As I said before many things have been and are done which are wrong and some people may use God or the Bible as their defense or excuse...but that does not make God or the Bible wrong because people are acting contrary to the scriptures.
InChrist you are making my point. Those people see in the Bible what they see. You see in the Bible what you see. I see in the Bible what I see. It is subjective not objective. Just because you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible (I do as well) does not mean you have the "TRUE" understanding of the Bible. It simply means you see in the Bible something different than they see. That is why it is counter productive for Christians to debate different interpretations of the Bible - nothing can be solved because there is no way to prove that one interpretation is "TRUE" and the other "FALSE".
I will - however add one caveat to this, there are scholars who study:
- The history of the Bible itself
- The cultures the Bible was written in
- The different languages of the Bible
- The mythology within the Bible and the surrounding cultures
- The language of Jesus and his disciples (There is still an Aramaic Bible used by Aramaic Christians).
- The Gospels that were rejected and not included in the Bible
Those are just some of the things Biblical Scholars study and all of those things can impact the way one reads the Bible (they certainly impact the way I read the Bible). So ... I do think it is possible to make a scholarly case for an "authentic reading" of the Bible. But.. even that is debatable - scholars debate these things all the time and I think it can be safely said that we are not going to solve such debates here in this thread. Therefore - I think it is fair to say that we must all remain somewhat humble on our personal interpretations of what we read in the Bible. That is the standard on which I am willing to discuss any of these things with anyone.
[FONT="]I think you are now off topic and simply attacking the Bible and there are other more appropriate threads for that subject.[/FONT]
Think what you may, just recognize going forward that I will hold you to a higher standard on Biblical interpretation than you hold yourself to. I am personally exhausted with all the harm done within humanity because of this whole "TRUE" Christian, "TRUE" Biblical interpretation mindset. And I'll not participate.
It would have been nice if you had included a link or source to go with the quote you posted attacking the scriptures, also. I'd be interested to know where you got that from. Anyway, I prefer to keep on the subject of mysticism in this thread.
- If it's the quote I'm thinking of I did - recheck the quote.
- It doesn't matter anyway - because I found the quote by a quick google search on using the Bible to justify war or violence or something of the sort. You could do the same - it only takes a few minutes.
I was not trying to show that my interpretation of the Bible is true. I'm only saying that the simple, plain words of the scriptures speak for themselves. For example, this verse... Jesus wept. (John 11:35), I believe says and means that Jesus wept or cried. And when I read this verse...If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.(1 John 1:8), says that we ( everyone, including me) lie to ourselves and are not honest or truthful if we say we don't sin.
Do you see something different when you read the above verses? I am also interested and asked you how you've come to your understanding and interpretations of the Bible and I am wondering why you didn't answer.
See my points above - about all the different things that go into a scholarly reading of the Bible. The word "sin" alone should not be read "straight up". How many times has the Bible been translated from its original manuscripts. And the original manuscripts were not even written in the language Jesus and his disciples spoke. And the books that were included in the Bible were not the only gospels written - and those gospels point to a very different early Christian culture. All of these things can impact the reading of the Gospels.
Actually, you could answer my questions so I may gain a better understanding of your perspective.
It makes no sense to answer the question unless the recipient of the answer is listening with an open mind and open heart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Open_Minded
InChrist - a few points:
1. Who among us truly "knows" God? Isn't the constant quest for "knowing" God a part of our human existence. Do you "know" God so well that you need not attempt any further "discovery" or "search"???? Do any of us?????
Those who are saved by Christ and born-again and know God
.
So... you think you "know" God... you don't need any more insight to THIS that we call GOD????? That is nothing short of arrogance.
True, I don't get to dictate to anyone how to interpret the scriptures. I would just hope that you or anyone would desire to have the meaning God intended through the scriptures.
I do ... that's not the point. I just have no reason to believe that you qualify to give me the answers I seek. Every question you've asked of me reveals someone who think she has the "inside track" to God because she's "saved".
I think you are evading the real issue and generalizing here, by repeatedly blaming the Bible for war
Let us be VERY clear here InChrist - I blame the Bible for nothing. I blame the arrogance of human beings who think they have the "TRUE" understanding of the Bible and use their understanding of the Bible to justify violence towards other human beings. It is that dynamic which causes me to be very leery of anyone who thinks they have all the answers.
I can say the same thing to you...find me one example of a born-again believers who waged war on others in defense of their one true God.
I seriously can't believe you asked that question - but you did and here's your
answer
George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month....
One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." ...
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America.
Beyond that ... let's look at this whole "born-again" Christian superiority complex. When someone self-identifies themselves as Christian to me, I take them at their word. Why would anyone self-identify as Christian if they did not take the label seriously.
It amazes me that born-again Christians have a litmus test for TRUE Christianity. It is revealed in questions like this:
Is Jesus Christ alone your Savior who paid for your sins on the cross through whom you have forgiveness and eternal life?
The arrogance portrayed in that question is astonishing - it is one of the reasons I refuse to answer. If I don't need a litmus test from you, why do you need one from me (or anyone else for that matter)?