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

[idea]

What he said is either true or it is false. Read it and judge for yourself.

I read it. Lived it for 20 years. It is false.

Mormon church was and is filled with pedophile leaders, that is what I found. What my kids found. Sick unhealthy warped - smiling grooming "friendly" priests... that is what we went through- hell - he is in jail, no thanks to anyone in that church who all denied and hid.

All the bad-apple offshoots of that church, they are all from the same sick polygamous pedophile tree.

"Elevation" isn't from God. A strange herd bonding groupthink thing, but is not from God- does not protect, doesn't confirm "truth", confirms groupthink - for many different groups. A crazy feeling that ropes many into many different groups.

What I learned from those 20 years? Women protect, women provide, anyone to claim "authority" must do it from within.

We all find our own authority - when forced into roles. Shouldn't take protecting kids to shake people out of that haze, but groupthink - very real, very difficult to break free from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that a problem?

Rational thought has to be rational to others. Not to just yourself. That was about the worst claim that you could have made.

Seem? Do I or do I not know that my God exists?

You clearly do not. You may believe it, but to know that your God exists you would need to be able to demonstrate how you know that.

How?

Are you telling me that you do not even understand the concept of the burden of proof? When a person makes a claim that others disagree with the person making the positive claim, such as "God said . . . " you have to be willing and able to defend that claim. Now if you want to use a holy book you could always add a qualifier. But then you would likely have to demonstrate that that holy book is reliable.

Appears? Well, do I believe certain things or don't I? And what things are you talking about? You'll have to be specific.

I was point out that you believe things, there is a possibility that you know some things so I used a qualifier. But I have strong doubts about that. Having a belief is such a weak argument that it an be refuted by a "So what?" quite often, especially if no reliable evidence is offered.

I agree.
No doubt. It wouldn't be hard.
They do.

Okay, whoa! Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion. If you are willing to admit that holy books have errors then it shows that your mind is not closed. I am no longer a Christian, I can explain why, but even when I was I did not make the error of assuming that the Bible was inerrant. For an honest person a belief in an inerrant religion is the fastest way to become an atheist.

Come now. If we're going to have a good-faith discussion, you must acknowledge my contributions. But if you want to run with this:
...I'm here. Offer a point relevant to the discussion that you'd like me to address.

Perhaps I can think of one that I would really want to cover. Right now I have to run for a while.

 

[Unfettered]

I read it. Lived it for 20 years. It is false.

Mormon church was and is filled with pedophile leaders, that is what I found. What my kids found. Sick unhealthy warped - smiling grooming "friendly" priests... that is what we went through- hell - he is in jail, no thanks to anyone in that church who all denied and hid.

All the bad-apple offshoots of that church, they are all from the same sick polygamous pedophile tree.

"Elevation" isn't from God. A strange herd bonding groupthink thing, but is not from God- does not protect, doesn't confirm "truth", confirms groupthink - for many different groups. A crazy feeling that ropes many into many different groups.

I'm sorry that you and your family were abused.

 

[idea]

I'm sorry that you and your family were abused.

There are a lot of good people in many different groups.

Where you are now, I once was.
Where I am now, you may become.

Midlife awakening - painful as hell, you die inside, but then awake to new - much larger world.

Best wishes to you on your journey.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

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

That's what the apostle Peter tells us in his 2 epistle...read chapters 1-3.

 

[Unfettered]

Rational thought has to be rational to others. Not to just yourself. That was about the worst claim that you could have made.

So, what is rational is a matter of consensus or mutual understanding?

You clearly do not. You may believe it, but to know that your God exists you would need to be able to demonstrate how you know that.

I saw a bird yesterday. I know it. How do I demonstrate that I know it?

Are you telling me that you do not even understand the concept of the burden of proof? When a person makes a claim that others disagree with the person making the positive claim, such as "God said . . . " you have to be willing and able to defend that claim. Now if you want to use a holy book you could always add a qualifier. But then you would likely have to demonstrate that that holy book is reliable.

I understand what you're saying. There is no reason to go 'round and 'round here. I disagree that is it my burden to "demonstrate" God to you—or for you, just as it is not my burden to demonstrate to you the bird I saw yesterday.

I was point out that you believe things, there is a possibility that you know some things so I used a qualifier. But I have strong doubts about that.

Fair enough, but my observation is that your posts see-saw on this seemingly critical point (whether or not I know a thing or just believe it).

Having a belief is such a weak argument that it an be refuted by a "So what?" quite often, especially if no reliable evidence is offered.

Look back; you're the only one here talking about beliefs. I say I know something and you say I don't. You demand proof that is not mine to give and you confirm your bias with my failure to produce what is not mine to produce. I'm trying to figure out how that's rational.

Okay, whoa! Perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion. If you are willing to admit that holy books have errors then it shows that your mind is not closed.

You could have just asked me if I understood that holy books are error free, and I'd have made it clear immediately that I don't believe that. I share what is written in holy books, but that I do not claim that what is written is evidence of anything other than that it's someone's testimony of what they claim to know.

I am no longer a Christian, I can explain why, but even when I was I did not make the error of assuming that the Bible was inerrant. For an honest person a belief in an inerrant religion is the fastest way to become an atheist.

Understood. There is, arguably, nothing that has been subject to human works that is perfect.

Perhaps I can think of one that I would really want to cover. Right now I have to run for a while.

At your leisure.

 

[Unfettered]

There are a lot of good people in many different groups.

Where you are now, I once was.
Where I am now, you may become.

Midlife awakening - painful as hell, you die inside, but then awake to new - much larger world.

Best wishes to you on your journey.

Thank you. You as well.

 

[Audie]

I dont need to prove anything. You either believe the bible is the inerrant word of God or you don't. I don't have the power to influence you either way.

Always so black and white.
Who actually knows which parts are " from god"
OR what they mean?

Closer to reality with its pesky nuances is
" either you accept my personally chosen
interpretation ( vouchsafed unto me by
God and thus inerrant) or you dont"

 

[Ignatius A]

I think your conception regarding "faith", is a little bit out there. If you are just saying you believe everything Paul says along with his comrades, well that would be your belief. Faith would entail acting on your belief. As Paul's false gospel of grace requires no action, well you are simply left with a false belief. As for asking someone to prove a negative, well that is another reach too far. Did you graduate from Harvard?

First since you aren't the arbiter of truth what you think is "a little bit out there" is of no real relevance to the discussion. Second, what do you know about my actions as they relate to my faith? We'll save some time here, you know nothing about it. Lastly it sure is possible to prove a negative but it requires thought.

 

[Ignatius A]

Always so black and white.
Who actually knows which parts are " from god"
OR what they mean?

Closer to reality with its pesky nuances is
" either you accept my personally chosen
interpretation ( vouchsafed unto me by
God and thus inerrant) or you dont"

Ok

 

[jimb]

Always so black and white.
Who actually knows which parts are " from god"
OR what they mean?

Closer to reality with its pesky nuances is
" either you accept my personally chosen
interpretation ( vouchsafed unto me by
God and thus inerrant) or you dont"

Ignatius A is correct. Either a person believes the Bible or s/he doesn't. To believe means "to accept as true or real". Can anything be partially true and/or partially real? It's true/false or real/unreal. Nothing can be partially true (which means it's not true) or partially real (which means its unreal).

 

[Ignatius A]

Ignatius A is correct. Either a person believes the Bible or s/he doesn't. To believe means "to accept as true or real". Can anything be partially true and/or partially real? It's true/false or real/unreal. Nothing can be partially true (which means it's not true) or partially real (which means its unreal).

The sad thing is that for some people truth has been reduced to opinion.

 

[Alien826]

Ignatius A is correct. Either a person believes the Bible or s/he doesn't. To believe means "to accept as true or real". Can anything be partially true and/or partially real? It's true/false or real/unreal. Nothing can be partially true (which means it's not true) or partially real (which means its unreal).

Of course they can.

Example of partially true: The moon circles the Earth and is made of green cheese.

Example of partially real: Santa Claus drives around in a sledge pulled by reindeer. Sledges and reindeer exist, Santa doesn't.

 

[2ndpillar]

First since you aren't the arbiter of truth what you think is "a little bit out there" is of no real relevance to the discussion. Second, what do you know about my actions as they relate to my faith? We'll save some time here, you know nothing about it. Lastly it sure is possible to prove a negative but it requires thought.

Well, in your "Christianity", the faith in Paul's false gospel of grace, you would have no need of any works/actions for your salvation. Any of your works, would be as dirty rags. But then again, the cleaners make their livelihoods in cleaning dirty rags. As for "truth", it is apparently not the same as your "faith". As George Orwell's' book, 1984 is happening 40 years late, maybe you should read the book and find out where you stand in perspective after reading the book. Just because you describe up as down, does not make it so.

 

[Ignatius A]

Well, in your "Christianity", the faith in Paul's false gospel of grace, you would have no need of any works/actions for your salvation. Any of your works, would be as dirty rags. But then again, the cleaners make their livelihoods in cleaning dirty rags. As for "truth", it is apparently not the same as your "faith". As George Orwell's' book, 1984 is happening 40 years late, maybe you should read the book and find out where you stand in perspective after reading the book. Just because you describe up as down, does not make it so.

Where did I say what you claim in the first sentence? Copy and paste my words. Please don't reply with your opinion copy and paste my words.

 

[jimb]

Of course they can.

Example of partially true: The moon circles the Earth and is made of green cheese.

Example of partially real: Santa Claus drives around in a sledge pulled by reindeer. Sledges and reindeer exist, Santa doesn't.

1st example: 2 factors, combined. One is true and one isn't.
2nd example: Santa's sled is pulled by reindeer. The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas, so perhaps he still exists in heaven.

 

[2ndpillar]

Where did I say what you claim in the first sentence? Copy and paste my words. Please don't reply with your opinion copy and paste my words.

If you are a follower of Paul, the father of "Christianity", and its false gospel of grace, then you would fall under those precepts. If you are an atheist, Muslim, or Hindu, just say so. If you are a Catholic, and a follower of the "worthless shepherd" (Zech 11:17), Peter, just say so. Peter's church depends on Paul, and Paul's church depends on Peter, or at least those who claim to be Peter. You come across as a know everything "Christian", so I am thinking that is the path you are on. If not, just spell out what kind of religiosity expert you think you are. Not that you are an expert on anything you might claim to hold near and dear, but you appear to think you are on top of some personally held beliefs, whatever they may be. Lay your beliefs out and let the forum look into their validity.

 

[Alien826]

1st example: 2 factors, combined. One is true and one isn't.
2nd example: Santa's sled is pulled by reindeer. The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas, so perhaps he still exists in heaven.

1# Both statements apply to the same thing (the moon).

2# He wouldn't be Santa.

Anyway, your original statement was about the Bible, which has lots of "factors". Gotta play fair.

 

[jimb]

1# Both statements apply to the same thing (the moon).

2# He wouldn't be Santa.

Anyway, your original statement was about the Bible, which has lots of "factors". Gotta play fair.

Santa and the moon are the same? Okay then...

You gotta play fair as well.

 

[Ignatius A]

If you are a follower of Paul, the father of "Christianity", and its false gospel of grace, then you would fall under those precepts. If you are an atheist, Muslim, or Hindu, just say so. If you are a Catholic, and a follower of the "worthless shepherd" (Zech 11:17), Peter, just say so. Peter's church depends on Paul, and Paul's church depends on Peter, or at least those who claim to be Peter. You come across as a know everything "Christian", so I am thinking that is the path you are on. If not, just spell out what kind of religiosity expert you think you are. Not that you are an expert on anything you might claim to hold near and dear, but you appear to think you are on top of some personally held beliefs, whatever they may be. Lay your beliefs out and let the forum look into their validity.

So you can't back up your claim. That's what I thought but as I always say it's good to get confirmation.