How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[GoshisDead]

That would be a fatal flaw. No, if we don't use this logic to deconstruct then we sure as hell shouldn't be using the same logic to believe! If you disagree, however, then I don't see how you can say I can't use this same logic.

ROFL, well said

Even if we don't address that God has to follow his own commandments, he still, in some cases, supports the murders taken place by a human. So, if the commandment is "Thou shalt not kill", it is contradictory. Why don't we all go around killing people and just say it's 'God's will'? Yeah, it's just silly to me.

As I said, Direct Emmissary... If God told someone to do it, its not murder.

[Didymos Thomas]

It is a seriously schizophrenic text!

Only if we make the mistake of thinking the Bible to be a single text.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by GoshisDead

ROFL, well said



As I said, Direct Emmissary... If God told someone to do it, its not murder.

But then what is stopping people now from just murdering people and saying it's God's will (and yes, many people do do this)? I highly doubt even Christians would buy that load of bull****! If God says to do it, it's not murder? Surely these people aren't not killing just because of their religion (as the religion actually advocates it in some instances)

The point is, why lay out teachings in a concrete form, and then, through stories, explain to us the loopholes of said teachings. That leaves a person not knowing what to believe!

Here's a commentary by two Christians the other day, as I was waltzing down the street.
Joe: Don't worry, it's ok to kill that old lady because it's God's will!
Frank: But, I thought it was wrong to murder anyone!
Joe: It's fine, Frank. God says we must murder this lady and it won't count as murder. Vamonos!

Luckily I had ancient Mayan blow darts with me to ward off their attacks, but just imagine if I wasn't a memorabilia collector.

[Didymos Thomas]

We have to remember that the various books of the Bible were not written as a uniform text. Even the compilation of Jewish scripture (the OT) is a later development, long after the texts were written.

New Testament is the same - many books written after the death of Jesus. Some time later, a group of Bishops got together and, for political purposes, selected some books to be official canon and set others into the flames - along with the people who valued those so called heretical texts.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

We have to remember that the various books of the Bible were not written as a uniform text. Even the compilation of Jewish scripture (the OT) is a later development, long after the texts were written.

New Testament is the same - many books written after the death of Jesus. Some time later, a group of Bishops got together and, for political purposes, selected some books to be official canon and set others into the flames - along with the people who valued those so called heretical texts.

Which brings up another great point to the whole stupidity of the concept of a literal Christian. I mean, if it's even known that the books that are used in the official canon have been chosen by a group of men (which may have not even had intervention from God), then how are they even rationalizing the book itself?! There may even be a plethora of things that were changed that we may not even have documentation of!

[Didymos Thomas]

Scholars theorize about the changes you mention - and there are even well documented changes.

But these issues only become serious problems to people who demand the Bible, their version of course, to be literally true. The rest of us can investigate the literature ourselves. Thank God.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Scholars theorize about the changes you mention - and there are even well documented changes.

But these issues only become serious problems to people who demand the Bible, their version of course, to be literally true. The rest of us can investigate the literature ourselves. Thank God.

So, then as a Christian you must consider that the entire book may be a sham? Right?

And if you do, then what exactly makes you a Christian?

[Didymos Thomas]

So, then as a Christian you must consider that the entire book may be a sham? Right?

Right, I must consider the possibility.

And if you do, then what exactly makes you a Christian?

Because I find value in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Right, I must consider the possibility.



Because I find value in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

I find value in some of the teachings attributed to Jesus also, but do not label myself a Christian. I still like to call myself agnostic.

Boy, aren't labels misleading, huh?

[Didymos Thomas]

Mhm, labels are misleading.

A Christian is someone who finds value in the teachings of Jesus. That's the only definition that accounts for all Christians. At least, the only definition that I know of that accounts for all Christians.

Agnostic refers to a view on God. You can be agnostic and be a Christian.

'Blaspheme the Father and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Son and you shall be forgiven. Blaspheme the Holy Spirit and you shall not be forgiven in Heaven or in Earth' - from the Gospel of Thomas, one of those books banned from the Bible.