Spirituality
07 Nov 12
09 Nov 12
Originally posted by kirksey957Ezra is a very important historical book that gives us information about the time of the return of the captives of Israel to rebuild Jerusalem so we are able to calculate the prophecy of Daniel about the time of the coming of the Christ and is just as important to me, if not more so, as is the Sermon on the Mount. It may seem unimportant to others faith, like all the begats in Genesis, but I think most parts of the Holy Bible are important for the faith of someone.
Would you find it ridiculous to say that there are parts of the Bible that take precedence over other parts of the Bible. For example, does the Sermon on the Mount offer more of the essence of the faith than the Book of Ezra?
09 Nov 12
Originally posted by Suzianne... and the bible is trustworthy because ....... ?
You're starting your argument with a false statement, thus rendering it all false.
Just saying "total untrustworthiness of the Bible" makes me stop listening. Even with the pansy modifier "possibly".
Add in "idiocy" and "semi-literate" and your ignorance is complete.
let me guess: it says so.
09 Nov 12
3 edits
I think that the conundrum here is that if the Bible is ignored, then God is whatever you percieve him to be or want him to be. It would be no different than being an athiest at that point.
I find that truth is usually a good kick in the arse. God knows we all need it form time to time and every time I read the Bible my arse tends to hurt. 😛:'(
09 Nov 12
Originally posted by kirksey957How do you weigh which one is "true" and which one is "false"?
Would you find it ridiculous to say that there are parts of the Bible that take precedence over other parts of the Bible. For example, does the Sermon on the Mount offer more of the essence of the faith than the Book of Ezra?
09 Nov 12
Originally posted by whodeyNo, I think the conundrum is that there are different ways to take the Bible very seriously. Texts don't interpret themselves; it is the tradition of a community of interpreters, or through reason, experience, and ultimately the choice of a reader that ultimately interacts with the text to produce an interpretation. And where there is room for different interpretive frameworks, there is room for disagreement (at least around the margins) of what God is, what He wants, etc.
I think that the conundrum here is that if the Bible is ignored, then God is whatever you percieve him to be or want him to be. It would be no different than being an athiest at that point.
I find that truth is usually a good kick in the arse. God knows we all need it form time to time and every time I read the Bible my arse tends to hurt. 😛:'(
09 Nov 12
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd why do you think that? How do you define 'Christian' in order to make that so?
I would say that Christians who think it is ridiculous to believe in the Bible as the Word of God aren't Christians at all, fundamentalist or not.
Suppose somebody believes Jesus was the son of God, and they try to follow Jesus' teachings, but do not believe the Bible is the Word of God. Why are they not Christians in your view?
09 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI believe Zahlanzi is such a Christian...I find his posts quite refreshing to be honest. As for others, none spring to mind right now (unfortunately).
The type who don't take the Word at its word. Who might find the idea of doing so ridiculous. Are there any on this board?
