How about we ignore google and use logic instead:
1- There is only one perfect version of The Truth
2- God is perfect
3- Therefor, whatever God says, is The Truth
Which Bible are you referring to, btw? And(once again)which religion do you think comes closest to being “Christian” in your mind?
I’m referring to logic. I’m sure that even 99% of your self defined christians would agree that god is perfect. When a perfect, Divine being, declares ABC, the only valid interpretation is ABC… ABK is not a valid interpretation.
If you focused on the logic of the proposition and not on your (supposed) dislike of my “disparaging” remarks about christians (or the bible), you would see that Logic trumps your criticism.
But the topic isn’t “Logic”-the topic involves religion.
edited to add: When I ask what Bible you are referring to, I mean when you say that a real Christian when follow the Bible to the letter: Which version of The Bible?
And if religion is illogical you think what… I should stop criticizing it? It seems your criticism of me is exactly backwards there…
I don’t think there is any version that can be legitimately followed. The events of the OT and the NT are written down dozens and in some cases hundreds of years after they supposedly occurred. Figures who have no direct divine sanction… the prophets in the OT (did the prophets have the same authority Abraham, Moses, and David, etc, have?) and the non gospel writers in the NT (basically, the non gospel writings are a collection of letters and essays)… figures who have no divine sanction write stuff and then dozens or hundreds of years later it is included in the dogma and now considered “truth”.
And then there are all of the contradictions…
I’m sure there is one bible that is more accurately translated according to whatever ancient documents we have that are still remaining. Which one that is, I don’t know.
Criticize it all you want…but you just tried to define “Christian” in such a way that eliminated who currently think of themselves as such.
So?
If someone called themself a communist but owned 37 rental properties, what do we do, do we accept their self defined definition of themself as a communist or do we accept Marx’s version of Communist, in which property is theft and charging rent is immoral*?
Why should I accept a landlord’s assertion that he is a communist when his actions clearly define himself as a capitalist?
- I am using this example as an analogy only. I am not claiming to have perfect understanding of Marx or communism. So if there is an error in my analogy look to the main point I am trying to get across.
Wow. That’s one of the wrong-most wrong things anyone has ever stated in the world history of wrongitude.
How is that logical? If your premises are faulty, then so will be your conclusion. Take premise #2, for example: if someone is willing to sacrifice their own child, and by extension, themselves, in a suicidal gesture, is it fair to call such an entity “perfect”? Unfit to be a parent comes more to mind.
Okay then-Now show me where your strict definition of “Christian” has been accepted as a standard definition.
If it is the PERFECT WORD OF GOD then yes, there is only one way to interpret it. If it is a collection of essays and opinions, then, yes, there are lots of ways to interpret it… and none of them mean anything more than just that: an opinion (ie, not the word of god).
Oh, I’m quite sure mine is not the standard definition. But my definition is the only logically coherent one.
If your whole argument is a christian should be able to define themself how ever they like, despite the logical or illogical correlation tho the bible… then… that is inconsistent and illogical and we really have nothing left to discuss.
I’m guessing though that, maybe not 99%, but close enough to it, self-defined Christians would agree that English is not a perfect language. Neither is Koine Greek or Latin.
Actually, according to your rather limited definition you have no Christians to complain about…whereas I am free to bitch to my heart’s content.
I am not making the assertion god is perfect. Christians make this assertion. Under such a framework, a perfect god who communicates with people, there is only one valid interpretation of ABC… ABK is - not - a valid interpretation, and never can be,
Yes
and
“narrow is the gate”
We can quibble as to what gate means. Whether it means gate, or door or passage or portal or whatever. But the basic concept itself is not open for debate. The basic concept survives multiple translations.
Or, stated conversely, if the basic concept of “narrow is the gate” is too ambiguous and has been translated too many times to mean anything, then you have to set the same standard for the rest of the book(s). At which point they fail to have any significance in determining the truth.
It is the latter. God Almighty Himself/Herself never wrote a word (how would a supreme being do that anyway?), so one must always consider the spin put on the stories by the authors themselves.
But what is the interpretation of “narrow is the gate”? And is that interpretation subject to translation differences? Or is something lost in context? Which context are we speaking of, as well? And, most importantly, can we be 100% sure our interpretation of the phrase, which, of course came to humans in an imperfect language from a perfect God, was written down in said imperfect language, and was translated into another imperfect language? Or perhaps is Biblical interpretation a bit more nuanced and difficult than the simple manner in which you desire to portray it?
Which is the precise reason why the bible is to be rejected as a “Source of Truth” instead of being relabeled as “nuanced” when faced with all of it’s inherent flaws and contradictions.
Even so “narrow is the gate” has, well, a pretty narrow range of interpretation. It cannot, for example, be interpreted as an inclusive passage.