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

[Shadow Wolf]

False Religions-Heathen Atheist Alliance.

Boo? I guess? Or whatever.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

There are many Republican Representatives that openly support Christian Nationalism like Mike Johnson, and Marjorie Green

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/14/1156642544/more-than-half-of-republicans-support-christian-nationalism-according-to-a-new-s

More than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism, according to a new survey​

FEBRUARY 14, 20235:00 AM ET

Ashley Lopez


Voters mark their ballots for the midterm election Nov. 8, 2022, at Lawrenceville Road United Methodist Church in Tucker, Ga.
Ben Gray/AP

Long seen as a fringe viewpoint, Christian nationalism now has a foothold in American politics, particularly in the Republican Party — according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution.

Researchers found that more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation, either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).

Robert P. Jones, the president and founder of the nonpartisan PRRI, has been surveying the religious world for many years now. Recently, Jones said his group decided to start asking specifically about Christian nationalism.

"It became clear to us that this term 'Christian nationalism' was being used really across the political spectrum," he said. "So not just on the right but on the left and that it was being written about more by the media."

I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

Christian nationalism is a worldview that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country's laws should therefore be rooted in Christian values. This point of view has long been most prominent in white evangelical spaces but lately it's been getting lip service in Republican ones, too.
During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.
"We need to be the party of nationalism," she said. "I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists."
Jones said until now it's been difficult to tell how prominent Christian nationalism is within the Republican Party.
"There was some data out there but what we saw as a need was to have a real set of data that would quantify what that term means, how many Americans really adhere to it," he said. "And we also wanted to have a more nuanced view — not just people who are hard adherents but maybe people who are sympathetic."

My posts are based on factual references,ie concerning the happiest countrie,

Of course, you would believe that, because you are biased toward people that share your beliefs.

Again my understanding of Christianity is not topic of the thread,

It is whether:

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

No more than any of the other nany conflicting claims of Christians who claim God gave then the 'true' interpretation.

In all humility I would make no such claim.


The subject of the thread is that God gives you the interpretation. If you already had the interpretation did 'give it to you before, to claim the understanding of the holy scriptures different from the many conflicting claims.

I am a little confused by the purpose of your quoting of statistics re Christian nationalism...are you complaining its on the increase? Because if you are then your history is up the ****ter because it is a resurgence...not an increase (the two have very different meanings and implications)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I do not believe anyone has any God given abilities to interpret scripture.

i agree with this. We do not need to interpret scripture...the entire idea of the meaning of the word REVELATION is that the bible writers have already revealed God and his wishes for mankind in the scriptures...that's the entire point!

 

[Trailblazer]

i agree with this. We do not need to interpret scripture...the entire idea of the meaning of the word REVELATION is that the bible writers have already revealed God and his wishes for mankind in the scriptures...that's the entire point!

Scriptures do not interpret themselves. They need to be read and interpreted by people who then assign meanings.
If scriptures interpreted themselves all Christians would agree but we know that is not the case.

As an aside, how do you think that the Bible writers knew God and His wishes for mankind?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think a better question to ask is why people expect God to communicate with them just because God communicated to His Messengers.

A skeptic is not going to ask that question. He doesn't assume the existence of this god like you and many others do. He asks why he should believe this god exists. The evidence you offer is the words and deeds of people, words that many people could have written and deeds that many already do, which is what makes them ordinary in the spectrum of human accomplishments.

Anybody can claim to be channeling a god, and a god ought to know that unless it provides words that no man could have written to such people, there is no reason to believe them.

Why should God do what people expect God to do rather than what God chooses to do?

The skeptic's position is that if that if he sees nothing that requires a god to explain, he has no reason to posit the existence of one.

There is a logical reason why God speaks only to His Messengers. They were chosen because they had special abilities.

But that's just it. I don't see any special ability required to be a messenger, so I have no reason to believe that the messengers weren't just preachers falsely claiming to channel a god.

Most people already believe in God because of the methods that God has thus far used. Why would God do something differently?

Does your god have no interest in being known to people who require compelling evidence to believe? Is it only a god for people who believe messengers? If it does, it might consider how to reach them, too.

Many people don't believe that such a thing exists as a god that prefers those who will believe so-called messengers over those who need more. Isn't that exactly what we would expect would be the case if no such god exists - only people who will believe messengers believe that such a god exists. It's supporting evidence that the god doesn't exist.

the real Messengers of God have not deluded themselves because they know they have received messages from God.

That doesn't help us to know that they are authentic.

And you know more about what is wise than an All-Wise God?

You don't describe an all-wise god. You describe one who relies on human messengers who nothing that many ordinary humans don't also do. And yes, most of us know how to get a message out better than that even with only human ability much less omnipotence and omniscience.

So, we're not judging an all-powerful god. We're judging your depiction of a god who seems pretty impotent at communicating effectively with man. Even the people that believe in gods can't agree what they're like.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am a little confused by the purpose of your quoting of statistics re Christian nationalism...are you complaining its on the increase? Because if you are then your history is up the ****ter because it is a resurgence...not an increase (the two have very different meanings and implications)

Christian Nationalism is not a resurgence. In the past the separation of Church and State was a founding and enduring principle pf government. Christian Nationalism rejects this and advocates a Christian Theonomy.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Intention is to Increase the Intensity of the Conflict and Divisions between the Few Practitioners of the Only True Religion and the False Religions-Heathen Atheist Alliance. I Am Christian Gnostic Outcast from so-called Christendom.

Your acrid condemning by stereotyping of those that do not believe as you do is reminiscent of movies such as: CONSTANTINE’S SWORD (2007)

The Youtube link is the trailer of the movie Eyes Wide Shut. Are you another member on these forums that cannot appreciate and learn from movies?

I get my knowledge from well researched contemporary academic sources, study of the classics, the scriptures of the world, and academic history Philosophy and science, There are very few movies that I learn from. Most are the historically accurate movies such as Gandhi, Lincoln, Saving Private Ryan, 12 years a Slave and Das Boot.

For pure entertainment I love 'Oh brother where art thou.'

Eyes Wide Shut does not make the cut. I can see how it is entertaining to some.

 

[Trailblazer]

A skeptic is not going to ask that question. He doesn't assume the existence of this god like you and many others do.

I never assumed the existence of God. I believed because of the evidence.

The evidence you offer is the words and deeds of people, words that many people could have written and deeds that many already do, which is what makes them ordinary in the spectrum of human accomplishments.

We have covered this before. You have your perspective, I have mine.

The words and deeds of Baha'u'llah are not what anyone else has ever written or done, which is the proof that nobody else could write or do those things. Baha'u'llah was extraordinary in the spectrum of human accomplishments. Of course, you could only know that by reading the history of the Baha'i Faith. Have you?

Anybody can claim to be channeling a god, and a god ought to know that unless it provides words that no man could have written to such people, there is no reason to believe them.

God did provide those words through Baha'u'llah, you just don't recognize them as being from God.

The skeptic's position is that if that if he sees nothing that requires a god to explain, he has no reason to posit the existence of one.

That's fine and it is no skin off God's nose because God needs nobody's belief.

But that's just it. I don't see any special ability required to be a messenger, so I have no reason to believe that the messengers weren't just preachers falsely claiming to channel a god.

Just because you don't see it that does not mean it is not there. Not everyone sees the same things since we are all thinking with different minds.

Does your god have no interest in being known to people who require compelling evidence to believe? Is it only a god for people who believe messengers? If it does, it might consider how to reach them, too.

God does not provide evidence to suit everyone, God only provides the evidence He chooses to provide, which has always been the Messengers.
God does not care if people don't like the evidence that He offered through the messengers because God does not need anyone's belief.

Many people don't believe that such a thing exists as a god that prefers those who will believe so-called messengers over those who need more. Isn't that exactly what we would expect would be the case if no such god exists - only people who will believe messengers believe that such a god exists. It's supporting evidence that the god doesn't exist.

Why would a fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining God care if some people don't believe in Messengers and need more?

No, that is not what we would expect to see the case of no God exists, quite the contrary. What we would expect to see if God exists is a God who expects people to believe based upon the evidence God chooses to provide and offers nothing more.

That doesn't help us to know that they are authentic.

No, it doesn't. That is what we are responsible to determine for ourselves, if we want to know.

You don't describe an all-wise god. You describe one who relies on human messengers who nothing that many ordinary humans don't also do. And yes, most of us know how to get a message out better than that even with only human ability much less omnipotence and omniscience.

I am describing an All-Wise God who knows the best way to communicate to humans, a way that has worked just fine throughout the ages, which is why most people in the world believe in God.

Why should God care if a small percentage of the human population protests to His use of Messengers to communicate? Any such God that allowed a few people to dictate how He should communicate would not be all-powerful. He would be a wimp.

No ordinary humans ever did what the Messengers of God did, nor did any other human garner the belief of the bulk of the human population.

So, we're not judging an all-powerful god. We're judging your depiction of a god who seems pretty impotent at communicating effectively with man.

Impotent at communicating effectively with man? Hardly. You don't have a leg to stand on, not one leg.
Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them Messengers; they are holy men who founded the world's great religions, and they are intermediaries between God and man. There are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).
Demographics of atheism

Now tell me why you think that God should care if 7% of the world population reject His Messengers. Tell me why you think an Almighty God should kowtow to these people who reject what He has offered and offer something else.

God does not care if you believe in Him, but God does not take kindly to people who judge Him and His Messengers.

Even the people that believe in gods can't agree what they're like.

That is on the believers, not on God or the Messengers.
Baha'u'llah cleared everything up so we can now know why people disagree, but if people reject His message that is not His fault.

 

[Kfox]

And you know that how?
If God is real, God has never done this, so that means that a real God would never do this...

No; you’ve got it backwards; if God were real he would do this. But because he hasn’t done this, he ain’t real.

They believe in the same God since there is only one God, they simply have different beliefs about that God because God has revealed Himself differently at different times in history.

No. People who worship animate beings (Allah, Yahweh etc) are not worshipping the same entity as those who worship inanimate things (Nature, Sun, etc).

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

Another criterion I believe a true Messenger of God would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God. That would be a red flag since there is not only one true religion from God.

Is your criteria foolproof? Or is it possible that even you could be wrong.

And you know more about what is wise than an All-Wise God?

I’m just a person who can recognize foolishness and bad ideas when I see them.

Tell me how you know how any modern technology can detect God.

Modern technology can detect the voice is not of Planet Earth.

It is not convenient, it is just the way it is. God is spirit, and spirit cannot be seen.

Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t empirical. Again; I wouldn’t just expect everybody to just take my word for it; that’s a fools game.

If they really want to know they investigate.

Just because they investigate does not mean they will reach the same conclusion as you.

 

[Audie]

I never assumed the existence of God. I believed because of the evidence.

We have covered this before. You have your perspective, I have mine.

The words and deeds of Baha'u'llah are not what anyone else has ever written or done, which is the proof that nobody else could write or do those things. Baha'u'llah was extraordinary in the spectrum of human accomplishments. Of course, you could only know that by reading the history of the Baha'i Faith. Have you?

God did provide those words through Baha'u'llah, you just don't recognize them as being from God.

That's fine and it is no skin off God's nose because God needs nobody's belief.

Just because you don't see it that does not mean it is not there. Not everyone sees the same things since we are all thinking with different minds.

God does not provide evidence to suit everyone, God only provides the evidence He chooses to provide, which has always been the Messengers.
God does not care if people don't like the evidence that He offered through the messengers because God does not need anyone's belief.

Why would a fully self-sufficient and fully self-sustaining God care if some people don't believe in Messengers and need more?

No, that is not what we would expect to see the case of no God exists, quite the contrary. What we would expect to see if God exists is a God who expects people to believe based upon the evidence God chooses to provide and offers nothing more.

No, it doesn't. That is what we are responsible to determine for ourselves, if we want to know.

I am describing an All-Wise God who knows the best way to communicate to humans, a way that has worked just fine throughout the ages, which is why most people in the world believe in God.

Why should God care if a small percentage of the human population protests to His use of Messengers to communicate? Any such God that allowed a few people to dictate how He should communicate would not be all-powerful. He would be a wimp.

No ordinary humans ever did what the Messengers of God did, nor did any other human garner the belief of the bulk of the human population.

Impotent at communicating effectively with man? Hardly. You don't have a leg to stand on, not one leg.
Most people in the world believe in God because of a Messenger of God so that method has been very successful.

84 percent of the world population has a faith.

Because most faiths have a religious Founder or what I call a Messenger that means most people believe in God because of a Messenger. We know that Christians and Muslims believe in a Messenger and they comprise 55% of the world population. It does not matter if you call them Messengers; they are holy men who founded the world's great religions, and they are intermediaries between God and man. There are a few believers who believe in God but not a Messenger but that is not the norm. The point is that with no Messengers or holy men very few people would believe in God.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).
Demographics of atheism

Now tell me why you think that God should care if 7% of the world population reject His Messengers. Tell me why you think an Almighty God should kowtow to these people who reject what He has offered and offer something else.

God does not care if you believe in Him, but God does not take kindly to people who judge Him and His Messengers.

That is on the believers, not on God or the Messengers.
Baha'u'llah cleared everything up so we can now know why people disagree, but if people reject His message that is not His fault.

Whose fault is it that you've been scammed?

 

[Trailblazer]

Whose fault is it that you've been scammed?

Nobody's because I haven't been scammed...
but I understand that you have to believe that in order to maintain that I am wrong so you can believe you are right.

 

[Superman7]

Here let's do something constructive all together.

 

[Superman7]

Let's do something constructive together..

 

[Superman7]

And each Mr UNatural gets a different reading.
Funny god, that one.

Reading?!. What do you mean?

 

[Brickjectivity]

[1Co 14:26 NIV] 26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

We're on page 78, so I cannot establish what has already been discussed. I thought I'd bring up the above reference from the first letter of Paul to the Corinthian city where he mentions that there are interpretations (plural) of something, and perhaps it is interpretations of scriptures. This suggests that multiple interpretations of scriptures have more value than is currently accepted by many groups of churches.

 

[Trailblazer]

No; you’ve got it backwards; if God were real he would do this. But because he hasn’t done this, he ain’t real.

No, that is completely illogical. If God is real and God has not done this that means that the real God would not do this.
The only thing you can say is that you don't believe that God exists because God has not done this.

But if God is real and has not done this that means a real God would not do this. There is no way around that logic.

No. People who worship animate beings (Allah, Yahweh etc) are not worshipping the same entity as those who worship inanimate things (Nature, Sun, etc).

I never said that those two groups are worshiping the same entity.
People who believe in the real God believe in the same God since there is only one God, they simply have different beliefs about that God.
People who worship inanimate things (Nature, Sun, etc). are out of the game because they do not worship God.

Is your criteria foolproof? Or is it possible that even you could be wrong.

I am not going down that road. Anyone can be wrong since there is no proof that God exists or sends Messengers.
That is why I said: "Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria." I never said I could prove that as a fact. Nobody can prove anything about God as a fact.

I’m just a person who can recognize foolishness and bad ideas when I see them.

Is your opinion foolproof, or is it possible that you could be wrong?
What is foolish or a bad idea to one person is wise or a good idea to another person. It is all a matter of personal opinion.

Modern technology can detect the voice is not of Planet Earth.

So what? Just because a voice was not of Planet Earth that would not mean it is the Voice of God.
There would be no way to ever prove that any voice you heard was the Voice of God, not anymore than I can prove that Baha'u'llah spoke as the Voice of God.

Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t empirical. Again; I wouldn’t just expect everybody to just take my word for it; that’s a fools game.

1. : originating in or based on observation or experience. empirical data.
2. : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory.
Empirical Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The definition says that you can observe it or experience it. If you cannot observe God you would have to experience God in order for it to be empirical.
Many believers here say that they have experienced God. Do you believe them? I don't.
How can they know it was God they experienced? They cannot know that, they can only believe it.

Just because they investigate does not mean they will reach the same conclusion as you.

No, of course it doesn't mean that. Everyone will come to their own conclusions but at least those conclusions will be based upon an investigation.

Is a man convicted of murder without an investigation having been conducted? How then could a man be convicted of being a true or false messenger without an investigation?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Scriptures do not interpret themselves. They need to be read and interpreted by people who then assign meanings.
If scriptures interpreted themselves all Christians would agree but we know that is not the case.

That is nothing more than an argument about the common use of language. Arguing a common use of language requires special interpretation for biblical theology does not support your claim rather, it supports the opposite claim that the bible does interpret itself and Gods revelation to us has been interpreted by the bible writers via the common use of language and that is the entire point.

For example, prophets such as Moses, Isiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel...these all wrote down Gods revelation to them in His Word. We do not need to interpret outside that of the normal use of language. A classic example is the vision given to king Nebucahnezzar in Daniel Chapter 2. We know what God revealed the interpretation of the dream in His word because Daniel says so in his book...

Daniel Interprets the Dream​

​

Daniel 2: 24Therefore Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon! Bring me before the king, and I will give him the interpretation.” ​

​

28But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the latter days. ​

​

30And to me this mystery has been revealed, not because I have more wisdom than any man alive, but in order that the interpretation might be made known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.​

​

We can also ensure that we understand what particular bible writers have stated by cross-referencing theology with other bible writers...it is through the consistency of the bible that we may know we have our theology and doctrines correct.

 

[Sargonski]

I never said that those two groups are worshiping the same entity.
People who believe in the real God believe in the same God since there is only one God, they simply have different beliefs about that God.
People who worship inanimate things (Nature, Sun, etc). are out of the game because they do not worship God.

I am not going down that road. Anyone can be wrong since there is no proof that God exists or sends Messengers.
That is why I said: "Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my criteria which is based upon who I believe were Messengers of God, who met all these criteria." I never said I could prove that as a fact. Nobody can prove anything about God as a fact.

Jumping in here so apologize if I get context wrong but claiming there is only one God is a big assumed premise fallacy .. people who believe in "the Real God" ? what in earth is that .. given you say God can not be proven.

what is this Real God that can not be proven ?? --- and who are you to claim that the natural forces are not Gods ? .. as 100% it can be proven that these are part of God ==== emanations from the Godhead at the very least.

Hmmm .. notice the word "Proven" ... very curious language. for something that has no proof !

many gods are there . all depends on how you define God .. the lack of an agreed upon definition in such conversation .. the first big mistake..

 

[Audie]

Reading?!. What do you mean?

It's another word for "interprettion".

It's a very common usage.

Do you not agree with my post now that
you've read it?

 

[Audie]

Let's do something constructive together..

Of what use is powerful light in
the dark, if you cannot read the map?

Ask ye of some score bible readers
" What sayeth this passage? What is
your reading of genesis, be it literal or
figurative?"

And ye shall hear from them
"Lo here", and, "Lo there