someone can verify the contents of the bible or any other religion for that matter.

If this is the case, and you understand that your belief is founded in your own subjective experience, how can you expect anyone to want to listen to you proselytize or relate at all to what you are saying.

After all, is there any amount of proselytizing I could do to turn you against your Christian beliefs?

I see your point. However, you have to remember that what you are doing is applying your own idea of it being subjective to all religions. Isn't your idea of subjectivity also subjective? Where does this chain end?

(I was going to write a long and boring thing about the Bible and special revelation of God, but I'm tired and have a paper to write. Forgive me. )

On the other hand, is there anything I could do to turn you to my beliefs?

Anyways, this whole thing is off the subject. The question, I believe, was how Christians can permit such passages of scripture in their Holy Bible. Although the next step would be your questions of seeming circular arguments from God and the Bible both, but that ends in the same stalemate that's been going on for years.

But I suppose that's your ultimate point, isn't it? No new ground to gain, right?

[Didymos Thomas]

I'm not sure what being an Evangelical and proselytizing people has to do with reconciling certain scripture passages. But, to humor you, considering that I believe Hell is a real place, as is Heaven, conversion to Christianity is the only way for salvation, according to my beliefs. Conversion of the heart is required. In the same way as, I'm sure, you wouldn't allow a drowning family member to die, I wouldn't let a family member go to Hell, as I see it (assuming you can swim).

What do you mean Heaven and Hell are real places? Can you give me some directions, I'm thinking of making a summer road trip. Thought I'd hit the hot spots and the shining cities. Would be a great trip before semester starts again.

Christianity is the only way to salvation? Who's Christianity? Yours or mine? Or someone else's Christianity?

There are no mistakes in scripture. All of it is truth, in so much as showing people a true thing.

What would a mistake in scripture look like? If we are going to say that scripture does not have any mistakes, we must know what such a mistake would look like.

MFtP:

What causes us to question some parts of the bible, human fallibility, is a common characteristic of the entire bible. If you say that we shouldn't take this part as complete truth because it was written by a person who could have erred, I can point to any part of the bible and make the same dismissal.

I didn't say anything about truth. I spoke of literal versus figurative reading of the text. Figurative does not equal not-true.

Human fallibility... that's not the right term. The better way to think of the matter is human subjectivity. Scripture reflects a particular human's view of the world, a particular human's experience with God, and then that view/experience filtered through other humans.

Yes, the Bible should be read keeping these conditions in mind. Why is this a problem? We have the same trouble with just about any other scripture, and the same trouble with a great deal of mythology and allegory. None the less, we can read Dante or The Monkey King and find value. Similarly, we can read the Bible and find value.

If you wish to compare it to Homeric works, treat it as such: fiction.

And more particularly, mythology. Yeah.

They may hold their studies to a far greater standard than me, but I do not believe anyone can hold their beliefs to as high a standard of justification and be religious or hold faith in scripture. I don't even know what standard of justification most theologians apply to their religious knowledge. It can't be consistent with any modern standard.

Here you speak of your beliefs regarding people who have different sorts of belief. Ironic, eh?

How do you know discussion of theology and religious practice cannot coexist with modern thought? Doubt is good, I'm glad you have it. But you go too far.

You talk down the bible so much that I wonder what you actually take from it. When you say that you "accept the whole book, cover to cover", do you simply accept it as classic literature?

Yeah, classic literature. And a large portion of that classic work I happen to use in my personal spiritual practice. That's what scripture is for.

I am convinced that this is a common trait in all religious doctrine. I try to be respectful to religious belief, but that only extends to the chance that religious belief can be founded completely subjectively and still be true.

Everything you know and think is completely subjective. We can strive towards objectivity, but objectivity is impossible.

As to why you think one person's personal view is indicative of all religious doctrine I have no idea. Countless billions of people have lived; don't you think that some of these people have different ideas?

Better yet, let's get this issue handled directly: what of the earlier posted perspective do you believe is universal to all faith traditions, and all personal spiritual practices?

[invulnerable23]

What do you mean Heaven and Hell are real places? Can you give me some directions, I'm thinking of making a summer road trip. Thought I'd hit the hot spots and the shining cities. Would be a great trip before semester starts again.

I don't appreciate being patronized. I will go into your argument, though, with respect.

Because you can't see it, it doesn't exist? I suppose that means that the South Pole doesn't exist. Or because you can't get directions to it, it doesn't exist? I suppose you would have said Troy didn't exist, before it was found in the 1870's. Arguing something doesn't exist because you can't see it is foolish. Certainly one could argue, "pink unicorns don't exist", since they can't be found. But, that is because the thing imagined is a physical thing. If that physical thing doesn't exist in the physical world, it is not real. Heaven is a spiritual thing. Just as I wouldn't argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real because you can't see it, you shouldn't argue against Heaven by lack of evidence.

Christianity is the only way to salvation? Who's Christianity? Yours or mine? Or someone else's Christianity?

You tell me. How can I speak for your Christianity?

I would say that the Bible is clear about salvation. The Christianity that is affirmed by that scripture would be the one that also achieves that salvation described.

What would a mistake in scripture look like? If we are going to say that scripture does not have any mistakes, we must know what such a mistake would look like.

You are right. Definitions of used words are essential in such things. I would say that a "mistake" in scripture would be a contradiction or an obviously false statement. One of the early books considered for the scriptures was denied because it said that leopards can change their spots. In another place in scripture, it used the fact that leopards can not change their spots as evidence for a point. Thus, the two contradicted one another. That would be a "mistake". Obviously, a book containing mistakes would not be canon, if it also affirms that it is inerrant. One could argue that such scrutiny for the canon left the Bible without obvious mistakes. But I digress, my point is what a mistake would be in scripture.

Again- we are off topic, though it is an interesting discussion.

[Didymos Thomas]

Because you can't see it, it doesn't exist? I suppose that means that the South Pole doesn't exist. Or because you can't get directions to it, it doesn't exist? I suppose you would have said Troy didn't exist, before it was found in the 1870's. Arguing something doesn't exist because you can't see it is foolish. Certainly one could argue, "pink unicorns don't exist", since they can't be found. But, that is because the thing imagined is a physical thing. If that physical thing doesn't exist in the physical world, it is not real. Heaven is a spiritual thing. Just as I wouldn't argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real because you can't see it, you shouldn't argue against Heaven by lack of evidence.

Excellent explanations. And they raise a few issues:
1. Troy is a mythological place, it existed in mythology, not in physical reality: you cannot walk or swim there. The sight discovered and called Troy was named such because the location resembles Homeric description, not because that city was ever called Troy, and not because that city was ever a city invaded by thousands of Greek ships lead by heroes such as Achilles and Nestor.
2. I agree, Heaven is a spiritual thing. Which means it does not exist in reality; Heaven is language used to describe something that transcends language, the spiritual.
3. I really like the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy. Seriously.

You tell me. How can I speak for your Christianity?

I would say that the Bible is clear about salvation. The Christianity that is affirmed by that scripture would be the one that also achieves that salvation described.

That's my point - you can't speak to my Christianity. So to say that Christianity is the only way is inaccurate. The Bible does express a great path to salvation, one that each person takes differently because we are all different. Wonderful book, my personal choice. But that doesn't mean that Buddhist or Hindus, ect cannot attain salvation. The book isn't some magical key, it's a book. Many other great books exist. The earth has witnessed many great teachers who go unmentioned in the Bible.

I would say that a "mistake" in scripture would be a contradiction or an obviously false statement.

Then how do you explain extant contradictions?

One of the early books considered for the scriptures was denied because it said that leopards can change their spots. In another place in scripture, it used the fact that leopards can not change their spots as evidence for a point. Thus, the two contradicted one another. That would be a "mistake". Obviously, a book containing mistakes would not be canon, if it also affirms that it is inerrant. One could argue that such scrutiny for the canon left the Bible without obvious mistakes. But I digress, my point is what a mistake would be in scripture.

Interesting. Two questions:
1. How did they determine which book was correct, and which was heretical?
2. Do you really believe that political decisions, like the composition of the Bible, had anything to do with leopards changing their spots?

[O'Ferrell]

mr. didymos, from what you have revealed concerning your beliefs you fit the category of a universalist. The Bible explicitly states that their is only 1 way to salvation, that being faith in Christ Jesus. Every one is different but it nowhere says that everyone has their own way to salvation. However, there are a couple of passages that have been taken out of context to support the universalist view, those passages have currently escaped me, but i shall retrieve them if you request them. Salvation comes through Christ alone. A main flaw of some other religions is the fact that the central heartbeat of their path to salvation is "works based" claiming that you must do so many noble deeds to achieve salvation. i think we both can agree that humanity as a whole is complete filth and there is nothing we can do in our pathetic attempts to ever earn our way to heaven. It is simply an act of grace.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

The only way to Heaven is through true actions. Yoshka Pendri (The Man on the stick) cannot wash away your false actions. In fact, beleiving that he is a manifestation of God is Idol Worship and is a False Action.

There is only one quote in the Torah that Prophecizes 'that man'.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. 2 If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder (Preforms Miracles), 3 and the sign or the wonder come to pass (And his magic works), whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; 4 thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 5 After the LORD your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave. 6 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

You are not saving them, but condemning them. The only thing you should be teaching to people is to do good. that is the door to Heaven.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by invulnerable23

I see your point. However, you have to remember that what you are doing is applying your own idea of it being subjective to all religions. Isn't your idea of subjectivity also subjective? Where does this chain end?

I don't know if you are questioning whether truth is relative itself, but I found the idea of subjective religion in objective reason. I can argue about the truth of this topic.

On the other hand, is there anything I could do to turn you to my beliefs?

Probably not, but I am not out to teach the good word of agnosticism.

Anyways, this whole thing is off the subject. The question, I believe, was how Christians can permit such passages of scripture in their Holy Bible. Although the next step would be your questions of seeming circular arguments from God and the Bible both, but that ends in the same stalemate that's been going on for years.

But I suppose that's your ultimate point, isn't it? No new ground to gain, right?

Originally I meant to call into question your justification for accepting any part of the bible as truth, not just particular passages.

Asking about the evangelical part was merely an aside.