Agreed about Polycarp. And as for Christianity for me - been there, done that, hated it. I’ll stick with UUism. 
Esprix
DocCathode said:
I have another perspective. It is neither “right” or “wrong.” It’s just something to consider. If you have an interest in God, don’t talk to Polycarp. Same goes for Diogenes,raindog, or any other “Christian with a view.”
Polycarp doesn’t have anything that you don’t have, namely the means of approaching God in prayer and the bible. It would seem ironic that the bible is thought so little of, even in conversations about God or the bible.
If you have an interest in spiritual things, read it for yourself. Read it daily. Meditate on what you read and seek for direction through prayer.
What do you do when God tells you that the Bible is wrong?
I don’t often urge people to read the Bible. My earlier objections about translation and interpretations apply. Additionally, I don’t believe the Bible to be inerrant. Between the two, the Bible and G-d can say very different things.
As I said above, I think if somebody wants G-d’s opinion the best way is to ask Him directly. But there are times when people, though eager for an answer, are unable to hear it. At these times, the Lord must speak to them through another vessel. Polycarp is often chosen for this task.
It is possible to memorize the Bible, without ever hearing the voice of G-d or feeling His presence. I’ve met plenty of people who went to private Jewish schools and view all the Hebrew and Talmud that they learned as just-another-boring-thing-we’ll-never-use-that-they-made-us-learn. I’ve known Jews who strove to do the will of G-d and didn’t speak a word of Hebrew.
You become a scholar on an internet message board. 
Diogenes
As you’ve probably noticed, I have had that experience. I decided that the relevant passage was mistranslated, misinterpreted, or possibly an addition by a well-meaning (though misguided) human.
I never claimed to be a scholar. There are plenty of folks (some on this very board) who know Talmud far, far better than I.
The Lord told me to do something, and I do it- on the SDMB, in a box, with some lox, on a train, in the rain, where ever.
IANAChristian so I may have some of the details wrong, but doesn’t Paul actually adress this?
He sees a table covered by a sheet. The sheet is lifted up, revealing food that is not kosher. The Lord tells him ‘Eat.’. Paul says ‘These things are unclean.’. This is repeated three times. Then the Lord says ‘What the Lord has declared clean, let no man call unclean.’. Paul concludes that G-d has told him that the Jewish dietary laws no longer apply to Christians.
So- G-d tells Paul the Bible is wrong. Paul decides that G-d is right.
Yes, my query was an intentional allusion to one of your earlier posts as well as to others I have talked to both on this board and IRL who have had similar experiences. I’ve delved enough into studies of mysticism and religious experience to know that those kind of phenomena are extremely convincing to those who it happens to and that it’s common to (for lack of a better word, I’ll say “receive”) insights or realizations which transcend legalistic or dogmatic apsects of religion. The theophanic experience can be so real, so intense and so convincing that it supercedes any other source of religious authority, including scripture. It’s direct. The Bible is indirect. Direct wins every time.
As you probably know, I’m undecided as to the deity but I do believe that people experience these things just as they say they do. They (and you) are not making it up.
Me too. I know my limits. I can hang with NT discussions but I try not to tangle with Zev or cmkeller when it comes to the Talmud or to Hebrew. A BA in Religion only gets me so far.
I’m glad you do. The board is richer for it.
I confess that I haven’t heard that story about the table before. I don’t think it’s in the NT.
There is something in Romans which makes basically the same point. Paul says, “I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean.”
He also says a little later in the same chapter, “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.”
These would seem to be statements derived from revelation which Paul believed let Christians of the hook for being kosher (although he also said to respect those who did keep kosher and basically said it would be a sin to try to tempt or corrupt them away from it).
The table vision is seen by Peter when he’s visiting the house of the tanner in Acts.
Ah, yes, thank you, jayjay. Here it is:
Acts 10: 9-16
9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
I had no recollection at all of this story but I haven’t read Acts in ages.
From our disuussions, it would seem that you are not a regular bible reader. Nonetheless, this is not directed at you per se. In my travels I notice people who regularly espouse beliefs about God, and in many (most?) cases don’t read their bible with any regularlity. In the other thread I spoke of a co-worker who believed that the scrpiture meant that there should be no “race-mixing.” This was in spite of the fact that he couldn’t find it, had no clue whether it was in the OT or NT, who was speaking or the context. But, having not read it, it was still something that he firmly believed.
In this thread alone, someone (Who once again needed someone else to provide the cites) spoke of sex being seen in a negative light. the scripture, after being challenged and cited, not only didn’t speak of sex in a negative light but it was a prescroition for a healthy sex life between married couples. We’ve had people, more than once, say that referencing the condemnation of homosexuality was hyprocritical if one wears clothes with mixed threads.
Even Diogenes, who, “hasn’t read Acts in ages”, offers commentary (incorrectly) on passages there. DocCathode lets us know that he doesn’t recommend reading the bible, (and I presume he takes his own advice) yet recommmends that you get your ration of bible knowledge from polycarp. Who is polycarp, if not another man? If polycarp is NOT reading the bible, from where is the wisdom he’s dispensing coming from? polycarp? And if he giving you wisdom from the bible, wouldn’t it be prudent to read to see if what he is saying is so? I would imagine that even polycarp would recommend reading the bible. In the book of Acts (chapter) there is a reference to the Beroeans (Chapter 17). And while very little is said of them, it is noted that they took what the apostles said to them and searched the scriptures to see if what they were saying was correct. (Acts 17:11)
As to the reference above in Acts, read the account! Just as the earlier posted quoted a small portion of the text and then came to the incorrect conclusion that the bible discouraged sex, Diogenes explanation above isn’t correct when reading the fyull account. You will only know these things if you read your bible regulalry and consider thoughtfully the things that you read.
The Jewish society was very insular. (It still is) This was in part because God forbade them to mingle with foreign wives/deities. Jesus himself said that he was sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 15:24-27) The vision was to Peter, not Paul. And the issue was not whether the apostles were not authorized to eat non-kosher food.
The issue was about the expansion of the preaching work, and was acceptable to receive the massage about the Christ. Just a few verses later, the purpose of the vision becomes abundantly clear: After the vision Peter (not Paul) is summoned, by the spirit, to a Gentile army officer who was God fearing. Previously, all preaching about the Christ (who was now gone) had been only to the Jews. When Peter showed up, he said in verse 28, “You know full how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me that I should call no man defiled or unclean.” This vision showed Peter, and by extension the other apostles, that the preaching of the Christ should no longer be restricted to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well.
Yet here is Diogenes’s explanation: “These would seem to be statements derived from revelation which Paul believed let Christians of the hook for being kosher (although he also said to respect those who did keep kosher and basically said it would be a sin to try to tempt or corrupt them away from it).”
And this type of uninformed lunacy that is being used to show that these verses show, not just incorrectly that the Jews could now eat non-kosher food, but that , and I’ll quote DocCathode, “So- G-d tells Paul the Bible is wrong. Paul decides that G-d is right.” (It was actually Peter)
To the extent that there are lurkers following this thread I say this: Don’t get get your knowledge of God from anyone on the internet or websites. Don’t put your faith in polycarp, Diogenes, raindod, or DocCathode. Don’t take my word for what I just wrote. Pick up your bible and read the account!
Pick up the bible and read it. Read it everyday. You’ll find that it is as vibrant and as useful for everyday life as it has ever been. While there is some difficult stuff in places like Revelation, the fact is that the overwhelming amount of it is stright forward and easy to read. And, to get the correct context you must read the account. Getting a quarter of the account copied and pasted here will lead you astray almost every time.
Wrong. I am quite well read with the Bible, but it so happens that I did not immediately recognize one story from Acts, partially because it was misattributed to Paul, partially because Acts is not a book I find particularly interesting. I have tended to focus my study in the last few years on the gospels, but I do have a BA in Religious Studies which required a rather intensive study of both Testaments. Not to be snippy, but I gurantee you I know more about your Bible than you do.
I’d like to know what commentary I’ve offered which is “incorrect.” I find that rather laughable to tell you the truth.
BTW, Revelation is not confusing at all if you understand its genre and context. If you have any questions about it I’ll be happy to help you. 
Lurker here. So what you’re saying is, God would never use people like those listed above to try and get any sort of message across? Seems he used to use people, but he doesn’t anymore. Do I have that right, so far?
I did pick up the Bible and I read it for almost forty years. So I should ignore what anyone says and get my answers from the Bible and I can’t go wrong. One of the problems I have with that is that the Bible was written by a group of guys, not much different than those in the preceding paragraph. I should put my trust in these guys, but not those guys. We won’t even go into those issues of interpretaion, translation error and personal agendas when it comes to the Bible. So ignoring that, I should just read this Bible for all of my answers. The other problem I have with the Bible is an even bigger problem than who wrote it. It came to me suddenly one day while I was reading this Bible. I am more moral than Biblegod. That doesn’t bode well for humanity, because I am not that good. After I thought about it, I figured out that there were two possible explanations. Either they got the Bible wrong or we are in BIG TROUBLE. If your God isn’t moral, it leaves the door open for all sorts of awful things. Lakes of Fire, grashing teeth, etc.
So I decided to have a talk with God. I can’t say I put in forty days and no fasting was involved, but it was quite a long conversation. I did all of the actual talking, mind you, but figured he’s find a way to answer my questions without a burning bush or any of the traditional methods of revelation. I did have a pretty dramatic answer. From this day forward I will simply refer to it as a Cathode moment. Anyway, I was left knowing that religion doesn’t matter, the Bible doesn’t matter and even whether or not you believe in God doesn’t matter. He let me know that there is really only one rule. I didn’t hear it outloud, but I have to admit it works a lot better in a very deep voice, complete with an echo or two thrown in. The rule, “LOVE WHO I LOVE”. It sounds over-simplified, but if applied properly has the power to change the entire world. I’ve had a few other Cathode moments, but none as dramatic as this one. So raindog, I would recommend that you set down that old book and ask God what he was trying to say. You might be surprised at the answers you will receive. :eek:
Lurker here.
There you have it. I stand corrected. There is wisdom to be found on the internet.
Hi, IWLN! I haven’t seen you posting much lately. I’m glad you’re still around at least in lurker mode. 
I will get back to the OP in the next couple days. Tuesdays and Wednesdays are busy days for me. I would also like to continue my dialogue with Siege, who I find introspective and kind.
For the few minutes I do have this morning…
Diogenes the Cynic said:
This is not an obscure passage, and one that I think a regular reader of the bible reader would instantly recognize. I called my 13 year old daughter just for grins and related a small portion of the cite in question. She regognized the correct apostle without prompting, and guessed Acts or Romans as the source. It is NOT my point to show you up, but I have watched as a lurker for months as cite after cite after cite after cite is thrown up as fact; and in almost every instance they are mis-quoted or taken completely out of context. This thread, and the one that it is born from, are repleat with them. (It’s about now someone should jump in with, “Well that’s just your interpretation!”) Ignorance is OK. We’re all ignorant to some degree. But what chafes my backside is when someone represents themselves as an expert. And you have; and stood silently while others referred to you as a bible scholar. (please note credential posturing below)
My intent here, is not to show up Diogenes, or DocCathode or anyone else. It is certainly not to show anyone that I’m smarter than anyone else. The simple message is this: If you have a desire to develop your faith, or to know more about the God of the Christians, go to the source. Read your bible. My pointing out the errency of the posts here about Acts (and the others here) is intended for no other reason to show that stuff that is thrown out as fact, and more importantly accepted as fact, is often absurdly wrong. This goes for the bible, or any other topic for that matter. The internet is full of bad information.
In a previous post I noted, with cites, that Christ revealed his truth to babes, and scorned the intellectual ones. I think you would agree that knowledge is good, but applied knowledge, which is wisdom, is better. Certainly an intensive study of both testamants would have had you recognize the account in Acts, and it’s correct context and application.
True or not true, that and .50¢ will get you a cup of mud. This is the second or third time you’ve said a variation of “I know more than you.” In the post you’re hackles are up about, I pointedly said that a sincere person shouldn’t be listening to me either. It’s about God, not you or me Diogenes!
This isn’t about what Diogenes offered that is incorrect. It’s about using the bible as the primary source, and that anything said here, or anyone else should be supportable by the bible, if one is representing themselves as speaking for the bible or God.
In other words, I have no quarrel with IWLN when he says, “I am more moral than Biblegod.” How can I refute that logic? If he chooses to reject the bible, cool! If OTOH, he purports to represent himself as a bible scholar to the great unwashed, he better bring the noise, with valid cites. I lurked for a while before I joined the fun, and I was amazed at the sheer volume of inbred intellectual incest that was going on. Your incorrect appraisal of Acts 9 was just one small example of it, and I apologize for making it the touchstone for that point.
I imagine you’re better with Revelation than with Acts, huh?
Hey, what a coincidence. I guessed Romans too. I was fixated on Paul and just had ccompletely forgotten about the story re: Peter in Acts, largely because I don’t care about it. I remembered the quotes from Paul about clean and unclean food in Romans and thought that’s what Doc may have remembered.
Good, because you haven’t come close. All you do is spew assertion after assertion despite repeated corrections from those who know more than you.
Name one thing that I’ve cited incorrectly. Name one. Don’t just make accusations and run away. Back it up.(It’s about now someone should jump in with, “Well that’s just your interpretation!”) Ignorance is OK. We’re all ignorant to some degree. But what chafes my backside is when someone represents themselves as an expert. And you have; and stood silently while others referred to you as a bible scholar. (please note credential posturing below)
[/quote]
I have never represented myself as an expert. You are a liar. I have been forthright about my credentials, such as they are, and have not tried to inflate them or place any more importance on them than they deserve.
Both of those points are obvious to anyone who’s read these threads.
Who are you talking to? This is my thread which I started specifically to ask you a question which you refused to answer in another thread and have not really answered even in this thread. If you want to witness, start your own thread.
What has been posted in error about Acts or any other part of the Bible? When did you point them out?
Oh, the irony.
You offered factual cites for this, did you? I must have missed them.
Sure, I remembered it after it was pointed out to me, but college was several years ago and I don’t remember every single thing I ever learned there, especially when it comes to aspects of the Bible which don’t interest me.
And HOW does one talk to God? Can you offer any evidence that God speaks through the Bible? Is there any reason I can’t offer factual information (such as correct translations) to help cast light on the Bible. And who gets to interpret the Bible? You? The Bible is all but useless as to divining the will of God. It’s too contradictory, too shot with factual error, cultural bias, obsolete science, antiquated political propaganda, ambiguous allegory, etc. It may contain authentic insights but they’re human insights and the Bible has to be read as a compilation of human writings, not the word of God.
I haven’t offered anything that’s incorrect.
Why should the Bible be considered a primary source? Beacause you say so? Why do you say that the Bible is more authoritative than a genuine experience of God?
You didn’t really answer my question before; what would you do if God told you the Bible was wrong? What do you say to those who have had that precise experience?
IWLN is a she and she hasn’t represented herself as a Bible scholar. God told her the Bible doesn’t matter.
What the hell did I “appraise incorectly” about Acts 9? All I did was cut and paste the chapter. Not remembering something is not the same as misrepresenting it.
Also, I am the only one of the two of us in either of these threads who has “brought the nose, with valid cites.” All you’ve done is respond with ad hominem, bad exegesis and bald assertions.
I imagine you’re better with Revelation than with Acts, huh?
[/QUOTE]
As a matter of fact, yes. Do you have any questions?
If we stipulate that once a person is created he is either gay or straight, irrevocably, can we point to another in-born trait that compels those with the trait to “sin”? For example, schizophrenia or clinical depression, where a chemical imbalance causes the person in question to (in the former case) hear commands and follow them, or (in the latter case) attempt suicide frequently?
For a schizophrenic, who can only avoid his compulsions by an act of will, does God love a schizophrenic? If a schizophrenic sins – pick a good sin, like murder – and then begs God’s forgiveness with an open and contrite heart, is he forgiven?
For a depressive, are his suicide attempts sinful?
the raindog has, with his celibacy example, indicated to me that the question is one of willpower. For His own reasons, God has created some people with harder innate spiritual tests than others (is this not the point of Job, or perhaps even Jonah?). These people must endure more, suffer through their life on earth, and (once they have Jesus revealed to them) accept the Christ as their savior and use His love as a supplement to their strength. The beatitudes discuss how having “hard luck” here on earth is actually a blessing – enduring your suffering for the sake of your faith fortifies you in God’s eyes.
I’d like to hear the raindog’s interpretation, though; am I close here? It has been a long time since I’ve studied the Bible closely, but I have studied it. If my interpretation is close, then the raindog might also agree that – at least in his limited knowledge of God – that it’s almost certainly possible for a homosexual to enter into Heaven. The caveat would be “it’s just a little harder.” God still loves them, but He has also burdened them (for His own ineffable reasons) with temptation to sin. Homosexuals may view this as an “unreasonable” demand from God, but I imagine the raindog’s response is (put coldly) “suck it up – heterosexuals also have temptation.”
So, a simpler question for the raindog: am I correct that, in your belief, a Christian homosexual who chooses celibacy is “less sinful” than a Christian heterosexual who engages in extra-marital (or pre-marital) sex?