Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Snowbear said:
and what about you, do you take the bible to be your sole source of doctrine or not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
criticizing Christianity
- Thread starter Comprehend
- Start date
and what about you, do you take the bible to be your sole source of doctrine or not?
Gentoo
The Feisty Penguin
I'm in the process of reading the bible for the first time, but I was immersed in Catholicism from when I was born to my Confirmation. I think I have some grounds to criticize but I don't, only some of the follwers who pick and choose which of Jesus' teachings to follow.
comprehend said:
YES. I read it specifically so that I could say I had read it. You cannot meaningfully criticize that which you are not directly knowlegable about, after all.
BUT you should read it with an open mind, not with the intent of picking holes and winding up critical of it right from the start.
Fluffy
A fool
If I ever criticise Christianity, it will be because a Christian has put forward an argument and I wish to attack it.
There are 2 ways in which I can debate to show that an argument is false (ie criticise it). I can either show that the premises are false (and if it is biblically based, that would require extensive knowledge of the bible) or I can show that the conclusion does not follow from the premise (which requires no biblical knowledge).
If you are talking about hurling slurs at Christianity then I don't think even reading the Bible can justify that.
There are 2 ways in which I can debate to show that an argument is false (ie criticise it). I can either show that the premises are false (and if it is biblically based, that would require extensive knowledge of the bible) or I can show that the conclusion does not follow from the premise (which requires no biblical knowledge).
If you are talking about hurling slurs at Christianity then I don't think even reading the Bible can justify that.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Godlike said:True.Unfortunately...
More unfortunate is that the ignorant attach actions to belief, where there is nothing to attach. I think it was G.K. Chesterton that said something like "The biggest turnoff to Christianity is Christians" (not exact but close enough).
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Not everything about Christianity is a "doctrine"...comprehend said:
Not the "reasoning of man" but Sacred Tradition:
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture... are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal." Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age". "
CCC #80
It might make things better or worse... look at how many people read the Bible and get it twisted..... a better idea is an honest exchange between people... I think I can explain the Bible to a non-Christian better by talking about it rather than just flopping the thing in front of him/her.... but your results may vary.
Peace be with you,
S
Nullifidian
Member
comprehend said:
Would it not also be prudent to have read the whole Bible, cover to cover, before one claims to believe it? How can someone believe it if they don't know what it says? It seems that fewer and fewer Christians know much at all about the contents of the Bible:
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/bible_reading_declines.htm
I myself have read the Bible three times - once as a Christian, and twice more after I lost my faith. I've studied it fairly extensively, besides, but that doesn't necessarily, by itself, qualify me to critisize Christianity, as a religion, though it's something I enjoy doing. I retain the right to critisize what I consider to be bad behaviour, though, such as the current crop of evangelicals who are trying to have critical influence on our laws and government. I'm not saying that fundamentalists don't deserve representaion - they certainly do - but so do the rest of us that don't believe in their religion, be we moderate Christians, atheists, Muslims, or some other non-Chtistian group.
I do, however, like to debate the merits of the Bible, and its passages and verses - when they seem to me to be inconsistent, I usually will point that out to anyone who's interested.
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Snowbear said:
are you saying it is incomplete?
do you believe it to be perfect?
the word *sufficient* doesn't sound very confident so I am probing...
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Snowbear said:
Sufficient is not nearly the same thing as *perfect* and we both know it. No offense but it seems you are going out of your way to NOT answer my questions. no problem though, obviously you don't have to. I didn't think it was a such a big deal.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
While the Bible contends that it is "sufficient", it never contends that it is "perfect". The scriptures seem to have made this distinction: why do you dispute it?
jmaster78
Member
As a non-christian, I think alot of people criticise the people not the book. I respect people with faith, they are lucky to have it and so you would understandably get anoyed at someone picking holes in it. But a small percentage of christians do handle things the wrong way, when people are out enjoying themselves on a saturday afternoon with their children, they don't want to hear about how they're going to burn in hell forever. They would consider this type of preaching as verging on fanaticism, and religious fanatics can scare some people, christian or other!Plus there are people out there on both sides that just like a fight unfortunately.
Ãanisty
Well-Known Member
I mean no offense by this, but what you're suggesting is to prevent people from reading the bible objectively. If you explain the bible to them, then they learn your interpretation of the bible. I think it would be better for everyone to interpret the bible for themselves.Scott1 said: