Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[Subduction Zone]

You can be as negative and cynical as you want. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Unlike yourself, I have faith.

Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

assurance: freedom from doubt; certainty about something.
evidence: knowledge on which to base belief

Faith is the opposite of doubt and unbelief.

Yes, perhaps Mark Twain defined faith the best:

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.”​

 

[jimb]

There's some more of that "all-knowing" attitude. I thought you gave that up when you became a Christian?

Why would I, as a Christian, give up that "all-knowing" attitude? I know God and God knows me! I could not possibly say that before I became a Christian! If others don't accept that as fact, that is of no concern to me.

If someone says that I have guesses about "gods [sic] facts and knowledge", not only is that poor grammar, it is also untrue.

The opinions I've shared with you have been carefully considered, are sincerely believed, and are constructively offered. Unbelievers would do well to carefully consider them.

I and other believers have "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, [it] will guard our hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus" from Philippians 4:7

and "Therefore, since we [believers] are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God." Romans 5:1-2

If some disagree with the above or consider what I say to be disrespectful, that is of no concern to me.

 

[Ajax]

I used to have conversations with God. Prayer/conversations when I was more spiritually minded.

Usually I had visions or an understanding would pop into my head.
So for example per the title of this thread. If there was a particular passage in the Bible I couldn't make sense of, I'd ask God to clarify. Then wait for an answer. I'd always get one. Which seemed to me at the time to make perfect sense.

Or sometimes I would start walking in a random direction. Comes across a place selling books. Walk up to a book on the self the one I felt led towards and by it. Take it home and read it. It would have my answer.

This work all the timer without fail. Of course since the answers were not coming from me, at least consciously, they came from God. If you haven't experienced it you probably can't understand how convincing this can all be.

I came across a number of folks convinced they were communicating with God. All certain they had the true understanding of God. In fact I came to online forums originally thinking I was going to teach the "true" understanding of the scripture.

The only problem was that all these folks on the forums teaching the truth about God didn't seem to agree often.

So you go about the forums teaching the truth taught to you by God hoping someone will listen/be inspired to a better understanding. Those who didn't were simply blind to the Spirit.

Funny thing was though, I found the division between believers was even greater than the division between believer and non-believer.

So how can so many people, all in communication directly with God have so many different truths?

Perhaps it is easier for the believer to focus on the non-believer than other believers.
If you don't believe us, well we can just claim you are spiritually blind.

I can not really and I don't want to comment on your post my friend.
If it makes you happy and content, please continue your life in the same way.

 

[jimb]

I hope that you do not mean literally that God speaks to you, otherwise you are in trouble. You mean that God answers your requests with signs that appear later in your life with a chance of about 50%?

If the Bible is written to cultures that existed thousands of years ago, then obviously 1) does not apply to today's cultures and 2) does not contain any special meanings to understand. It was written in the 6th-5th century BC in a language that people understood.

Furthermore the Bible is not a historical document. It is what is called interpreted history. This means that not everything in it is historically accurate. Rather, the authors were more concerned with conveying information (historical or not) that is important to their religious beliefs. Its primary purpose is theological and spiritual.
The Creation, the Flood, the Exodus never happened, the Israelites lived harmonically with the Canaanites for centuries and neither people lived for 100 years plus, let alone close to 1000 years. The life expectancy was much lower than today, mainly due to infant mortality, infectious diseases, lack of medical knowledge, and harsh living conditions. So whilst the Bible has some historical information, it contains a lot of lies making it (especially the OT) more a fairy tale than historical book.

But you avoided to reply directly if you accept God's orders as they appear in OT that people must kill disobedient children and those working on Saturdays or that people can buy slaves who will be inherited by their children? Do you really believe Jimb that people must obey those God's orders?

I thought you just said that the Bible was written to cultures that existed thousands of years ago...Do you mean to ancient cultures? Because an omniscient God cannot give different messages to humanity depending on which century or millennia people live.

Why am I "in trouble" if God speaks to me? I am not alone in hearing from God; He communicates with whomever He wishes.

It is absurd to claim that if the original Biblical texts were written thousands of years ago that they are not relevant today. Do you think that God's command to "love your neighbor as yourself" is irrelevant? Or treating others as you want to be treated? If there were more of those behaviors in the world today, everyone would be better off!

(BTW, the Bible was not written in the 6th-5th century BC. That is totally incorrect).

I won't respond to such nonsense as your clear misunderstandings of the Bible.

 

[blü 2]

I know God and God knows me. End of story.

Since you can't be respectful toward believers, something that is clearly not possible for you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

As for being respectful, I mentioned earlier that your condescension is not a good look.

And if you're going to quote scripture to justify your position, perhaps you might bear in mind that it depends on supernatural assumptions that exist only as views and attitudes personal to you, whose validity you can't demonstrate ─ and not facts about reality, the world external to the self.

 

[jimb]

Great quote.

I think it's spot on. I like Penn Jillette's quote too: "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?" And my answer is: I rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them, they would go on killing and raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine."

Do you even understand what you've written? Penn Jillette's quote, whether he or you understand it, shows the action of God in our lives. God doesn't want anyone to commit rape or murder, which is why most people don't do those things! You and he just don't know the cause behind people's lawful and decent behavior.

 

[jimb]

As for being respectful, I mentioned earlier that your condescension is not a good look.

And if you're going to quote scripture to justify your position, perhaps you might bear in mind that it depends on supernatural assumptions that exist only as views and attitudes personal to you, whose validity you can't demonstrate ─ and not facts about reality, the world external to the self.

I don't care if you think that my supposed "condescension" is a "good look".

Also, I have stated what I know to be true. They are not "assumptions that exist only as views and attitudes" personal to me.

P.S. If reality is defined as "the world external to self", you are in very serious trouble!

 

[Audie]

I can not really and I don't want to comment on your post my friend.
If it makes you happy and content, please continue your life in the same way.

Just kind of a hint, a debate forum
may not be right for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would I, as a Christian, give up that "all-knowing" attitude? I know God and God knows me! I could not possibly say that before I became a Christian! If others don't accept that as fact, that is of no concern to me.

If someone says that I have guesses about "gods [sic] facts and knowledge", not only is that poor grammar, it is also untrue.

The opinions I've shared with you have been carefully considered, are sincerely believed, and are constructively offered. Unbelievers would do well to carefully consider them.

I and other believers have "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, [it] will guard our hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus" from Philippians 4:7

and "Therefore, since we [believers] are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God." Romans 5:1-2

If some disagree with the above or consider what I say to be disrespectful, that is of no concern to me.

Because with such an attitude you will never learn from your mistakes. And we all make them. I do believe that even the Bible warns you about that sort of pride meaning that you are not following your own holy book. I could look it up, but as you know there are many that the Bible claims Jesus will claim "You did not know me" even though they declared it louder than anyone else.

 

[blü 2]

Do you even understand what you've written? Penn Jillette's quote, whether he or you understand it, shows the action of God in our lives. God doesn't want anyone to commit rape or murder, which is why most people don't do those things! You and he just don't know the cause behind people's lawful and decent behavior.

Most people don't rape or murder because they, as homo sapiens sapiens, have evolved as gregarious creatures, and all gregarious creatures have evolved behaviors that allow them to live together. Homo sap also has the unique problem that their offspring require constant care for the first five years or so or life, so that pair bonding is the norm amongst them, at least for those years.

Regardless of religion, all humans are born with an evolved morality, as experiments have shown. (I outlined one example >here<.) We dislike the one who harms, we like fairness and reciprocity, we respect authority, we're loyal to the group, and we can get a sense of self-worth from self-denial. The rest of our morality is learnt, and may vary ─ how to deal with others who are family, or relatives, who are older or younger, who are authority figures like teachers, doctors, police, how as a community to observe births, coming of age, and deaths, and so on.

Note that this is where religious people get their morality from, just as non-religious people do.

 

[jimb]

Condescension is a matter of tone, regardless of what one is saying.

I fully agree that condescension is a matter of tone, regardless of what one is saying. "The pot calling the kettle black".

 

[jimb]

Most people don't rape or murder because they, as homo sapiens sapiens, have evolved as gregarious creatures, and all gregarious creatures have evolved behaviors that allow them to live together. Homo sap also has the unique problem that their offspring require constant care for the first five years or so or life, so that pair bonding is the norm amongst them, at least for those years.

Regardless of religion, all humans are born with an evolved morality, as experiments have shown. (I outlined one example >here<.) We dislike the one who harms, we like fairness and reciprocity, we respect authority, we're loyal to the group, and we can get a sense of self-worth from self-denial. The rest of our morality is learnt, and may vary ─ how to deal with others who are family, or relatives, who are older or younger, who are authority figures like teachers, doctors, police, how as a community to observe births, coming of age, and deaths, and so on.

Note that this is where religious people get their morality from, just as non-religious people do.

Claiming that "most people don't rape or murder because they, as homo sapiens sapiens, have evolved as gregarious creatures, and all gregarious creatures have evolved behaviors that allow them to live together" shows an astonishing lack of knowledge about the mamallian world, of which humans are a part. The general rule of most animal life is "kill or be killed".

The rest of your theorizing, to the extent that it disagrees with the Bible, is hogwash.

Pay attention to what is going on in today's world!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claiming that "most people don't rape or murder because they, as homo sapiens sapiens, have evolved as gregarious creatures, and all gregarious creatures have evolved behaviors that allow them to live together" shows an astonishing lack of knowledge about the mamallian world, of which humans are a part. The general rule of most animal life is "kill or be killed".

The rest of your theorizing, to the extent that it disagrees with the Bible, is hogwash.

Pay attention to what is going on in today's world!

You are trying to equate all other animals to each other. Most animals do not kill their own kind . There are some exceptions of course, but for most other animals, just like with us, when animals kill animals they are usually of a different species just as when we kill animals they are of a different species.

 

[blü 2]

a) Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see." So your statement "only known to exist as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain" contradicts what the Bible says. The Bible is right, you are wrong.

b) Since the author of Hebrews isn't known your statement about Paul is meaningless.

c) Reread a) above.

d) Reread a) above.

Simply because you lack faith doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. As the verse in Hebrews clearly states, "... being sure" and "... being convinced" settles the matter for me.

Quoting scripture will get you nowhere when the job in hand is to validate scripture to the impartial onlooker.

I don't bother to write on my posts, "This post of mine is infallibly correct in every particular and anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant fool and willfully contemptuous of the truth" ─ it's not true of my posts, your posts, or scripture. And to be fair, nowhere in the bible does the bible claim to be infallible.

So if you want to assert the bible is right about something, produce evidence acceptable to your audience. Don't pretend it's true just because it's in the bible.

An example of the bible being wrong ─ this one is about the NT and the resurrection ─ is >here<.

 

[Ajax]

Why am I "in trouble" if God speaks to me? I am not alone in hearing from God; He communicates with whomever He wishes.

I tried to put it to you as mildly as I could possibly could, but Thomas Szaz, who spent most of his career as professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York said:
“If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia".
But I guess you don't believe psychiatrists either.

Do you think that God's command to "love your neighbor as yourself" is irrelevant? Or treating others as you want to be treated? If there were more of those behaviors in the world today, everyone would be better off!

No, I agree that these are right commands.
But why are you shying to reply to my question? Do you believe that God's commands which clearly say that people must kill disobedient children and those working on Saturdays, or that people can buy slaves who will be inherited by their children, are valid to you? You could answer with a simple Yes (they are valid for me), or No (they are not valid for me).

(BTW, the Bible was not written in the 6th-5th century BC. That is totally incorrect).

You may believe whatever you want but the truth is that the first five books—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy—reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), and their authors were the elite of exilic returnees who controlled the Temple at that time. For the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings there is a broad consensus among scholars that these originated as a single work (the so-called "Deuteronomistic History") during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC. The two Books of Chronicles probably date from the 4th century BC. Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah, was probably finished during the 3rd century BC. Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments contain two (Catholic Old Testament) to four (Orthodox) Books of the Maccabees, written in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, perhaps Mark Twain defined faith the best:

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.”​

Speaking from personal experience, it was very difficult for me to forsake my Christian faith and let go of my belief in the biblical God. It was a matter of being completely honest with myself. I found the courage within myself to face my reality and let go of my Christian beliefs. I eventually learned how to care for myself and my family without feeling the need to rely on my faith in God. I realized that my faith in God was nothing more than false hope and an emotional crutch. I realized that if I was ever going to heal emotionally and change my life for the better, I needed to let go of this detrimental crutch.

There is a scripture that states, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13). Well, I genuinely believed in God and sought him with all my heart for forty years, but I never found him. I did, however, find disappointment, sadness, fear, confusion, and a constant feeling of hopelessness during the years I believed in God and was a devout Christian. I'm elated to say that I'm now free of what I consider to be the entrapment of my Christian faith. So I have no doubt that I am considerably better off in my life now that I have let go of the belief, faith, and false hope I had in God.

Because with such an attitude you will never learn from your mistakes. And we all make them. I do believe that even the Bible warns you about that sort of pride meaning that you are not following your own holy book. I could look it up, but as you know there are many that the Bible claims Jesus will claim "You did not know me" even though they declared it louder than anyone else.

The posts you are quoting are an excellent example of why I strongly support the forum rule prohibiting members from stating their religious beliefs as a definitive matter of fact rather than a personal belief or opinion. In my opinion, it's utterly pompous for any Christian to claim that they "know" God and state their beliefs as if they were absolute truth. I used to say the same thing when I was a Christian, despite feeling completely hollow inside. I knew how to put on a happy face and present myself as a confident Christian. I suspect that is what we are seeing in the posts you're quoting. It could be a facade.

Based on my experience as a former Christian, this is common with most of the Christians I've met during my lifetime. Despite their previous passionate declaration of knowing God and having a "personal relationship" with God, many of them are now former Christians like I am. As it turns out, I eventually studied my way out of believing in God and the Bible. I finally found the courage to re-examine my beliefs in God and the Bible and genuinely question my beliefs. I refer to it as removing the rose-colored glasses and confronting my reality rather than continuing to live in the false hope of believing in God.

 

[Ajax]

Just kind of a hint, a debate forum
may not be right for you.

Why not? He seems to be a polite person and very happy with his "charisma". I don't want to spoil his happiness.

 

[blü 2]

Claiming that "most people don't rape or murder because they, as homo sapiens sapiens, have evolved as gregarious creatures, and all gregarious creatures have evolved behaviors that allow them to live together" shows an astonishing lack of knowledge about the mamallian world, of which humans are a part. The general rule of most animal life is "kill or be killed".

Don't be silly. All gregarious critters have evolved behaviors appropriate for living together and gaining the benefits of a degree of cooperation within the tribe, the group, the warren, the herd.

And humans are nothing different in that respect.

The rest of your theorizing, to the extent that it disagrees with the Bible, is hogwash.

Pay attention to what is going on in today's world!

You don't appear to be following your own advice.

And you seem to be avoiding addressing the problems about the bible's resurrection stories, which I provided to you on that link.

 

[jimb]

Don't be silly. All gregarious critters have evolved behaviors appropriate for living together and gaining the benefits of a degree of cooperation within the tribe, the group, the warren, the herd.

And humans are nothing different in that respect.


You don't appear to be following your own advice.

And you seem to be avoiding addressing the problems about the bible's resurrection stories, which I provided to you on that link.

I am really not interested in your opinions. I know the truth, and the truth has set me free. (Read John 8:32)

 

[blü 2]

I am really not interested in your opinions. I know the truth, and the truth has set me free. (Read John 8:32)

Come, let us reason together.

A world exists external to you. You know about it through your senses. It can be called 'nature' or 'objective reality' (&c).

Out there is what scientists, and archaeologists, and many other thoughtful people study in order to understand what reality is.

Accurate statements about that world are called 'true'. This means that if you want to know whether a given proposition about reality is true or not, you can check reality and see what answer you find there.

Thus we find in the bible a description of the "Genesis flood". In that report all living land things except a single boatload died by drowning.

If the story is true then there will be real evidence of it out there. We can roughly date the story by working out when and where woodworking technology might make the building of the ark possible. We can very generously allow it would have to have happened in the last 7,000 years.

Such a worldwide flood would necessarily leave a geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the sea floor and that layer would necessarily be no more than 7,000 years old. Is there such a layer? No, there isn't. Is there anything resembling it? No, there isn't.

In the story, the flood covered the tops of the tallest mountains something like 20 feet / 6 m deep. The tallest mountain 7,000 years ago was Mount Everest. Today its top is 29,029 ft / 8,848 m above mean sea level. The Himalayas rise at a steady but very small rate due to tectonic pressure, so let's say 7,000 years ago Everest was only 28, 870 feet / 8,800 m high. How much more water than presently exists on earth would be necessary to cover the top of Everest 20 feet deep? Answer: more than 1.1 billion cubic miles. Question: where is that water now?

In the story, Noah took one, two or seven breeding pairs of each animal species aboard the ark. That means that all living land species are descended from a very small breeding group that existed no more than 7,000 years ago. If it happened, such an event can be detected in the genes of modern animals (called, amongst other things, a "genetic bottleneck"). And if it happened, such a genetic bottleneck, pointing to that date, will be found in the genes of all modern land species. Do we find such genetic bottlenecks in all land species? No. A few land species? No. We don't find it.

So from the evidence of reality we can conclude the story is not factual.

We can also trace the story back to Sumer, in Mesopotamia, It existed, at the least, around 2,500 BCE, which as you know is about 1,000 years before the bible God appears in any records. The Semitic Akkadians acquired it, and it became a story known in the Babylonian world, and you may recall that Abraham was said to be from Ur, a Sumerian city with a substantial Akkadian population. In that story it was the Sumerian gods who sent the Flood.

So from the evidence of history we can again conclude that the story is not factual. However, we might also be tempted to hypothesize that it had its origins in a very substantial flood on the Tigris or the Euphrates at some time in the far past. (The earliest evidence of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia puts them there by 5,000 BCE.)

Reality is useful like that. It can give you insights into what's true and what's not.