Celibate

[Chreees]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying I believe the Bible doesn't hold valuable lessons... I agree that it does. It has many. I just believe we can't say, "Oh, everything in the Bible is truth and no one can deny that." Man wrote it, so it's susceptible to error.

[wayfarinstranger]

[quote name='Rani' date='24 March 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1269473230' post='459356']
[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='24 March 2010 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1269454566' post='459294']
I guess I should make it more clear- I believe the Bible is not God's [b]direct[/b] word. Humans, as we know it, don't always get things right, and we very often exaggerate things. Stories passed down generation to generation get changed over time, stuff being exaggerated or added as the story is told again. I believe this is probably what happened with the Bible. I'm a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ... I believe the Bible is somwhat true, just probably things didn't go down exactly as it's told. And about other religions, I totally respect them... We all have to believe in something. It doesn't necessarily matter [i]what[/i] you believe, just so long as you [i]do[/i] believe. So... I'm a Christian who doesn't like any certain denomination due to hypocrisy and believes the Bible is exaggerated, lol.
[/quote]

[font="Arial"]There is also some historical facts. A huge portion of the Bible was likely actually written in Egypt. The way that came about was after the death of Alexander, Ptolemy took over Egypt as his portion of the spoils. Influenced by Alexander and Macedonian culture that cherished learning, he established laws that gave the equivalent of room and board to any writer or artist under the condition that they leave a copy of their work in the Great Library. This went on for a couple centuries and archeologists believe that the original texts of the Bible were composed within the Library because of this support by the nation of Egypt. There is some documentation that the original disciples did visit Egypt so it's a logical premise. Things went along generally fine until [/font][size="2"][font="Arial"]Coptic Christian Archbishop Theophilus decided almost everything within the library threatened the growing power of the church (some of it apparently challenged the church endorsed dogma) and ordered the Serapeum destroyed. (There are a couple other fires that could have destroyed the Library, but the church intentionally took credit for removing the Library's sometimes pagan doctrine from the world.)[/font][/size]

[size="2"][font="Arial"]There's a legend that the head librarian at the time was warned about the intended destruction and loaded as many of the documents he could onto a ship which sailed out of Alexandra in order to transport them to a safe location for preservation but the ship was never heard from. Speculation is that it either sunk at sea in a storm (if it existed in the first place), or managed to make safe port and hid the documents so that they wouldn't be seized and destroyed. Archeologists have been looking for them and remains of the Library itself ever since. Should they find it we might find the original texts as written. I suspect that would be a world changing event.[/font][/size]

[size="2"][font="Arial"]While I accept the historical value of the Bible and believe there are a great many valuable lessons in it, as a student of history, there are just too many times when the governments and churches of the times decided portions of it should be changed or left out altogether. (The Apocrypha being the best known.) It is a man altered document. It doesn't mean it doesn't have value but no one can logical deny it's been changed several times. [/font][/size]

[size="2"][font="Arial"]End of thread jack, lol........ (Though I guess we only went down a sideline as the Bible is the most common reason people give for choosing celibacy.)[/font][/size]

[size="2"][font="Arial"]'Rani[/font][/size]
[/quote]

The arrogance charge is a pretty silly one. You're saying I'm arrogant because I claim to know the mind of God. I could say you're arrogant because you assert that no one can know. What do you base that absolute truth upon? How did you stumble onto that? Furthermore, it can give way to a syncretism, where one can take a little bit of this ideology, a little bit of that, without really committing to anything. And as you know, there are very significantly irreconcilable theological disagreements amongst the world religions. I think if you're going to state that adherents to a given religion need to admit that they might be wrong, I think you do too.

I fully affirm that men were involved in writing the Bible. But the difference is that God uses given men as His instruments to communicate what He wants. Why couldn't He do that? If He created everything, He's omniscient, omnipresent, why couldn't He use imperfect men to implement His will? Let me ask you this - upon what basis do you know that the 10 Commandments came directly from God? (There's actually more, including the Mosaic Law, and Jesus' letters to the Seven Churches spoken of in Revelations, I forgot what else) The [i]Bible[/i] says that God told Moses to write the Commandments down. What's the difference between that and using one of His servants to proclaim truth in some other way?

The Bible makes it quite clear in stating that this is God's Word. 1 Timothy says all Scripture is inspired by God. Hebrews says the Word of God is living and active. Now, if you simply don't believe the Bible is true, then that's another thing. But if you find any validity in the Bible then you have to take it [i]on its own terms[/i]. If we come to the Bible with our own bias as to what may be true or false about it, how would we know? What parts of the Bible are true and what parts aren't? That's why it has to be an all-or-nothing deal, either you believe it is God's word, or you don't. The Bible doesn't allow for any grey area. Jesus said that anyone who does not hate their own family and even their own life cannot be His disciple. Jesus says that He is the only Way to God. Peter, when speaking about Jesus in the Book of Acts, states that salvation is not found in any one else. That's pretty clear cut. Now, if you don't believe that's true, that's another thing. But I don't see how someone could hold to part of the Bible and not hold to all of it except for some reason that only makes sense to them.

It's a little presumptuous to state that someone who believes another person's ideology is wrong leads to damaging behavior. It has, there's no doubt about that. Yet I don't see anywhere in the Bible that promotes enslaving another race or killing people if they don't adhere to Christian beliefs. Jesus came to set people free, not to bring doom and tyranny.

One interesting point is that there are more extant manuscripts of the New Testament than any other book in history, [i]ever[/i]. While the disciples may have been the first writers, those books were copied at an amazing rate. And by and large, they're consistent with each other. It's not as if one of the 4 Gospels was written and put on a shelf somewhere only to be dusted off several hundred years later, or lost. Early Christians were getting the word out. And the earliest extant manuscripts were also closer to the date they were believed to have been first written than any other book. The next I believe are Homer's works, and they're a very distant second. The Christian Bible as we know it wasn't canonized by the Church until the 5th century I believe, and I just read the Apocrypha was not canonized by Roman Catholics until 1546 AD. Something like that is not a deal-breaker for me; I am a Protestant and I'm not going to say that Catholics aren't Christians because they believe in these extra books. There's no way I can know that, and most importantly we can agree on the 66 other books, and therein lies all the pertinence. From what I remember from my Church History education, there were some books that the Church leaders knew were God's word, and there were some they had a little difficulty agreeing upon (like James). But it wasn't like they weren't sure about the 4 Gospels, or Paul's letters, or anything like that. The foundational truth has always been there. Again it's back to the point that God can use imperfect men (and women) to accomplish His purpose.

Blah blah blah I could keep going but whatever, I need to go to bed. Yeah we hijacked this thread BIG time...Be well y'all.

[Rani]

[quote name='wayfarinstranger' date='24 March 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1269497512' post='459491']

One interesting point is that there are more extant manuscripts of the New Testament than any other book in history, [i]ever[/i]. While the disciples may have been the first writers, those books were copied at an amazing rate. And by and large, they're consistent with each other. It's not as if one of the 4 Gospels was written and put on a shelf somewhere only to be dusted off several hundred years later, or lost. Early Christians were getting the word out. And the earliest extant manuscripts were also closer to the date they were believed to have been first written than any other book. The next I believe are Homer's works, and they're a very distant second. The Christian Bible as we know it wasn't canonized by the Church until the 5th century I believe, and I just read the Apocrypha was not canonized by Roman Catholics until 1546 AD. Something like that is not a deal-breaker for me; I am a Protestant and I'm not going to say that Catholics aren't Christians because they believe in these extra books. There's no way I can know that, and most importantly we can agree on the 66 other books, and therein lies all the pertinence. From what I remember from my Church History education, there were some books that the Church leaders knew were God's word, and there were some they had a little difficulty agreeing upon (like James). But it wasn't like they weren't sure about the 4 Gospels, or Paul's letters, or anything like that. The foundational truth has always been there. Again it's back to the point that God can use imperfect men (and women) to accomplish His purpose.

Blah blah blah I could keep going but whatever, I need to go to bed. Yeah we hijacked this thread BIG time...Be well y'all.
[/quote]

You need to recheck your history. But............... You appear to be what's called a [i]biblical literalist[/i]. (As opposed to those who accept the Bible as an inspired work but not a literal Word directly from God's mouth.) And that's okay because it works for you. And you're entitled to believe what you choose as are we all. I have zero desire to change your mind. We could go on debating indefinitely, but it's an argument neither of us will ever win because faith is blind by it's very nature. Otherwise it would be proof, not faith. So hey, whatever works for you, so long as you neither harm nor impinge others in the process.

'Rani

[wayfarinstranger]

You need to recheck your history. But............... You appear to be what's called a [i]biblical literalist[/i]. (As opposed to those who accept the Bible as an inspired work but not a literal Word directly from God's mouth.) And that's okay because it works for you. And you're entitled to believe what you choose as are we all. I have zero desire to change your mind. We could go on debating indefinitely, but it's an argument neither of us will ever win because faith is blind by it's very nature. Otherwise it would be proof, not faith. So hey, whatever works for you, so long as you neither harm nor impinge others in the process.

'Rani
[/quote]

Well I mean I'm familiar with the history, and that's why I'm referencing it here. The New Testament as we know it was first affirmed in a formal setting around the turn of the fifth century with St. Augustine's synods. And yes, it has been a process over time, but the 4 Gospels and Paul's letters were affirmed as authoritative by Church fathers as early as the second century. But whatever. If anything I'm not all that up to the historical development of the Apocrypha. But as I said before that's inconsequential to the core doctrines of Christianity.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't define faith as inherently blind. If we have nothing upon which to base our belief, then yes, it's blind. For one, the number of New Testament manuscripts, their accuracy, and close proximity to when they were first written make a pretty good case as to their historical reliability. The Book of Hebrews says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (paraphrase). Faith, at least for Christians, is a full assurance that, though we cannot see God, He still exists and will do what He promises. Christians are not commanded to follow blindly and hope for the best. Faith presupposes the existence of something, and there needs to be strong validation as its existence.

Yeah there's no end to this unless we just walk away. I've said my piece. It's been fun though.

[wayfarinstranger]

This is John's (Wayfarinstranger's) wife, and I'd like to say, considering that I'm a bellydancer who's 7 years younger than him, there will be no need for a swimsuit model.

[Rani]

[quote name='wayfarinstranger' date='26 March 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1269620785' post='459861']
This is John's (Wayfarinstranger's) wife, and I'd like to say, considering that I'm a bellydancer who's 7 years younger than him, there will be no need for a swimsuit model.


[/quote]

LOL.......^5!

'Rani