SedanChair posted:

This level of doubt would drat you anyway. You have too clear a picture of the cruelty of any real God to respect him.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Black Bones posted:

He's not the only one. Where, pray tell, does the Bible claim that?

Flip Yr Wig posted:

This doesn't make any sense because every book of the Bible was written long before they were canonized. They weren't written with the assumption that hundreds of years later they would be read in context with dozens of other texts that the authors likely never encountered. Just because it's common Protestant orthodoxy doesn't mean it's a sensible way to approach the texts.

Have you considered that "logos" and other related Greek words were not meant to refer to written texts?

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"

neonchameleon posted:

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?

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.

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.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I did read carefully, you're ignoring my point. This is nonsensical. God Himself prescribes that we must not worship anything but Him. I feel like this wouldn't be such a strongly emphasized rule if it weren't possible.

Are you suggesting that even when people worship Brahma, call him a different name, assign him different attributes, and think of him completely differently and mistakenly, that they are still actually worshiping the real God, even if they don't realize it?

Even if, in addition to worshiping their God, they think of the Christian version of God as false?

Who What Now posted:

If logic doesn't work with faith that should tell you that there's something wrong with faith. You apply logic to every single other facet of your life, knowingly or unknowingly, and use it to determine how and why things are the way they are and to make sense of reality. And when the logic doesn't make sense you say to yourself, "Hold on this is right." And you find the problem and then correct it.

But you're saying when it comes to determining whether a God exists and what his attributes are that that is the one and only time you should disregard logic and, you know, just go with whatever you're told. Don't think too hard on it, man, just go with it. How, exactly, is this not the Special Pleading fallacy?

Look, if you said your car was acting up and asked me to explain how the engine works so you could fix it and I told you, "Don't apply logic to cars, just have faith that it will be ok." you'd call me retarded. And rightfully so. Because putting certain things in a special category that you're discouraged from applying logic to is a really stupid way to live.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

Plus, why would God give us this fantastic tool to perceive and understand the world, then chastise us for using it on Him? Logic, reason, scientific processes - these are all virtues when applied to anything else. Why, when I read the Koran and apply logic and reason to it to find out it isn't true, that's proper and correct, but when I apply it to the Bible to find out it isn't true, I'm misunderstanding/taking things out of context/using reason where faith is better/etc?

God would be capable of a Holy Book that stood up to scrutiny.

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

No no, sorry, I'm not saying I do believe it, just that it's the only answer that isn't nonsensical or "of course it isn't logical, you're supposed to have FAITH".

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I'm not sure I take your point

quote:

James 3:17
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.

quote:

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I will be satisfied with this answer when a religious person gives it

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

So really we're back to subjectivity. I have to rely on my own interpretive powers to judge churches and eventually come to a conclusion about who God is and what he wants. Is there a point? Or do you think that, whatever God is, he doesn't care what version of which religion I follow as long as I endeavor to know him?

And if so, how is that answer satisfactory enough for you, given that many believers of God are sure that he will smite all non true believers? What if they are the ones who are right?

GAINING WEIGHT... posted:

I don't think that, I'm asking if that's the case.

Valiantman posted:

You started the thread with the intention of finding out something, I'm not entirely sure what, about how people know or seem to know things about God. You assumed God spoke to them in what you called revelation. People generally thought you were right in doubting those who intuitively claim to know what He wants. Believer or unbeliever, I think the keyword was intuitively. I don't think anyone suggested that God could be proven to exist or not, or if former, submit under the kind of observation the scientists in your parable are doing.