neonchameleon posted:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Translation: Timothy, stop trying to throw parts of the bible out. Everything is something someone will find useful. (Including this letter to you).

neonchameleon posted:

I'm going to take this from verse 10 to 14. Context matters.

10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:
11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:"

As is blatantly obvious, this is not actually a passage about the bible. It's about what is being taught by missionaries.

neonchameleon posted:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And this is, I think, about early gnosticism. There are no secret prophecies or scriptures. And everything is useful - but the book was still written by people.


7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Isn't actually talking about the Bible.

neonchameleon posted:

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Again isn't actually about the bible. It's a much better basis for Holy Tradition and preaching.

neonchameleon posted:

Again, I'm going to add more verses for context:

13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Once again this isn't actually about the bible. That the bible claims that God is perfect is not in dispute. That God is claimed to have inspired the writing of the bible isn't in dispute. But this doesn't mean that the bible, written by people, is perfect unless those people are without sin.

neonchameleon posted:

4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Seriously? You're saying that that is proof that the bible claims to be infallible. And that there's no junk food in there? Riiiight

neonchameleon posted:

And don't try a Gish Gallop, assuming no one is going to check your sources and find none of them say what you claim. Half-assed bombardment with sources simply doesn't work on the internet. Not one of your sources clearly claims what you say it does.

neonchameleon posted:

And when you're talking about "protestant beliefs" you're in a minefield. A lot of protestants, especially those denominations that were strongly influenced by The First Great Awakening do and there are reasons for that (and very bad ones at that). Educated Roman Catholic sources knew the bible wasn't literally true since before Galileo (who had the pope as one of his sponsors until he was too much of a git and his enemies found an excuse to take revenge). The Catholic claim is that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can not be false over a long period of time in matters of faith and morals. (Which is how they painted themselves into a corner over contraception with Humanae Vitae, but I digress).

VitalSigns posted:

The people writing those letters didn't know it'd become part of scripture because that was only decided later based on what theology was more politically advantageous to the Roman state. When Paul is telling Timothy about the infallibility of God's scripture, he's not talking about the letter he's writing in that moment.

Edit: I mean you could say that God knew and He was inspiring Paul to say that, but if that's the case why didn't God shortcut all this confusion by having Paul tell us what books are canon and what aren't so you don't get holy wars and schisms both in the early church and later on when Protestants decided some books "didn't count"

V. Illych L. posted:

God is the Utility Monster, IMO

V. Illych L. posted:

God is the Utility Monster, IMO

V. Illych L. posted:

God is the Utility Monster, IMO

nucleicmaxid posted:

Yep. Don't throw out parts of the Bible, all scripture is divinely inspired. Seems to be the point that Biblical Literalists make. I know you're trying to wiggle here and make it about how something might be useful to someone, but that's not supported by the text, only your own attempts at justification.

quote:

Missionaries are teaching _________? Fill in the blank here. (Answer: The Bible)

quote:

You can state that it isn't all you want, but according to Biblical Literalists, the Bible is the law of the Lord. You can try to nitpick and make spurious claims, but they don't actually pan out. Nor are they relevant to this discussion.

quote:

It also does not dismiss the idea that the scripture was inspired in a way so as to make it perfect.

quote:

You seem to think these are my arguments - they're not, I merely linked them because that one guy had apparently never read the Bible, or was unaware of how the text could be shown to support Biblical Literalism.

quote:

Yeah, every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God is what man needs - once again, these are not really my arguments, just arguments that I have seen used to promote Biblical Literalism.

quote:

Thanks for mockingly linking Gish Gallop, I am somehow completely unaware of it, despite having been arguing in a thread based on Theology, and also participating in both the Conservapedia and Freep threads.

quote:

Absolutely, I agree. However, for the discussion in this thread (a thing you seem to be unable to comprehend?) we were discussing Biblical Literacy as the source for the OP's dismissal of all other faiths, and his reversion to Pascal's Wager as his fallback plan to avoid Hell. The OP decided to somewhat recant from a Literalist perspective after my post with sources that are, have been, and will continue to be used to promote Biblical Literalism. You're not arguing with a Christian, you're just making yourself look poorly educated on this topic.

quote:

We're sort of all debating through various puppets here, because this topic is so ridiculous in the first place.

ClearAirTurbulence posted:

I'm a Dawkins-type agnostic - only reason I can't call myself an atheist is that I cannot accept that I know ANYTHING with certainty - but I think if gods were real, there has to be a whole lot of them working against each other if they really do have an influence on human behavior. That would explain why all these different groups are getting different divine revelations.

LaughMyselfTo posted:

You're neglecting the possibility that there's only one God, and he's really bad at it. Or alternatively that there are two gods, and one of them doesn't care about making themselves known, just undermining the first one (read as: mainstream Christianity's view of Satan).

ClearAirTurbulence posted:

I'm a Dawkins-type agnostic - only reason I can't call myself an atheist is that I cannot accept that I know ANYTHING with certainty - but I think if gods were real, there has to be a whole lot of them working against each other if they really do have an influence on human behavior. That would explain why all these different groups are getting different divine revelations.

LaughMyselfTo posted:

You're neglecting the possibility that there's only one God, and he's really bad at it. Or alternatively that there are two gods, and one of them doesn't care about making themselves known, just undermining the first one (read as: mainstream Christianity's view of Satan).

ClearAirTurbulence posted:

It's considered, but it seems illogical. I would think that an entity as old and powerful as the monotheist god would have developed some wisdom by now, even if it started out at a human or somewhat less than human level of intelligence.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Okay, okay, the Bible isn't literal 100% Word-O-God, fine. I get that. Or, at least, I get that you are asserting that. But if other religions have texts, which are also not the literal word of God, and that make similar claims of the divinity of other beings, and some of them are even formulated similarly to the Bible, why is the Bible trustworthy and others not?


Hmm, yes, comparing one attribute of two things is the same as equating them as a whole. Hoo baby.

Pope Paul VI posted:

[t]he Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim, Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself.

quote:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

neonchameleon posted:

QuoProQuid posted:

I'm not sure I would use the word "untrustworthy" to describe how many religions view other religious texts. From the Catholic perspective, all religions are humans grasping toward the same unknown. It views the similarities that exists between faiths in their beliefs and practices to be a sign of this fact. Humanity is one community with a common destiny in God. Nostra Aetate states outright that,


Lumen Gentium further states that:


So the issue isn't that Catholicism views these texts as malevolent, as you seem to imply, as much as the Catholic Church having a greater understanding of divine reality. There are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" outside the Church. However, Catholicism would claim that it has the best understanding of ultimate reality among religions and that, if you accept the existence of a God, that the nature of things naturally lead more toward itself than other faiths.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

why is the Bible's account of a divine being named Jesus true, but an account of Joseph Smith finding brass tablets (and all other non-Christian religious accounts) is made up?

nucleicmaxid posted:

To expand upon this and agree with it.

You're trying to reason yourself into a position that literally tells you right off that it requires faith. Faith and reason are opposites. I'm not saying this in a smugtheist way like hurr durr, xtians r dum. But they are just completely opposite things. Reason requires evidence and fact and logic and faith requires a reliance on your own personal gut feelings. In a lot of ways, reason is the objective and faith is the subjective.

In short, you're wasting your time. If you actually believe all this stuff then just believe it. If you don't but are afraid of hell you're hosed anyway because if there is an omniscient deity, it will know you're not really all in.

nucleicmaxid posted:

Because people usually aren't very good at letting go of what they were taught as children? I've said it like a dozen times in this thread - there's no logical path through this that ends questions and leaves the 'correct' belief, the logical path is that it's all made up and none of it is true.

quote:

My problem, then, is couched in a Christian perspective, but (as I see it) can apply to all faiths if you simply swap out the specifically Christian components with Muslim ones, or whatever.

tsa posted:

When did this idea emerge, just out of curiosity? It makes no sense for the early church, where followers either directly saw a dude raise people from the dead, walk on water, create wine, or learned it from people who had direct contact. It's quite puzzling why God would expect people today to believe in him just as strongly as people he demonstrated numerous miracles for.

nucleicmaxid posted:

I have no idea, I'm not a Christian. I'm just presenting their arguments to the thread because their arguments were asked for, and they seem to be the basis of some of the OP's claims.

My Imaginary GF posted:

One nitpick about women being unable to lead a church: its roots are anti-patrilinialist, not anti-gender equality. Women have children, a fact which cannot be denied. A male priest who has children could always have doubt sown upon his seed before paternity tests came about. So, you don't have women as priests because you don't want them to pass down the office to their children, making religious office a heriditary position with corresponsing title and grants of privliges.

So if you want to divorce your church structure from human inclination, your best method in historical times would be to ban women from holding priestly office.

Kyrie eleison posted:

I'd consider replying to this thread, but I already have a thread about Christianity, and see this thread as redundant (as well as the other one about God). I regret writing the earlier reply on the first page.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I mean, every religion thinks it's the greater understanding of divine reality. Every religion thinks that "the nature of things lead more toward itself than other faiths."

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

am not meaning to imply a perception of malevolence in other books, I am meaning to imply a perception of incorrectness. I did not mean "trustworthy" to denote whether the Bible has good or evil motivations, only that the information presented therein could be counted on as being true.

Which brings us back to the question at hand: if all books are seen as the musings of mortal beings on the nature of God and/or a supposedly historical account of Godly things that happened, rather than a perfect, divine account dictated by God Himself - why is the Bible's account of a divine being named Jesus true, but an account of Joseph Smith finding brass tablets (and all other non-Christian religious accounts) is made up?

QuoProQuid posted:

What you are asking this entire thread is for some sort of impersonal simple formula to tell you want to do. Everyone in this threads both atheist and theist, has been trying to tell you that this entire conception is wrong. Religion is predicated on choice and one's personal experiences. You want to remove belief from religion, which completely violates a core tenet of religion.

V. Illych L. posted:

What do you reckon belief is? Like, I believe a number of things that are probably nonsensical, and many more that are simply wrong. I do this because, well, I believe them. I don't think you can consider belief to be a rational choice - it's much more of an emotion. So some people have a strong intuition of God, which is reinforced by little miracles and the dominant culture of their area, and this manifests itself through religiosity. If you lack that emotional response, good on you, you don't have to deal with all the weird stuff in theology unless you actually find it interesting.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I guess I'm wondering why anyone arrives at that belief in the first place if it's so nonsensical to do so. OR, why it isn't nonsensical.

I know the atheists will say that the reason is "because they're dumb/grew up with it/have never though about it, but I want the perspective of someone who does believe.

nucleicmaxid posted:

Don't try to be flippant and disdainful if you don't even know the book.

edit: Not only that buy both the Catholic Church and Protestant beliefs overwhelmingly claim that the Bible is infallible and completely true. While the Catholic Church has sort of backed down from this, notably in the Second Vatican Council, it still carries weight with plenty of Christians, and is direct from the text.

Krotera posted:

The implication I got when you said this --
-- is that demanding or expecting reasons to believe a particular religion over another one is gauche or pointless.

And whether I've understood the details or not, it still seems to me that you're responding to WEIGHT's question "why should I believe [x religion] over [y religion]?" with a version of "why would you need to ask that question?"

quote:

There are a lot of religions whose really basic tenets are mutually exclusive, even if they also have common parts.

QuoProQuid posted:

EDIT: I'll also recommend A Canticle for Leibowitz which, while fiction, is one of my favorite books and discusses issues like faith and belief. A good portion of the novel discusses how divine reality can manifest itself in mundane ways and there is an extended debate on God's existence that leaves the reader sympathetic to both sides.

Black Bones posted:

I see you've already been taken to task over interpreting those passages, so I will just point out that the Catholic Church has never claimed the Bible is infallible or "completely true" (in the sense that everything happened 100% exactly as described). By all means, point out their arguments otherwise.

Black Bones posted:

So you gonna post evidence that "the Catholic Church and Protestants overwhelmingly (emphasis mine) claim the Bible is infallible and completely true" or what?

CommieGIR posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility#Catholicism

In Catholicism, its called inerrancy. Same idea.

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.wetalkofholythings.com/2013/03/inerrancy-vs-infallibility-theological.html

I'm sorry, that is incredibly misleading.

quote:

I was born and raised in Miami, Fl., where I still reside. I am an active member of a Plymouth Brethren Assembly here in Miami called Bible Truth Chapel. We consider ourselves to be a non-denominational, conservative Bible Church.

QuoProQuid posted:

i don't think a non-denominational blogger from miami has any institutional authority to the catholic church interprets the bible.

CommieGIR posted:

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/09/16/inerrancy-and-infallibility-truth-claims-and-precision/

I still think you are splitting hairs.

QuoProQuid posted:

A non-denominational pastor in Wheaton, Illinois would also probably not be considered a strong authority for Catholicism.

The words inerrant and infallible have different meanings in the Protestant and Catholic traditions.