• 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!

God is the Foundation of Faith, Not Texts.

thebigpicture

Active Member
Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts? :)

The bible is something that was written and has been changed by man for centuries. In more ways than not, the bible is very misleading and damaging. Although there are some truths in it, there are so many lies, fairy tales, and contradictions, it can often leave a person dazed and confused.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I think some of you misunderstand me. I didn't say that Holy texts were not important at all, I just said that they are not the foundation of my faith, and God is. Why would the texts even be important at all if I didn't believe in God? I know atheists and agnostics who know the Bible and other texts even better than those who follow God, they can read the Bible, study the bible and read it the same as I can. The difference is God.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Are they? Seems to me that Xy got along swimmingly for hundreds of years without scriptures...
seems like we are almost living on parallel historical time lines.
you know I actually understand the naturalistic idea of believing in God without the burden of doctrine or text. perhaps by watching the works of God through the movements of the stars, the change of seasons and other nature-phenomena.
however, the major religions of the world have been administrating an organized society by putting the times, challenges, and events of their people on text and by writing how their people maintained their societies in their geographic conditions by writing it down.
these would go for the contemporary middle eastern societies during the biblical times as well. if its for the sake of agriculture and irrigation, the flooding of the Nile, military expeditions, or political debates.
Every major religion, from Hinduism and Buddhism, to Judaism and Christianity, has taken existing challenges and wrote them down on paper.
these are the same people we would call the men of prehistory, who had an a more abstract and natural world view a short few millennia before that.
the same middle eastern men, who would be considered law bearers.
as for your comment on Christianity, if you want to say that for the first centuries, the Christian believers did not adhere to an official canon, it is not accurate. the first Christians held the Jewish Bible as scripture, and that is until the councils decided which of the existing gospels are to be gathered into a canon, and which are to be labled apocrypha.
 
Last edited:

blackout

Violet.
Well how could that be if your "God' is different from mine?

Its safer to assume that man is responsible for the founding of your faith, the basis and objectional word behind the faith is "God", so "God" hired us to build the world around Him ;)

I believe this is where 'there is only one God' comes in. In this sense, saying that there is only one God is an incredible statement of unity, rather than division. It does not say 'my God is the one true God and your's isn't'. Instead, it says that despite what you think you see, your 'God' and my 'God' are the same.


Well that certainly is an interesting thing for a Roman Catholic
to say to a Satanist. :flirt:

Let's try it this way (just for fun)...

Perhaps it says that despite what YOU think you see, your 'God' and his (Orias') 'God' are the same.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
seems like we are almost living on parallel historical time lines.
you know I actually understand the naturalistic idea of believing in God without the burden of doctrine or text. perhaps by watching the works of God through the movements of the stars, the change of seasons and other nature-phenomena.
however, the major religions of the world have been administrating an organized society by putting the times, challenges, and events of their people on text and by writing how their people maintained their societies in their geographic conditions by writing it down.
these would go for the contemporary middle eastern societies during the biblical times as well. if its for the sake of agriculture and irrigation, the flooding of the Nile, military expeditions, or political debates.
Every major religion, from Hinduism and Buddhism, to Judaism and Christianity, has taken existing challenges and wrote them down on paper.
these are the same people we would call the men of prehistory, who had an a more abstract and natural world view a short few millennia before that.
the same middle eastern men, who would be considered law bearers.
as for your comment on Christianity, if you want to say that for the first centuries, the Christian believers did not adhere to an official canon, it would not be accurate. the first Christian belivers held the Jewish Bible as scripture, and that is until the councils decided which of the existing gospels are to be gathered into a canon, and which are to be labled apocrypha.
None of the gospels are apocryphal books. Only Hebrew texts are apocryphal. The earliest Xians remained Jews, at least until 70 c.e. when the temple was destroyed. By that time, Xy had spread to Gentile territory and flourished there, quite without dependence upon any Hebrew texts. The first transmission of Xian belief was oral and behavioral, not textual.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
None of the gospels are apocryphal books. Only Hebrew texts are apocryphal. The earliest Xians remained Jews, at least until 70 c.e. when the temple was destroyed. By that time, Xy had spread to Gentile territory and flourished there, quite without dependence upon any Hebrew texts. The first transmission of Xian belief was oral and behavioral, not textual.

Have you not heard the term "NT Apocrypha?"

note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_Apocrypha
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Nope. My seminary chooses not to twist the term "apocryphal" to include "useful but non-canonical." We prefer simply "non-canonical." It's less confusing. The NT books were never "hidden," as the apocryphal books were.

Oh, we do too. But occasionally we do use it.

Most of the time I don't distinguish between "canonical" and "non-canonical" because there are so many canons. I just address the text that I'm interpreting and identify the textual tradition that it is in.

I think that most Protestants use "canon" to refer to the Protestant canon, which of course is really more a publisher's decision than a canon.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
When the Bible was put together and Christianity was made a religion, there are a lot of Gospels and books they left out. I have read a lot of these other books- they include Infancy Gospels, Gnostic Gospels, Christian Apocrypha, and more. And what about the Old Testament? Did they pick and choose those, too? We have no way of knowing, as that was quite a long time ago. I read those and the Apocrypha because I felt that I should read them. I mean, why were books like The Maccabees left out of the OT? Why was the Gospel of Thomas left out of the NT? Do we really know for sure?
 

NemisisQ

BY MY COMMAND......
Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts? :)

You realize that it's the bible that shape humans creation of god. It started with one man, and one book, then it became a religion. The bible, describe the god, it can be a fallacy, or it can be truth. Distinguishing it is just impossible considering the history, quantity of the bibles/script, not to mention the man himself.

Im not pinpointing this on the right mark, but wouldn't following a faith in god, rather than the bible a oxymoron. Rather, you are misled in faith if you don't follow the bible?? Thats how i see it though.

Although that this is my point of view, sounds atheist really.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
When the Bible was put together and Christianity was made a religion, there are a lot of Gospels and books they left out. I have read a lot of these other books- they include Infancy Gospels, Gnostic Gospels, Christian Apocrypha, and more. And what about the Old Testament? Did they pick and choose those, too? We have no way of knowing, as that was quite a long time ago. I read those and the Apocrypha because I felt that I should read them. I mean, why were books like The Maccabees left out of the OT? Why was the Gospel of Thomas left out of the NT? Do we really know for sure?
Thomas was left out because it was lost until well after the canon was closed.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You realize that it's the bible that shape humans creation of god. It started with one man, and one book, then it became a religion. The bible, describe the god, it can be a fallacy, or it can be truth. Distinguishing it is just impossible considering the history, quantity of the bibles/script, not to mention the man himself.

Im not pinpointing this on the right mark, but wouldn't following a faith in god, rather than the bible a oxymoron. Rather, you are misled in faith if you don't follow the bible?? Thats how i see it though.

Although that this is my point of view, sounds atheist really.
If that's what you really believe happened, you should bone up on Xian history.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
You realize that it's the bible that shape humans creation of god. It started with one man, and one book, then it became a religion. The bible, describe the god, it can be a fallacy, or it can be truth. Distinguishing it is just impossible considering the history, quantity of the bibles/script, not to mention the man himself.

Im not pinpointing this on the right mark, but wouldn't following a faith in god, rather than the bible a oxymoron. Rather, you are misled in faith if you don't follow the bible?? Thats how i see it though.

Although that this is my point of view, sounds atheist really.

The Bible is not one book; It is a volume of a lot of books (scrolls). Each book had a different author. I don't think I said anything about being misled if you read the Bible, in fact, I said the opposite. I just said that I put God first in my faith. I believed in God before I read the Bible.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
The Bible is not one book; It is a volume of a lot of books (scrolls). Each book had a different author. I don't think I said anything about being misled if you read the Bible, in fact, I said the opposite. I just said that I put God first in my faith. I believed in God before I read the Bible.

but where did your ideas of god come from?

i am sure you have ideas of what god is which contradicts what the bible or any other ancient book says about it...
so why use these books as guides if they contradict your understanding of god?
 
Last edited:

waitasec

Veteran Member
I think some of you misunderstand me. I didn't say that Holy texts were not important at all, I just said that they are not the foundation of my faith, and God is. Why would the texts even be important at all if I didn't believe in God? I know atheists and agnostics who know the Bible and other texts even better than those who follow God, they can read the Bible, study the bible and read it the same as I can. The difference is God.

the difference is POV.
 

NemisisQ

BY MY COMMAND......
The Bible is not one book; It is a volume of a lot of books (scrolls). Each book had a different author. I don't think I said anything about being misled if you read the Bible, in fact, I said the opposite. I just said that I put God first in my faith. I believed in God before I read the Bible.

Ahh im sorry then. I just grasped your point their.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
None of the gospels are apocryphal books. Only Hebrew texts are apocryphal. The earliest Xians remained Jews, at least until 70 c.e. when the temple was destroyed. By that time, Xy had spread to Gentile territory and flourished there, quite without dependence upon any Hebrew texts. The first transmission of Xian belief was oral and behavioral, not textual.
I am sorry sonjourner. but the gospels which were not included into the canon were labeld generally and collectively as apocrypha, meaning useful, but not divinely inspired. and if I am wrong may Nathan correct me.
as a Jewish sect, the Jewish Bible/Septuagint was not only instrumental in the religious beliefs of early Christians, but was considered scripture. as the rest of the Greek speaking Jews considered the Septuagint as scripture.
and if we are to resume the debate, scholarship and the New Testament itself tell us that the apostels and Jesus himself quoted the Septuagint, which means that they considerd it an inspired text.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I am sorry sonjourner. but the gospels which were not included into the canon were labeld generally and collectively as apocrypha, meaning useful, but not divinely inspired. and if I am wrong may Nathan correct me.
as a Jewish sect, the Jewish Bible/Septuagint was not only instrumental in the religious beliefs of early Christians, but was considered scripture. as the rest of the Greek speaking Jews considered the Septuagint as scripture.
and if we are to resume the debate, scholarship and the New Testament itself tell us that the apostels and Jesus himself quoted the Septuagint, which means that they considerd it an inspired text.
Well, not according to many of the best scholars. "Apocrypha" designates those texts which were found later -- and not included in the early Jewish canon. Those texts are different animals from the later gospel writings. Yes, the LXX was important to the proto-church, but it did not contain any NT writings.

There are several ways to look at texts that are said to be "apocryphal." But they can't all be lumped into the same category, as if they were all together in a collection at one time -- because they weren't.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
but where did your ideas of god come from?

i am sure you have ideas of what god is which contradicts what the bible or any other ancient book says about it...
so why use these books as guides if they contradict your understanding of god?
To gain a wider, historical and cultural perspective.
 
Top