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

[Samael_Khan]

if you become a better person...….tomorrow

would that be ….objective?

Well, what is a better person in itself is a theological question... What does it mean to be a better person?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think scripture is an arrow
aimed at a moving target

the target can see it coming

I have had that feeling when reading the Bible. It is actually a really good description of how I felt. Especially when reading Pauls letters.

But that still is my interpretation which is subjective.

 

[Thief]

In many cases yes. But then how would that apply to the Epistles of Paul?

ah yes......Paul
who wrote half of the new testament
without the personal interaction with the Carpenter

I'm sorry

I am sure Paul meant well....but
his conversion to Christian faith has all the earmarks of a stroke

I'm glad he recovered

but the Catholic church grabbed his approach and dumped it on the believers

and I tend to lean away

I am not a Pauline

 

[leov]

To them, sure. Preachin' to the choir.
Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidian, the purple kool
aid people, inside it all seemed so believable.

Fortunately, those outside can look at the craziness
inside, and run for the exit.

Exactly as it should be.

That is why that verse in OP exists (and the next verse), it sort things the way it should be inside, the current inside does not understand or ignores the verse. Outside is not something of concern...

 

[Thief]

Well, what is a better person in itself is a theological question... What does it mean to be a better person?

OH YEAH!!!!!!

please repost as a topic

 

[Samael_Khan]

ah yes......Paul
who wrote half of the new testament
without the personal interaction with the Carpenter

I'm sorry

I am sure Paul meant well....but
his conversion to Christian faith has all the earmarks of a stroke

I'm glad he recovered

but the Catholic church grabbed his approach and dumped in it on the believers

and I tend to lean away

I am not a Pauline

So you see... here already you and I already have different opinions about Paul. And that describes the problem that Audi and I were talking about.

For me Paul's books are awesome because it makes me reflect even though I don't believe that he spoke for God. I do disagree with him on points. I read them for what they are = religious texts.

 

[Samael_Khan]

OH YEAH!!!!!!

please repost as a topic

Will do sir!

 

[Audie]

The bible at best from what we have discovered at the moment is historical fiction. Much like Wilbur Smith books, especially the ones about Ancient Egypt.

Lots of magical realism too. But mostly, just boring.

And now its goodnight lil Audie, goodnight.

 

[Thief]

So you see... here already you and I already have different opinions about Paul. And that describes the problem that Audi and I were talking about.

For me Paul's books are awesome because it makes me reflect even though I don't believe that he spoke for God. I do disagree with him on points. I read them for what they are = religious texts.

if you cannot be trusted with the least of things........
how then anything greater?

Paul leaned much on conformity

but it is written......Do not conform to this world
Be transformed by it

and Paul seemed to think.....performing under your superiors is the SAME grace
as performing for the Carpenter

nope......not buying that

 

[Samael_Khan]

Lots of magical realism too. But mostly, just boring.

And now its goodnight lil Audie, goodnight.

Night!

 

[Samael_Khan]

if you cannot be trusted with the least of things........
how then anything greater?

Paul leaned much on conformity

but it is written......Do not conform to this world
Be transformed by it

and Paul seemed to think.....performing under your superiors is the SAME grace
as performing for the Carpenter

nope......not buying that

Well, it depends on what we perceive as least and great isn't it? I mean, someone who is a notable thief can still preach out against someone who murders right? Isn't murder the greater of those two evils?

I disagree with conformity under coercion. If someone says I must confirm because God says so, I wouldn't believe it because God deliberately made us with the ability to uniquely express ourselves, which is against conformity.

 

[Samael_Khan]

OH YEAH!!!!!!

please repost as a topic

What does it mean to be a better person?

 

[shmogie]

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yes, but the Scriptures are like the layers of an onion.

The Good News of the Gospel is simple, anyone can grasp it.

Then, as interest is aroused, the Spirit can and will guide in understanding the deeper layers, with the co operative new believer.

Then, for a lifetime the Spirit will enlighten the deeper and deeper layers of the scriptures, more and more understanding, and sanctification becomes surer and surer.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well, just so long as YOU, personally, approve, right?

Faith is a personal journey in Knowing and Loving God. It is a path that produces the fruit of that faith in the material world.

Mostly that fruit unfolds in people that do not chase material wealth and prestige.

Regards Tony

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Really? For anyone making such ridiculous claims
and believing them, I'd say must be less-than.

I don't know why your panties are in a bunch. I simply repeated what Mr 74x12 said in his original post He seems to feel he has some knowledge that the natural man does not have. Therefore he must not be a natural man. Take a pill and chill.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The real problem you have (that any theist has) is that in many cases you have absolutely no metric by which to discern who is interpreting correctly and who is not. All you have is the text, and if one person interprets it one way, and the other another way, then going back to the text isn't getting you anywhere... and there is literally nowhere else to turn. What are you going to do? Pray? That's a laugh.

There is no problem as a theist also has exactly the same tools as atheists, reason and the wisdom accumulated through life experience. Theists are a very diverse group including Hindus, many Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Muslims. So there are various ways to interpret scriptures. There are various practices that enable better understanding of scriptures (not just prayer).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There is no problem as a theist also has exactly the same tools as atheists, reason and the wisdom accumulated through life experience. Theists are a very diverse group including Hindus, many Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Muslims. So there are various ways to interpret scriptures. There are various practices that enable better understanding of scriptures (not just prayer).

Theists want to claim this as one of the most important subjects of study that exist on Earth. And yet it has no tried and true methods of assessment available within it. That IS a problem, no matter how you slice it.

For example, the body of medical learning and knowledge. Pretty important, right? Within medicine they have things like "the current best" method for doing heart surgeries. "The current best" method for treating diabetes. Contrast this with religious study, where you certainly must afford nearly anyone a "whatever it means to you" method of viewing nearly anything within the texts that is written with even a modicum of ambiguity. There is almost no such thing as a "current best!" As far as areas of study go, that's a pretty hefty strike against it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was not expecting a substantive or candid
response, but more news of the obvious?

It is a highly legitimate question I asked.
But your godies are most reluctant to address it.

I can tell you why I believe as I do. You will need to ask the OP why he believes as he does. In the interim you can tell us why you believe as you do.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Theists want to claim this as one of the most important subjects of study that exist on Earth. And yet it has no tried and true methods of assessment available within it. That IS a problem, no matter how you slice it.

Once again you are talking about theists as if they are a uniform group. They are not. They compose 80-90% of the world’s population have diverse practices and beliefs. Some do not even have any scriptures. Perhaps you mean to talk about the type of theism the OP practices?

For example, the body of medical learning and knowledge. Pretty important, right? Within medicine they have things like "the current best" method for doing heart surgeries. "The current best" method for treating diabetes. Contrast this with religious study, where you certainly must afford nearly anyone a "whatever it means to you" method of viewing nearly anything within the texts that is written with even a modicum of ambiguity. There is almost no such thing as a "current best!" As far as areas of study go, that's a pretty hefty strike against it.

Religious understanding and practices change over time as do medical practices. Some people choose homeopathy and naturopathic means rather than using Western medical science. So there are always choices. I know what approach I’d take to health and healing as well as the approach I’d take to matters of spirituality.

Religion and science are two very different entities that both concern the nature of reality while using different methods. Of course there is common ground between the two and no reason why one can not compliment the other other.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Once again you are talking about theists as if they are a uniform group. They are not. They compose 80-90% of the world’s population have diverse practices and beliefs. Some do not even have any scriptures. Perhaps you mean to talk about the type of theism the OP practices?

You are right, there are, I do know, "theists" who do not think of their religion or beliefs as being very important to their lives, and by extension, they would therefore not be of the belief that the subject of "faith" in any sense was important to humanity as a whole. This is true. Some theists are "lukewarm" and they would not consider the body of learning of their chosen faith as being a very important item.

However, they still have the same problems I am talking about. Regardless the relative importance of "faith," there are no tried and true methods of practice, and anyone is literally able to believe or make up whatever they wish at any time. Even to the point that they can add onto or change entire sections of one religion and call it their own... going on to practice it however they see fit. This has happened thousands of times throughout history. Names like Joseph Smith come to mind, but obviously, on smaller scale, there are plenty of less famous figures who have done the same things.

Religious understanding and practices change over time as do medical practices.

Yes, but they do not necessarily change to adopt "the best" methods. Not nearly. It is not at all the same process. As stated above, people can believe, do, or say whatever they want... with no regard to what has been deemed "best" within the field of study of a particular religion. And these people can be just as serious as you are about your faith... and they can gain a following, and convince many others, as, again, has happened thousands of times in the past. In the medical field, a doctor cannot go about the business of practicing bad or out-dated medicine without serious risk of breaking the codes of ethics and honor within their profession. There are no such codes within religious beliefs. Or rather, people try to instill them... but because it is all make-believe, and everyone has just added whatever flavors they want at any given time, they have to afford others their particular brands of make believe if they want to continue practicing their own without protest.

Some people choose homeopathy and naturopathic means rather than using Western medical science.

Very true - however there is far less rigor applied in those areas to figuring out what works when, why it works, and how to best hone in on those effects. Basically, there is a lot less pressure put on them to actually work, and so there is a lot less drive to actually do any actual scientific research. I too believe that there is so much less drive to utilize scientific method within those disciplines because the people advocating for them know that what they call "knowledge" will not stand up to more rigorous scrutiny. This is very much like religious lines of thought.

Religion and science are two very different entities that both concern the nature of reality while using different methods. Of course there is common ground between the two and no reason why one can not compliment the other other.

Standing up to scrutiny is a much better mark of true utility and usefulness in my opinion. If something cannot withstand scrutiny, or shies away from it, then that thing should be labeled dubious.