That’s ridiculous as others have said. Are you saying unsaved people have no agendas or doctrinal beliefs? Than by that logic you should find the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible even more unbiased since they’re even more heretical than the KJV translators. Also when do you think was the last time a large portion of Christians remained true to it’s beliefs? :rolleyes:
“one true God”
This cracks me up every time I see it put forth by some believer.
Seriously? You believe this? Based on what?
Your God, however you imagine him/her, gave you eyes to see with and a questioning brain for a reason, one assumes.
If you employed those eyes you’d see diversity everywhere you look.
Of course if you employed your God granted powers of reason you’d be able to see how truly ridiculous ‘one true God’ is, as a concept.
I’m supposed to believe he gave me eyes to see with so I could wear religious blinders? Or that I was given a questioning brain so I wouldn’t question such tripe?
Did you come to your conviction that this one God, one book, was the bomb after reading others or just fall into the first thing you were exposed to? Or maybe you’re part of God’s chosen few with the great good fortune to be born into a Christian home, not like the poor savages around the world born into other faiths leading pious lives, yet condemned, alas.
I’m pretty sure if I asked you, “Is there anything anyone could say to you that could sway you from your faith?”, your answer would be a resounding, “Hell no!”
So what on earth makes you believe that you can say anything that will sway others from their faith(s)? And by what right do you try?
Seriously, though, never? Not in school? Your parents never read to you? No other books. Nothing?
It would appear it was either this or Babe Ruth. I guess we’re all very lucky that he’s not currently worshiping a candy bar.
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?
Do you know who wrote those words FlyingDoDo?
And what do you think they might mean?
Do these words indicate that a person who holds only one day sacred has a strong faith, or a weak faith needs to be propped up with empty sacrifices?
Yes, if asked I would have said that that is the main give-away.
As fringe-ish as Chickie may appear, he more-or less embraces Christendom, by which he would mean Protestantism. Even that is a matter only since the early 80’s, when he was influenced by Alberto Rivera. Prior to that he considered RC to only be “backslidden” and didn’t have a problem with RC’s claiming to be born-again.
He considers the all Protestant denominations to be more-or-less salvageable. He only has a problem with those branches of denominations that are all-out liberal, have compromised with “Rome” or fail to see the obvious truth that the KJVersion is THE WORD. :rolleyes:
And "little flock’ is a handy-dandy phrase used by Armstrongists. 
So let it be written.
So let it be done.
Can I get an Amen!
Two points, FlyingDoDo:
*Do you plan to repost the entire Bible here? I don’t think there are any copyright restrictions on the KJV, but it’s becoming tiresome.
*If you insist on continuing to quote the text, would you please use the quote function to separate the Bible quotes from your own writing? It would make your posts easier to read.
Also for the Flying DoDo: http://www.christianforums.com/t7421356
But these things are not at all trivial. They just point to the fact that the Bible was written by humans then translated numerous times. No higher power had a hand in creating them. Whether you believe they are literally true or only inspired by god, they should at least have some cohesion. You can’t even get out of the first two chapters of Genesis without a glaring contradiction (how and when was Eve created?).
And since these stories are entirely man made, why is the Bible better than the Koran or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Twilight or the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy?
I am a theistic evolutionist so the origin of Eve isn’t a problem for me.
So like, if I want to set aside, say, Wednesdays, I could? Cool!
That was just the first example I thought of. What about all the other problems and contradictions in the Bible? The point I was making is that the Bible was obviously written and collected by humans without supernatural influence. Why should it be given any more respect than any other human created text?
This isn’t true.
It’s my reading of it. I think it’s true. OK perhaps an oversimplification (i.e., it’s probaby wrong to say it was the central emphasis; obviously “love your neighbor, even your enemy; forgive those who do you wrong, share what you have, and do not judge others” cannot be relegated to an ancillary role of importance in what he had to say). But all of THAT (admittedly central) message is, ITSELF, a restatement of the spirit of the law. (IMHO but also, IMHO, the opinion of Jesus of Nazareth himself).
I can buy that…
He has shown me that freedom and self-determination as a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, totter usually leads to a very quick death, children can expect to live a bit longer, older still adults. But even in society, we are all interdependent, we depend on each other for basic needs, such as food and heat, brought to us by people. Need I go on, we are interdependent.
I do understand it, but you are in the collective before Christ, after Christ you are a member of the family, big difference IMHO.
Actually death is the gateway to death. Which in layman’s terms is another ‘life’ where you relive your errors but with increasing distress. It is God’s way of getting your attention. There is a point where you will turn to Him, it’s just how much do you really want to suffer before you turn to Him and accept His help to deliver you from going it on your own.
[/quote]
"Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death, [a]
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me. "
- Psalm 23
The Valley of the shadow of death. This life we lead now, which is constantly overhung by that shadow. I choose to believe that this world, and my actions in it, do matter.
[/QUOTE]
Your actions and the intent of your hear do matter. Through our life we do have moments of traveling through the valley of death, but the Lord leads us by still waters and green pastures also.
Someone enlightened to the truth would appear foolish, insane or even demon possessed by people not enlightened. To quote the Word of God through John about what was said about our Lord Jesus who is forever praised:
Well, that quote clearly demonstrates that he’s not forever praised by everyone.
Of course. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not free, as far as I am able (and as far as circumstances allow) to forge my own path and take responsibility for my mistakes. Christianity guts this through the concept of an all-knowing God; everything about me, including the eventual destiny of any immortal part of me, is already known. To use an extreme, the the example of a sociopath who is neurologically impaired, cannot function morally. God knew that he would be like that. God created him thus, bound straight for Hell (or some form of suffering). This goes back to why God would bother creating a soul-filtering machine in the first place, particularly of souls he created.
I still dispute the notion of God as a loving father (based on scripture and the riddle of Epicurus). These two states speak to this; bound against our will in the first instance, throwing away your moral responsibility in the latter instance.
I also dispute the idea that the temporary sacrifice of Christ was even necessary; as far as I can see I have no evidence that we are better off after the fact, not that there was any problem that needed human sacrifice. In Christian theology the typical view is that he’s required to be the loophole for Original Sin. But this doesn’t help at all with the justification, for if he created the rules he can modify them. We get strung into this collective punishment until Christ closes the loophole, so we are supposed to be thankful to Jesus and God. This is like Winston loving Big Brother, being unjustly bound, unjustly treated and still throwing up fawning devotions to the architect of it all. It’s the willingness to be a slave.
In some sense you still have to be alive in order to experience, but let’s not quibble semantics. If God’s only means of getting my attention is to make me suffer until I ‘break’ then he is not moral either, nor does it speak to his power. If you tortured me enough I would probably admit to or agree with anything, especially if that torture is divine and irresistible, so I have no choice - my free will goes out of the window. I might as well return a non serviam to the divine stretching rack until I am placed upon it, for according to my morality a being who would do such a thing is not good and not worth either worshipping or obeying.
You view of ‘Hell’, or the afterlife, is somewhat different to the…conventional view. To take an example;
On what basis do you call the Pope’s view incorrect? Millions view the Pope as having a quite direct hotline to God, and he claims divine authority and mandate for his views. It seems that God is either wilfully tricking millions of Catholics or your view or wrong. Or my view, none of it exists.
But redemption in Christ undermines this completely. I could live my life in wretched sin, causing misery to all around me. By way of example, take Saul of Tarsus;
“I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.”
—Paul’s Letter to the Galatians 1:13-14
Through an experience with Jesus he is not only converted but becomes a saint. Likewise my transgressions would be forgiven. But the consequences still exist here, on Earth. If I murder someone their children are still orphans, if I steal something that person still feels the loss, and so on. So I view that it is in fact more moral to try and do right and make up for transgressions in the here and now (murder trials can not bring back the dead, but they can give the victims justice and closure), rather than piling all this on Jesus, secure in the knowledge that my immortal soul is now safe.