The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This I don't really understand. Are you saying that Christians and non-Christians alike should not take everything in the Bible as 100% fact? It's my understand that the Church teaches the Bible as 100% fact, because it's God's word; God is perfect. Why would the Bible use sybolism if it didn't actually note the use of symbolism?

 

 

 

And then by what standard are you allowed to call part of god's word sybolism? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a less literal reading of the bible, I'm just throwing the question out there (to warren).

The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This I don't really understand. Are you saying that Christians and non-Christians alike should not take everything in the Bible as 100% fact? It's my understand that the Church teaches the Bible as 100% fact, because it's God's word; God is perfect. Why would the Bible use sybolism if it didn't actually note the use of symbolism?

 

 

 

The New Testament was written by the appostles 2000 years ago. How can you be sure that they didn't mean for everything in it to be taken as fact?

 

Those things in the bible were choosen to be put in about 1800 years ago. Well after any authors died. You see the new church leaders needed to write their stuff down so they could have a printed word of God. They basically took what they liked and placed it into one book, like they did for mostly every book. :anxious: Thats what my pastor told me once :-w

Yes, God's love, not some morals or hellfire condemnation, etc.

 

So you don't believe in that second part?

 

 

 

I wasn't saying that I don't believe in them; I was stating that those are not THE focus of Christianity.

 

For example, I would not encourage somebody with a megaphone shouting at people that they're going to hell or that they're immoral.

 

Why wouldn't you encourage them? Since it's true that non-believers go to hell, shouldn't they be warned as loudly as possible so that they will change their heathen ways?

]To everybody: Don't make this into another one of those threads discussing whether the Bible's right or not. That isn't the point of the thread. This is to clear up what Christianity is about through discussion

 

 

Why wouldn't you encourage them? Since it's true that non-believers go to hell, shouldn't they be warned as loudly as possible so that they will change their heathen ways?

 

You're going to hell, you sinner!! Repent or burn!! Accept Christ or die!!! You're nothing without God, only fuel for the fire!! You're a dirty sinner!!

 

...yeah.

 

 

 

Anyways, John 3:16 - So God so loved the world that he sent his only son to die so that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life. That's pretty much the focus. It's all the difference between saying, "Jesus, THE SON OF GOD, came to take one for ya 'cause he loves ya" and "You're going to hell, so join us or burn."

 

 

 

Those things in the bible were choosen to be put in about 1800 years ago. Well after any authors died. You see the new church leaders needed to write their stuff down so they could have a printed word of God. They basically took what they liked and placed it into one book, like they did for mostly every book. Thats what my pastor told me once

 

I didn't learn much about this myself, but I'm pretty sure that the exclusions were contrary to the rest of the Bible. I can't really offer examples of this since it's been a while and I'm not that scholarly =P.

 

 

 

[hide]

Well I'm a Catholic and I am quite annoyed at the fact that a lot of people who flame christians believe that everyone is a fundamentalist. The Bible uses more symbolism then actual facts. a lot of people believe that the bible is to be taken 100% seriously and thus those against catholics use that stereotype as the bases for arguements.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution or creation? the answer i believe is both. In Genesis, the "days" that god created earth were symbols, based on the Israeli work schedule. work for 6 days, rest on sunday. These days represent the time it took for god to create the earth. While some days can have lasted an hour or so, other days might have actually been over 60 million years. Evolution can have taken place in one "day" of creation. Plus, God is not restricted by time. He resides in eternity. Time is irrevelant. everything could have happened instantaneously, but to convert it to time would be impossible without symbolism.

 

 

 

There are a lot of examples of symbolism in the bible. plus, the bible had dozens of different authors. While one phrase in Paul's letters may be controversial, you can't use that to say the whole bible is wrong. different authors use different styles. While evangelists like Mark may have more accurate historical events in the life of Jesus, the Book of Revelation was made entirely out of symbolism. Revelation has no relevence to the end of the world, contrary to popular belief. In Greek, Revelation means the Re-veiling. In Greek, Apocalypse means the un-veiling. Plus, the Jewish tradition of unveiling the bride before marrying goes back to the bible stories. What do these 3 points mean? Revelation is not about the end of the world. its about god's marrying to his bride, the church. Its about the christian persecution in AD 90, where the emperor and his brutal assistant were repeatedly referred to as a demon and a demon's assistant who made others worship him in Revelation.

 

 

 

In conclusion, the bible has more symbolism then you think. You can say that some things dont make sense, but its simply because the symbolism is very elastic in meaning. It just seems like its repeatedly ignored to be symbolism and more of a "flame christians here" manual.

[/hide]

 

Sorry, what? What exactly is this post for? We're discussing Chrisitianity, not flaming. Also, I understand that you're upset with the stereotypes with Catholics, but that's taking this thread off topic a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

To atestarossa: Yup, thanks for pointing out that Christianity is different from other religions in that Jesus is the way to heaven and not "working to be good enough for heaven"

 

 

 

 

 

warri0r, could we not make an Evolution vs. Christianity war? Those tend to degrade very quickly, and besides, this topic's to discuss what Christianity's really about.

It's all the difference between saying, "Jesus, THE SON OF GOD, came to take one for ya 'cause he loves ya" and "You're going to hell, so join us or burn."

 

But no matter how you phrase it, you still believe that my family and I will burn in eternal hellfire, right?

^

 

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.

 

warri0r, could we not make an Evolution vs. Christianity war? Those tend to degrade very quickly, and besides, this topic's to discuss what Christianity's really about.

 

 

 

 

The motivation isn't to turn it into a war, so sure, I'm not going to push the issue. Just know I'm not going to stand by idly whenever someone misrepresents something I know about either. The motivation of this thread is the same for me, but for evolution, so I respect what you're doing here. Infact, I might do something similar in the future with regards to evolution.

^

 

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.

 

or Allah.

Adventurer, perhaps you could help me clear something up -

 

 

 

The Bible: do christians (as in the majority, or as in what they are supposed to believe) see it as literal truth or as partly symbolic?

I also know that many Christians believe that no matter what you do throughout life, as long as you repent for your sins (through praying), and follow in Jesus, you go to Heaven.

 

 

 

That's based more on the Catholic belief. Hence why it is to be considered by some as a "lazy" religion. (not based on my opinions)

Adventurer, perhaps you could help me clear something up -

 

 

 

The Bible: do christians (as in the majority, or as in what they are supposed to believe) see it as literal truth or as partly symbolic?

 

I think that most of it is literal (don't quote me on it; this is from personal experience). For example, weird stuff like Jonah and the Whale, miracles, Moses parting the Red Sea, are taken literally. However, I know that some don't take it that way. My dealings with fellow Christians has been limited, so I'm not sure.

 

 

 

Also, the subject of creation is under debate among Christians too.

 

 

 

^

 

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.

 

or Allah.

 

 

 

That seemed like a slight against Christianity. I won't comment further as I don't know what you mean by this.

 

 

 

I also know that many Christians believe that no matter what you do throughout life, as long as you repent for your sins (through praying), and follow in Jesus, you go to Heaven.

 

 

 

That's based more on the Catholic belief. Hence why it is to be considered by some as a "lazy" religion. (not based on my opinions)

 

Ah ha! That's a very good thing to bring up.

 

Yes, many Christians believe that. However, what is repentance? Is it saying, "I'm sorry" and just going and sinning again? Nope.

 

 

 

There are a few problems with that view. For example, Jesus covers this in Matthew 7 with the parables of tree-bearing fruit and the wise and foolish builders.

 

 

 

[hide=The Parables]

Matthew 7:18-23

 

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

 

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

 

 

Matthew 7:24-28

 

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

[/hide]

 

What do these mean? Actions speak louder than words. What is the point of repentance if you just sin again? Nothing but hypocracy (sp?). Jesus himself says that he'll deny them, meaning that those types of people never really did accept him anyways.

 

 

 

So you might wonder what it means to accept Jesus, and for what they should accept him then. Well...

 

 

 

[hide=The Verses. Pay attention to the last one]

Luke 9:23 - Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

 

 

 

Matthew 11:29 - Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

 

 

 

Romans 6:15-18 - What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Adventurer, perhaps you could help me clear something up -

 

 

 

The Bible: do christians (as in the majority, or as in what they are supposed to believe) see it as literal truth or as partly symbolic?

 

I think that most of it is literal (don't quote me on it; this is from personal experience). For example, weird stuff like Jonah and the Whale, miracles, Moses parting the Red Sea, are taken literally. However, I know that some don't take it that way. My dealings with fellow Christians has been limited, so I'm not sure.

 

 

 

Also, the subject of creation is under debate among Christians too.

 

 

 

 

If there are some symbolic parts, how have you, personally, distinguished them as symbolic? And, are you confident that your interpretation of these parts as symbolic is accurate? On what basis have you the knowlege to call them symbolic?

It's all the difference between saying, "Jesus, THE SON OF GOD, came to take one for ya 'cause he loves ya" and "You're going to hell, so join us or burn."

 

But no matter how you phrase it, you still believe that my family and I will burn in eternal hellfire, right?

DW about it there'll be about 1000billion people in hell we'll have one hell of a party *hi5*

 

 

 

 

 

OT: Christianity is a religion like any other, with many sects etc, basically the moral behind it is a good one, but can be interpreted in different ways as the bible does contradict itself a lot (old&new testament)

 

 

 

If your a Christian, best of luck to you.

not everything in the bible is to be taken as a fact... first, lets take the new testament. Jesus spoke A LOT in symbols... different stories he told, just to make a point... for example the lost son, it doesn't have to be a correct event that ocurred once in history. but, as i said, a story to point out how god thinks about us humans...

 

 

 

the old testament is like this as well... i do not think that god created earth in 7 days, neither do i think that noah died 900 years old (or something like that)

 

 

 

these are symbols, remember... these part of the bible was written 3500 years ago... we didn't know much about the bible, and it was a way to explain how the world was created...

 

 

 

i think the big bang is excatly the same, it's try to explain how the world came... and it's the theory that fits best in in what we know today... but i'm 100% shure, that it wasn't just a bang, and then it all got started.

 

 

 

no matter what way God created earth, the point is that he was first, and started it all..

 

 

 

^

 

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.

 

or Allah.

 

 

 

just had to answer this one as well... in islam, there is "earning" your way to heaven, islamic tradition says that you have a good and evil angel on each of your shoulder writing up every good and bad thing you have done... if your good things outweight the bad, you go straight to heaven.

 

 

 

if the bad things outweights the good, you go to hell... and stays there for different lenghts, depending on how bad your sins was, before you go to heaven.

 

 

 

jews and christians believe that you need to live 100% perfect to go to heaven, or let messias (jesus, for us christians) take your sins instead, and you're pure again. and can therefore go to heaven

not everything in the bible is to be taken as a fact...

 

 

 

Alright...did you read my post above? How do you know that not everything in the Bible WAS NOT to be taken seriously? It's God's word, is it not? God is perfect, and therefore his word is perfect, there are no mistakes? If it was not meant to be taken literally would it not tell you not to take it seriously? Or perhaps the Bible is imperfect, and you telling us not to take it literally is just a way to try and fix this?

 

 

 

 

Jesus spoke A LOT in symbols... different stories he told, just to make a point...

 

 

 

Same thing. You know for sure that Jesus spoke in symbols? I don't think he told us he was talking in symbols...am I missing something? You seem pretty sure of yourself though, so maybe I am. I mean, I'm not trying to start an argument over whether or not the Bible is completely true or not, I'm just saying...what you said doesn't exactly make sense...unless you ARE God. :-k

 

 

 

Oh, and I hadn't read this line before I posted, I got a little laugh out of it...

 

 

if the bad things outweights the good, you go to hell... and stays there for different lenghts, depending on how bad your sins was, before you go to heaven

 

 

 

Nowhere in the Bible does anyone state this. Not Jesus, not an appostle, not God, no-one from the old testament either. But please, challenge me on it...give me the verse.

He means parables as in the story of Jesus's teaching meaning more than one thing.

 

 

 

For example the story of the sower who sowed seeds, some fell on stony ground, some fell on good ground , some where eaten by the birds.

 

 

 

Basic translation is that the sower is the man preaching the word of God, some of his preaching falls on deaf ears, some people take it in and accept it, some accept it but then other things in life take it away.

 

 

 

The parables are used so that the Bible would not be outdated we can still relate to the Bible even though it was written 2000 years ago.

 

 

 

the second point he was making about the different lengths of time spent in hell is totally wrong and should not be taken seriously.

Gordan, the guy was saying that Jesus used symbolic Parables to illustrate his points. His good/bad thing was about Islam

 

 

 

warri0r, I think this is how it works. The entirety of the Old Testament is pretty much like Jewish history, so it would be meant to be taken seriously. The New Testament is pretty much the same thing.....wait...now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I can think of anything symbolic. Could you give me an example?

The Bible: do christians (as in the majority, or as in what they are supposed to believe) see it as literal truth or as partly symbolic?

 

It varies from place to place. In America, much of the Bible is seen as literal truth. Iceland, on the other hand, interprets the Bible in a more minimalist fashion.

 

 

 

A 2007 poll shows that nearly 66% of Americans believe in Young Earth creationism (ie: God creating Earth and humans within the last 10,000 years). It also shows that 44% of Americans reject the theory of evolution.[1] A 2002 CIA estimate claims that over 76% of Americans are Christian (or a Christian branch/denomination).[2]

 

Other countries have widely different interpretations of the Bible. A 2005 study shows that 80% of Icelanders accept evolution.[3] A 2004 CIA estimate shows that over 90% of Icelanders are Christian (or a Christian branch/denomination).[4]

 

 

 

In ancient times, the Bible's writings were seen as literal truth by its followers. However, advancements in science tells us that the Bible might not be inerrant after all, and as a result there is a general decline in biblical maximalism.

 

 

 

The New Testament is pretty much the same thing.....wait...now that I think about it, I'm not sure that I can think of anything symbolic. Could you give me an example?

 

There are lots of literary symbols in The New Testament. There are also a lot of mistakes in The New Testament. Whenever the Bible's historical/scientific accuracy is questioned, people will bring up the topic of symbols, signs and variable interpretations.

 

 

 

Take Genesis 1 (The Old Testament) for example: Day-Age creationism only appeared when science contradicted the Bible's writings. Many Christians feel that the Bible is without error. When errors are discovered by the scientific community, interpretations of the text need to change for the Bible to remain "inerrant".

 

 

 

^

 

"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Yeah, unless you accept Jesus.

 

or Allah.

 

 

 

That seemed like a slight against Christianity. I won't comment further as I don't know what you mean by this.

 

You say that I should accept Jesus or burn in hell, but a muslim dude would say that I should accept allah or burn in hell. Aren't you guys stepping all over each other on this issue? Maybe one of you should change the rules on this and let the other one have the "burn in hell" concept.

What Christianity is about almost entirely depends on which particular denomination you subscribe to. I'm sure I don't have to talk about the different ways of interpretating the Bible, none of them is anymore vaild than any other.

 

 

 

I think one thing common to every denomination of Christianity though is the idea of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without that, it's largely nothing. Whether or not Jesus even existed is another matter.

 

 

 

The problems within Christianity arise largely because the Bible taken at face value makes numerous glaring contradictions. In one passage Jesus is a mild, peaceful human rights advocate, and in the next he's ranting about eternal fire and doom for all those who reject him.

 

 

 

I won't turn this into an argumentative thread, but a lot of atheists get stick from Christians for supposedly thinking all Christians are fundamentalists. I know the difference between a liberal and fundamentalist Christian, and I don't have anything against either per se, but I think that there are more deep seated foundations of Christianity which are common to all denominations no matter how you twist it, which are "not right".

 

 

 

Namely:

 

• Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind.
   
  The doctrine of blood sacrifice.
   
  The doctrine of atonement.
   
  The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment.
   
  The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.
   
  

 

 

 

These are not features that just belong to one denomination, they are central tennants of Christianity, but they are in my view, deeply wrong.

[hide=assassin_696]

What Christianity is about almost entirely depends on which particular denomination you subscribe to. I'm sure I don't have to talk about the different ways of interpretating the Bible, none of them is anymore vaild than any other.

 

 

 

I think one thing common to every denomination of Christianity though is the idea of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without that, it's largely nothing. Whether or not Jesus even existed is another matter.

 

 

 

The problems within Christianity arise largely because the Bible taken at face value makes numerous glaring contradictions. In one passage Jesus is a mild, peaceful human rights advocate, and in the next he's ranting about eternal fire and doom for all those who reject him.

 

 

 

I won't turn this into an argumentative thread, but a lot of atheists get stick from Christians for supposedly thinking all Christians are fundamentalists. I know the difference between a liberal and fundamentalist Christian, and I don't have anything against either per se, but I think that there are more deep seated foundations of Christianity which are common to all denominations no matter how you twist it, which are "not right".

 

 

 

Namely:

 

• Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind.
   
  The doctrine of blood sacrifice.
   
  The doctrine of atonement.
   
  The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment.
   
  The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.
   
  

 

 

 

These are not features that just belong to one denomination, they are central tennants of Christianity, but they are in my view, deeply wrong.

[/hide]

 

I think that there's a lot of historical evidence for Jesus, although it doesn't prove as much about whether he was a regular guy or not.

 

 

 

What is this false picture of the world?

 

What exactly do you mean by blood sacrifice? The animal sacrifices aren't a part of Christianity, so do you find a problem with Jesus dying?

 

What do you not like about atonement?

 

Eternal reward/punishment is based on "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." They just CAN'T get to heaven without God, and thus will go to hell.

 

Could you elaborate on the impossible tasks and rules?

 

 

 

Thanks for your response.

 

 

 

You say that I should accept Jesus or burn in hell, but a muslim dude would say that I should accept allah or burn in hell. Aren't you guys stepping all over each other on this issue? Maybe one of you should change the rules on this and let the other one have the "burn in hell" concept.

 

What? We both think that we're right. What you seem to be doing is grouping all religions as "religions". That's like grouping religions and atheism as "worldviews" and expecting atheism to have an organized following.

 

 

 

I guess we are stepping over each other on the issue if you mean that we're both trying to say that we're right. The whole thing between Islam and Christian's heaven/hell is very, very different.

 

 

 

Christians can ONLY get to heaven through accepting Jesus as LORD and SAVIOR, which means that they accept what he says and follow him.

 

From what I understand of Islam, it's how much good vs how much bad you have that lets you into heaven or not. If you do more good than bad, you're in. If you do more bad than good, you're out.

 

 

 

See the difference?

 

 

 

Also, you're taking it wrong. Christianity doesn't say "accept or burn". It says, "For all have fallen short of the glory of God" and "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life."

 

It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.

 

 

 

That's not what Christianity's about. Christianity is about, "You're a sinner, but God loved you so much that he gave his only son so that YOU can be forgiven and go to heaven."

 

 

 

It's totally different.

 

 

 

Take Genesis 1 (The Old Testament) for example: Day-Age creationism only appeared when science contradicted the Bible's writings. Many Christians feel that the Bible is without error. When errors are discovered by the scientific community, interpretations of the text need to change for the Bible to remain "inerrant".

 

I've heard of this happening before, but from a different point-of-view. The thing is, I never understand what exactly about the Bible people find errenous.

 

 

 

1. What in the world? They're using wikipedia as a source? That in itself makes the argument questionable. The sources just aren't strong enough evidence.

 

 

 

2. Are the guys interpreting this as "the star moved along in the sky"? The magi were astronomers; they could probably use the star to reach Jesus's hometown assuming that the star really did point out where it was.

 

 

 

3. [this is a matter of historical stuff that I, a high-school junior, don't really know how to argue against]

 

 

 

4. ...or maybe their world didn't reach quite to the western hemisphere and stuff. I'm not too sure of this either, so don't quote me on this, but I think the Jewish world might not have been all that big. Also, translation errors do happen from Greek to English.

 

 

 

5. Biology wasn't really around back then. They couldn't have taken that part into consideration, I think.

 

 

 

6. Rhetorical question, yeah. That doesn't guarantee that birds are worthless either. It ONLY says that humans are worth more than birds. Their argument really fails, sorry. It assumes something that isn't implied.

 

 

 

7. ....what...This is just stupid. It's like expecting the people to be scientifically adept at that time. Also, the "heart" can refer to something along the lines of "soul" if I remember correctly.

 

 

 

8. Uhh...no. This is taking the thing out of context again. Such weak arguments!! The lady that was being healed had faith that Jesus had the power to make her better, which he did. Thus, he commended her.

 

 

 

9. Uhh...no. This is one of those things that you need to not take literally, because if you look in history, Jews thought this due to lack of scientific knowledge, and Matthew was...a Jew :| . Nowadays, we know better.

 

 

 

10. So? If God is real, which the Bible assumes him to be, then this wouldn't be impossible. Science cannot prove or disprove spiritual/supernatural/etc stuff. It's a part of the definition of what science is.

 

 

 

11. [see above]

 

 

 

12. Another assumption made by the site's author. It does not say that God makes them die; it says that God watches every sparrow. Should he intervene directly for every sparrow?

 

 

 

I'm going to stop here. There are a lot of them, and I don't want to answer all of them. Many of these arguments against the Bible are very weak and don't take any of the historical literal context of the old Jews.

 

 

 

Oh yes. The English version of the Bible DOES have a few translation errors. Also, Jewish knowledge of things back then was a bit skewed without science.

The thing is, I never understand what exactly about the Bible people find errenous.

 

Have you heard of creationism?

 

 

 

What in the world? They're using wikipedia as a source? That in itself makes the argument questionable. The sources just aren't strong enough evidence.

 

Contrary to what your high school teachers may be telling you, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for information. ;) Research suggests Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopaedia Britannica.[1]

 

 

 

My apologies about the link; its arguments are weak and one-sided. Here is a more professional article. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, I'm simply showing interpretations and contradictions which are often questioned by Bible critics.

 

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbi ... ctions.htm

 

 

 

Also, Jewish knowledge of things back then was a bit skewed without science.

 

And therein lies the problem. The Bible is supposed to be inerrant (without error) and inspired by the omniscient God. If God is all-knowing, why do scientific and historic errors exist in the Bible? If God is all-knowing, why would he not know science and history?

 

 

 

It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.

 

 

 

That's not what Christianity's about.

 

According to the Bible, this is exactly what Christianity is about.

 

Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... igions.htm

 

Also, you're taking it wrong. Christianity doesn't say "accept or burn". It says, "For all have fallen short of the glory of God" and "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever believes in him shall recieve eternal life."

 

It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.

 

 

 

That's not what Christianity's about. Christianity is about, "You're a sinner, but God loved you so much that he gave his only son so that YOU can be forgiven and go to heaven."

 

 

 

 

So the aim is to accept the grace of something we can't know of so we can avoid an outcome that's assumed. Here's a hurdle for me. It would make much more sense if the outcome of 'sin' was actually known rather than assumed based on the dictated word of a book, which itself takes faith to accept.

 

 

 

On the sin issue, we're sinners because of the actions of adam and eve, right? So as a consequence of others actions and my very existance, the choice of my parents to copulate, I'm damned to hell unless I accept an idea which I can't know of. You can probably see these hurdles I'm faced with here.

 

 

 

You can spin this with words to make god sound decent and forgiving, but one wonders why I need to be forgiven in the first place. Why do I need permission not to exist in misery for eternity if my worst crimes are firtsly finite, and secondly within some of the commandments and all state enforced laws? I would have thought this is harsh.

 

 

 

Then there's the interpretation that hell is merely being in limbo 'without god' until judgement day. Is this a more accurate interpretation of the bible in your opinion?

[hide=vanomai]

The thing is, I never understand what exactly about the Bible people find errenous.

 

Have you heard of creationism?

 

 

 

What in the world? They're using wikipedia as a source? That in itself makes the argument questionable. The sources just aren't strong enough evidence.

 

Contrary to what your high school teachers may be telling you, Wikipedia is an extremely good source for information. ;) Research suggests Wikipedia is comparable to Encyclopaedia Britannica.[1]

 

 

 

My apologies about the link; its arguments are weak and one-sided. Here is a more professional article. I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, I'm simply showing interpretations and contradictions which are often questioned by Bible critics.

 

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbi ... ctions.htm

 

 

 

Also, Jewish knowledge of things back then was a bit skewed without science.

 

And therein lies the problem. The Bible is supposed to be inerrant (without error) and inspired by the omniscient God. If God is all-knowing, why do scientific and historic errors exist in the Bible? If God is all-knowing, why would he not know science and history?

 

 

 

It sounds like you've been exposed to too many "ACCEPT, YOU SINNER, OR YOU'LL BURN!!" people.

 

 

 

That's not what Christianity's about.

 

According to the Bible, this is exactly what Christianity is about.

 

Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/christiani ... igions.htm

[/hide]

 

Yes, I have. I don't know much about it myself though, just that it is under heavy fire.

 

 

 

Yeah, thanks for the link anyways. As for your new one, some of the examples are problems with numbers being off by one zero, others have different number problems, etc. but it gives a few good points.

 

 

 

Gen 2:17 - Maybe the fruit caused physical death, but the spiritual death came from the sin caused by Adam and Eve's disobedience to God's command of "don't eat that fruit".

 

 

 

James 1:13 - uhh...my Bible says "tested", not "tempted". I guess tempt was a synonym for tested?

 

 

 

Gen 6:20 - I think God's request for 7 of "clean" animals was for sacrifices. I don't quite understand what the contradiction is though.

 

 

 

Gen 32:30 - I'm not sure. I guess the only thing to say is that Moses was a bit mistaken. Maybe he didn't quite see God himself but thought he did? I don't see what difference this would make, but oh well.

 

 

 

As for Mark 16:15-16, that's part's true, but doesn't cover the entirety of the thing. All it states is that believing = saved and not believing = burn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=warri0r]

So the aim is to accept the grace of something we can't know of so we can avoid an outcome that's assumed. Here's a hurdle for me. It would make much more sense if the outcome of 'sin' was actually known rather than assumed based on the dictated word of a book, which itself takes faith to accept.

 

 

 

On the sin issue, we're sinners because of the actions of adam and eve, right? So as a consequence of others actions and my very existance, the choice of my parents to copulate, I'm damned to hell unless I accept an idea which I can't know of. You can probably see these hurdles I'm faced with here.

 

 

 

You can spin this with words to make god sound decent and forgiving, but one wonders why I need to be forgiven in the first place. Why do I need permission not to exist in misery for eternity if my worst crimes are firtsly finite, and secondly within some of the commandments and all state enforced laws? I would have thought this is harsh.

 

 

 

Then there's the interpretation that hell is merely being in limbo 'without god' until judgement day. Is this a more accurate interpretation of the bible in your opinion?[/quote[/hide]

 

Yeah, I suppose it would be easier to believe if you could see hell. It wouldn't make a happy scene though.

 

 

 

Yeah, I've wondered about that myself. I really don't know, but I'll try to find an answer to that. I think that's one for the philosophers.

 

 

 

You need to be forgiven because you sinned? I dunno. Even if the passing on of sin is just a metaphor, you've still sinned, right? Think of just one, and there you go. Now for your two-part question:

 

It's not so much about the effect of your sin on others (I think), but on yourself. You're not perfect; you've sinned. Have you learned about one's soul? A big part of it is that it's eternal, and if it's marred by sin, then it's marred eternally because human power can't save you. That's what Jesus is for. (while on the subject...I think heaven was the norm until Lucifer sinned against God. I think that's when hell was made to punt him out. This means that perfection is the norm, but since people are not perfect, there's only one other alternative for a sinful soul)

 

...and I don't quite understand the second part so I don't want to give a bad answer.

 

 

 

If you're looking for a detailed explanation of hell, I can't give you one. I can give you two stories that might help explain it though.

 

[hide=Matthew 25]

 

The Parable of the Ten Virgins

 

"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

 

 

 

"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'

 

 

 

"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'

 

 

 

" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'

 

 

 

"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.

 

 

 

"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'

 

"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.'

 

 

 

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

 

[/hide]

 

[hide= Luke 16]There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

 

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

 

 

 

"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' [/hide]

 

Heh, you're straining all my knowledge.

 

 

 

Goodnight for today (9/9)

Presenting a false picture of the world to the innocent mind.

 

 

 

What is this false picture and what makes a mind innocent?

 

 

 

 

 

The doctrine of blood sacrifice.

 

 

 

I thought blood sacrifice ended with Christ's blood sacrifice (his own blood). Am I wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

The doctrine of atonement.

 

 

 

See above. Christ atoned for us.

 

 

 

 

 

The doctrine of eternal reward and/or punishment.

 

 

 

Okay, for everyone that thinks going to hell is unfair:

 

 

 

I believe it is the heart behind the choice - saying no to God is saying "I can do life on my own" - the whole message of Christianity is "I can't do life on my own, I need God" - and this independent attitude of doing life without God is what God so strongly dislikes, or hates, if you will.

 

 

 

All of this "It's my life, I can do what I want, worship what I want, believe what I want", I believe is coming from a selfish and flawed mindset - if God exists (which is what this topic assumes), then it's not *your* life - God is creator, and you belong to Him whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

And just like aerodynamics can be applied incorrectly, so can free will, so can Christianity. Just like there are bad Christians, there are bad choices, we can freely choose not God, and it's a bad choice. So if you do choose "not God" during your life on Earth, why is it unfair for God to give you "not God" after your life on Earth? Hell is simply the absence of God; fire and brimstone is quite symbolic.

 

 

 

I don't see it fair for atheists who think they should be able to choose "not God" during life - and then find it unfair when that's what they get after life - to expect God to put them in heaven (which by defintion, is the presence of God - the very thing an atheist would abhorr). This seems ludicrous to me.

 

 

 

The imposition of impossible tasks and rules.

 

 

 

And these are?