Axiom: Christian God exists and the Bible is true. page 2

What was wrong with the way Ung worded his argument, please? It made sense to me when I read through it. I know its a lot of words,l but to make sure you understand a complex topic, sometimes a lot of text is necessary.

I certainly didn’t find his writing style deviated from the norm either. Could you point out where it did, please?

Originally posted by MyTie:

Sigh. You’re not getting it.

[insert my entire argument I already made here]

Blah blah blah… God’s word doesn’t change, and He chose those authors… blah blah blah.

Moving on now…

Already responded to “God´s word doesn´t change” by pointing out that if Bibles are supposed to be Gods words, then we know gods words did change. The argument becomes even more damning if you claim he choose the Authors, because different dominations include quite some different books in their Bibles excluding some or the other for being unauthentic and/or at least not inspired by God.
So again how the fuck do you know that the Bible your using is correct?

I´ll quote some wiki information since it seems apparent that some people are quite ignorant on the topic.

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία ta biblia “the books”) is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

And again wiki:

The autographs, the Greek manuscripts written by the original authors, have not survived.⁶⁹ When ancient scribes copied earlier books, they wrote notes on the margins of the page (marginal glosses) to correct their text—especially if a scribe accidentally omitted a word or line—and to comment about the text. When later scribes were copying the copy, they were sometimes uncertain if a note was intended to be included as part of the text. Over time, different regions evolved different versions, each with its own assemblage of omissions and additions.⁷⁰

The three main textual traditions of the Greek New Testament are sometimes called the Alexandrian text-type (generally minimalist), the Byzantine text-type (generally maximalist), and the Western text-type (occasionally wild). Together they comprise most of the ancient manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Original_language

Originally posted by 422537:

If you go on bible gateway and compare 10 different versions of bibles and the same chapter of a text, it’s unlikely they’re going to contradict each other. Different wording may be used or explained differently but they don’t contradict.

You´d be surprised. You don´t happen to know German do you. I can point out several contradiction between the Luther Bible and for example the Elberfelder Bible. The work already done for me (since i did not read them) by the protestants and catholics who put much effort in spotting the differences to use it as prove their side was right.

And anyway your going really off topic – I’d like to remind you this is an axiom.

Well i sugest you go read the tread about AX-threads. How they are supposed to made.

And as Topic you set :

A thread about studying the Word of God in spirit and in truth. (Bible)

And with that i am pretty on topic. Perhaps you should have phrased that differently?

vika you’re clearly not the norm, I’ve seen the subjects you’ve discussed. And if you cannot see how his last paragraph to me may not be as plain as ABC to everyone, then explaining it to you probably won’t be either.

johnny focusing only on the title of the topic I used and completely ignoring the rest of my first post and it’s context is somewhat troll-like and malicious. And even if it’s still technically legal for you to do so, it’s still disrespectful towards the host, now knowing his true intentions.

Originally posted by 422537:

vika you’re clearly not the norm, I’ve seen the subjects you’ve discussed. And if you cannot see how his last paragraph to me may not be as plain as ABC to everyone, then explaining it to you probably won’t be either.

The norm depends on the setting you are in. In SD the norm trends towards highly intelligent individuals, with some exceptions for highly stubborn individuals I won’t name. So both Ung and I are the norm, in this context.

However, let’s have a look at that paragraph shall we? Rather than slinging insults, just ask for an explanation. There’s no point making a stance if you don’t at least try to make it as clear as possible for the other participants to understand, after all.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

I also do not see how this is off topic. You presented the notion of cultural backgrounds as an impediment to intimacy with the word. I assert that the two are inseparable. There is no word without a cultural background, and that yes the Roman Catholic Church may suggest so and so interpretation leading one to knee jerk assumptions and associations but that that is the tip of the ice berg. How far down the rabbit hole do you really want to go? I even hazarded the notion that a subjective, varied, community interpretation would be desired in any divine project pitched to a crowd, but no one really bit on that. You want to talk discuss this “in truth”; as Pilate queried Christ, never receiving an answer, “What is truth?”

He’s arguing against your assertion that he is going off topic, by explaining how his argument ties in. Specifically he’s saying the separation between culture and church that you have been arguing for, simply does not exist. The church influences culture, and the culture influences the church. As such you cannot consider the church alone, but must also consider the nature of the society in which the church operates.

It becomes an increasingly complex issue, the further into it you peer. He was asking for you to decide how far into that mess you wish to go.

Originally posted by 422537:

johnny focusing only on the title of the topic I used and completely ignoring the rest of my first post and it’s context is somewhat troll-like and malicious. And even if it’s still technically legal for you to do so, it’s still disrespectful towards the host, now knowing his true intentions.

I did not ignore the rest. I have read it multiple times and I still don´t know your true intentions. If this topic is not about studying Bibles(aka the supposed Gods Words in Spirit and in Truth), please state clearly and accurately what you intend to discuss and very importantly add a real axiom(a workable one please) to the OP.

Instructions on Axioms can be found here.
http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9-serious-discussion/topics/34068-what-is-an-ax-thread

vika is it really necessary for me to point out by name the multitude of people who use the serious discussions forum who are not observantly on your level of intellect? Sorry if you feel insulted, it wasn’t my motive.

Either way, culture is not a good enough excuse for the number of divisions seen in ‘Christianity’ today. My point is that some things are simply not in the bible, but so called prophets and men of God (centuries later) claim that God approves. Putting your hope in a commentary book with bonus content or idolized men, is risky and can dilute an individuals faith and walk. If you need interpretation, search the web or pick up an encyclopedia. This way, you avoid the new stuff that authors of the bible simply do not mention. God is the author and finisher of ones faith, Hebrews 12:2, not contemporary men and their publications.

Originally posted by 422537:

vika is it really necessary for me to point out by name the multitude of people who use the serious discussions forum who are not observantly on your level of intellect? Sorry if you feel insulted, it wasn’t my motive.

No, and they are much of the reason why I come here – often very good ideas come out of radically different ways of seeing the world.

However, I was more showing there was no need to target the posters if you don’t understand the argument. Rather than venting spleen at them, ask for clarification of the points you don’t understand. If the poster actually understands their own argument, they’ll be happy to do so. At least until you start hitting extremes, where the concepts themselves refuse to simplify any further without losing meaning. We’re nowhere near that point here, however.

Either way, culture is not a good enough excuse for the number of divisions seen in ‘Christianity’ today.

I don’t think Ung was using it as an excuse, rather he was saying that the culture is going to affect the religion, just as much as the religion affects the culture. The two don’t exist in isolation next to one another, but continually interact and change one another. Christianity is a relatively old religion, and has existed in a great many cultures. Why is it surprising then, that so many branches have diverged, when each separate church in a separate area, takes something of that area’s customs and ideas unto itself?

Even with the same denomination, if you take two churches under that denomination, in different societies, and examine the views of the pastor/congregation of each, you’ll find that the two churches have radically different interpretations of god in different areas, even though they are technically the same denomination.

That’s the effect of local culture seeping in.

Eventually, one church becomes so different from the other, that it effectively is a separate denomination. All that is missing then is the eventual official declaration of such.

My point is that some things are simply not in the bible, but so called prophets and men of God (centuries later) claim that God approves. Putting your hope in a commentary book with bonus content or idolized men, is risky and can dilute an individuals faith and walk. If you need interpretation, search the web or pick up an encyclopedia. This way, you avoid the new stuff that authors of the bible simply do not mention. God is the author and finisher of ones faith, Hebrews 12:2, not contemporary men and their publications.

Even the bible itself we cannot say is the word of god, any god. The only way we could have the literal word of god is to find said deity and open a direct two-way line of communication with them. Words written down only have absolute meaning to the situation they were spoken in. They do not magically apply to all situations however different they are from the original.

I think this is the biggest problem I have with relying on an external source of ‘truth’ rather than going with your own internal judgement, and taking responsibility for your own decisions. You are attempting to take another’s morality, without necessarily really understanding the context, and apply it to all situations tyou can make it fit to, rather than trying to reason the situation out yourself, and use your own judgement to determine a solution.

The bible’s fine as a reference book – a philosophical book of potential solutions – but is no good as a life guide. It does not, and cannot ontain accurate advice for every possible situation.

I wasn’t venting spleen, that’s making an assumption about me. I was simply pointing something out which made it difficult for me to respond.

The course Christianity has gone in as a whole is not surprising to me, that’s another assumption. I’m not talking about customs I’m talking about whole new spirituality concepts and additional mythologies not varied interpretations of biblical ones. I’m not going to mention them by name because that would derail the topic even further.

This is where the discussion falls apart, The whole point of the axiom was to draw believers who would respond within the constraints of actually believing in God in the first place. But obviously my wording was my downfall.

Johnny I know what an axiom is – presumed as true for the duration of the topic. Obviously that has not happened here.

His entire post reeks of insincere mockery and troll bait, as does every post he directs at me. He despises me personally, for little reason other than he disagrees with me, and so he can’t post a reply to me without being a giant asshole, much like yourself.

Perhaps, I dunno, it’s because of a certain quality that you reek of…let’s call it ‘MyTieness’.

Originally posted by 422537:

I wasn’t venting spleen, that’s making an assumption about me. I was simply pointing something out which made it difficult for me to respond.

You’ve done little else in the last page but vent spleen, pal. Mainly by complaining about how other posters are screwing up your thread. Here’s the problem:

A) It isn’t an Axiom thread. You obviously didn’t check out Johnny’s link, as it would have informed exactly how to make one.

B) I haven’t seen anybody here deny the existence of God. Ung’s an avowed atheist but he’s kept between the lines quite well. Nobody’s mocking God, not even me. What people are criticizing is the ability to understand the Bible according to some literalist methodology that flies in the face of all logic. Demanding logic isn’t anti-God. It’s the ability of Christians to understand the bible, assuming it’s divine, and their presumptions about God, that are at issue here, not the existence of God itself.

BTW I think it’s kind of funny you’re criticizing Ung for his textwalls when this thread started out with a huge textwall of its own.

Ooh seems like I’ve made some waves.

MyTie,

Well, we disagree. Concerning the “deity” of Christ, I wonder how you reconcile you beliefs about what the Bible says in the first 14 verses of John, particularly the 10th verse. Anyway, I don’t plan on changing yours, nor anyone else’s mind. Believe what you’d like. Instead of typing a wall of text in return, I’m gonna go make a taco. Night!

I would suggest once again metaphor. The start of John is, to be fair, intensely strange. It is perhaps the most simultaneously gradoise and abstract language within the entire bible. The notion of Christ as Logos, or The Word, finds no repetition elsewhere – not even with the rest of John’s gospel. So it is certainly something to tackle.

It is the tale of the Word, representing eternity, light, and truth becoming flesh. I see this as an affirmation of (divine) inspiration. Of the importance of the mental and spiritual plane over the physical plane, the flesh, the personage becoming secondary to the message the Word. The idea of Logos as an identity as opposed to a Concept I find as a strained interpretation.

I find the idea of a Spiritual analouge to an Earthly familiarity quite common in John. Consider the treatment of King/Lord, and especially Kingdom. Also worth noting is the treatment of genealogical terms in John 1.

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

A specific denunciation of earthly literal child/father in favor for a spiritual birth and possession. Also using the same language attributed to the divinity of Jesus.

I feel there was some more we could hash out in my last post. I’d enjoy the discussion if you’d like to return to it. I am particular curious as to what you feel it means to be “the Son of God” in the literal sense.

422,

Ungeziefer This isn’t an English literature essay. Your more likely to get accurate responses, if you use plain English that the mass can understand clearly. Your writing style certainly isn’t the norm and this isn’t a forum for creative writers.

Quite right, it is an English literature dialogue. I’ve no interest in doctoring my expression for mass appeal. I do well enough to keep myself entertained. I also find some of the terms I use take on greater implication due to their role in previous discussions. I and a few others often really hash out the nature and understanding of the words we are using.

The course Christianity has gone in as a whole is not surprising to me, that’s another assumption. I’m not talking about customs I’m talking about whole new spirituality concepts and additional mythologies not varied interpretations of biblical ones. I’m not going to mention them by name because that would derail the topic even further.

Sounds interesting to me. Would you like to create another topic in the regard perhaps?

This is where the discussion falls apart, The whole point of the axiom was to draw believers who would respond within the constraints of actually believing in God in the first place. But obviously my wording was my downfall.

I think it might be worth establishing, believers of “what” exactly? I am not a theist, granted. I was raised Roman Catholic and The Bible represents my first introduction to literature, philosophy, and poetry. It remains also quite dear to much of my family. It has been an important work to me throughout my life in many,sometimes contradictory, ways. I found the question you asked in the OT a compelling one. There is some teeth to the notion of how cultural preconceptions affect the reception of the bible. I’d be happy to continue discussing it further. I just feel the ramifications of such a notion are large. We’re looking at Information Theory, Cultural Relativism, Communication Theory, Morality, Poetry. Lots of things start to get drawn in.

I admit though, I’m a text waller. Think it stems from my love of Masonry?

Originally posted by 422537:

Topic: A thread about studying the Word of God in spirit and in truth. (Bible)

axiom Conjecture : “But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way.” – John 4:23

Fixed it for you.

Going back to the OP, which is dense and hard to plow through btw, the reason Christians are not united is because they are divided by doctrine. Many Christians are guilty of “majoring in the minors.”

My salvation is not based on a collection of stories from the Old Testament, the writings of Paul the Apostle, or my political views. Jesus is a non-denominational common denominator, and the relationship I have with God through Christ is a personal one. I thank God that I have to suspend my doubt, and extend my Faith, no further than the teachings of Christ Jesus to be saved.

422537, instead of accusing people of being dictatorial, set an example by being gentler and simplifying your posts as well.

Jan:

“Demanding logic isn’t anti-God. It’s the ability of Christians to understand the bible, assuming it’s divine, and their presumptions about God, that are at issue here, not the existence of God itself.”

Demanding logic is most definitely not anti-God. What may be surprising to many Atheists is that Christians find it far more logical to believe in the existence of a God over one not existing. Honestly there is almost too much to explain about the Christian faith and why we believe in what we do. The best I can do would be to ask you to read the Catechism of the Catholic church which explains where everything we do came from and why we believe what we believe. All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Jan:

What may be surprising to many Atheists is that Christians find it far more logical to believe in the existence of a God over one not existing.

Well obviously, it’s not like they’re going to say “I find it highly illogical to believe in this god, but I will anyway.”

Honestly there is almost too much to explain about the Christian faith and why we believe in what we do.

Not always.

The best I can do would be to ask you to read the Catechism of the Catholic church which explains where everything we do came from and why we believe what we believe. All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

I liked the part where you grouped together at least 1/5th of the world’s population.

The best I can do would be to ask you to read the Catechism of the Catholic church which explains where everything we do came from and why we believe what we believe.

:-)

I was raised Catholic. The Catechism is one of the most ridiculous core texts in Catholicism – other than the majority of the Papal Bulls, of course – something that children might find useful to understand God, but not thinking adults. Of course, it’s better than nothing at all, which is what every other christian on this thread is hampered by – no formal understanding of Christianity other than what they read (literally) from the bible.

Other than that you might want to reread my post as I wasn’t in disagreement with any of your other points.

Well obviously, it’s not like they’re going to say “I find it highly illogical to believe in this god, but I will anyway.”

Actually that’s exactly what GK Chesterton – who was also Catholic – thought. He was a weird guy.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is it about the Catechism that makes you call it “one of the most ridiculous core texts in Catholicism”? I’ll be honest, I’ve always been the type who has accepted my faith easily and without question, perhaps it may be time for me to whip out the Bible and the Catechism and start thinking for myself and form my own opinions on the matters.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I’ve always been the type who has accepted my faith easily and without question, perhaps it may be time for me to whip out the Bible and the Catechism and start thinking for myself and form my own opinions on the matters.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Jan:

All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

Y’see the irony here?

Originally posted by Azolf:

Going back to the OP, which is dense and hard to plow through btw, the reason Christians are not united is because they are divided by doctrine. Many Christians are guilty of “majoring in the minors.”

My salvation is not based on a collection of stories from the Old Testament, the writings of Paul the Apostle, or my political views. Jesus is a non-denominational common denominator, and the relationship I have with God through Christ is a personal one. I thank God that I have to suspend my doubt, and extend my Faith, no further than the teachings of Christ Jesus to be saved.

422537, instead of accusing people of being dictatorial, set an example by being gentler and simplifying your posts as well.

True, but are you then doubting that the epistles are God-inspired? Salvation is indeed through Christ alone, but are you then saying that the disciples have not been instructed by Jesus Christ and their writings are not after all his teachings and from him? I don’t want to put any words in your mouth so correct me if I’m wrong.

Galatians 1:11-12 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul only ever claims to have been directly instructed by Jesus. He never claims that his writings are his own teachings.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

I’ve always been the type who has accepted my faith easily and without question, perhaps it may be time for me to whip out the Bible and the Catechism and start thinking for myself and form my own opinions on the matters.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Jan:

All I can tell you, is that Christians DEFINITELY do not have blind obedience to the Church leaders.

Y’see the irony here?

Nope, not at all. Why? Because there is none. Accepting my faith without question isn’t even close to having a blind obedience. I accepted it without question because my first though is that I agree with it and don’t generally delve much deeper into the matter. I was saying, that maybe i should start delving deeper into the matter to 100% make myself sure that I agree with the things I am being taught. There are many connections and mentions of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of God in the old testament and through the tradition of the church, there are many reasons people believe in God than just wanting to believe in his existence for the hell of it. Maybe my one use of “Thinking for myself” wasn’t proper to what I meant. I actually believe what I am taught, I don’t believe because I am told to believe. I was simply talking about going it a bit further into what I believe.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Nope, not at all. Why? Because there is none. Accepting my faith without question isn’t even close to having a blind obedience. I accepted it without question because my first though is that I agree with it and don’t generally delve much deeper into the matter.

Except that that is blind obedience.

I was saying, that maybe i should start delving deeper into the matter to 100% make myself sure that I agree with the things I am being taught.

And I was pointing out that what you said described blind obedience.

there are many reasons people believe in God than just wanting to believe in his existence for the hell of it.

Well obviously, though that doesn’t mean that they will believe it for those reasons, but instead because that’s how they were taught and raised.

I actually believe what I am taught, I don’t believe because I am told to believe.

If you were taught to jump off a bridge, would you?

That came out wrong.

I was simply talking about going it a bit further into what I believe.

There’s still the part where you said you generally believe your faith without question.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

Nope, not at all. Why? Because there is none. Accepting my faith without question isn’t even close to having a blind obedience. I accepted it without question because my first though is that I agree with it and don’t generally delve much deeper into the matter.

Except that that is blind obedience.

I was saying, that maybe i should start delving deeper into the matter to 100% make myself sure that I agree with the things I am being taught.

And I was pointing out that what you said described blind obedience.

there are many reasons people believe in God than just wanting to believe in his existence for the hell of it.

Well obviously, though that doesn’t mean that they will believe it for those reasons, but instead because that’s how they were taught and raised.

I actually believe what I am taught, I don’t believe because I am told to believe.

If you were taught to jump off a bridge, would you?

That came out wrong.

I was simply talking about going it a bit further into what I believe.

There’s still the part where you said you generally believe your faith without question.

1. It’s not “blind” if I agree to what I am being told. It’s blind when you do what you are being told and you don’t know why you are doing it.

2. ^ I agree with the basics, now to learn more and see if I agree with the details.

3. Is it bad to believe in God because of the things you were taught?

4. lolwut? No, because logic tells me that is stupid. Logic tells me that believing in God is
smart.

5. Yeah, I believe in the basics of what I am taught without question. Questions may pop up the more I go into details.

Originally posted by MaTTyTL:

1. It’s not “blind” if I agree to what I am being told. It’s blind when you do what you are being told and you don’t know why you are doing it.

You can still agree with it even if you don’t know.

3. Is it bad to believe in God because of the things you were taught?

I didn’t say it was.

4. lolwut? No, because logic tells me that is stupid. Logic tells me that believing in God is
smart.

Under the assumtion that he exists, yes.

5. Yeah, I believe in the basics of what I am taught without question.

Handy-dandy little phrase you didn’t say in your other posts, “the basics”. It really changes your position.

Originally posted by 422537:

Originally posted by Azolf:

Going back to the OP, which is dense and hard to plow through btw, the reason Christians are not united is because they are divided by doctrine. Many Christians are guilty of “majoring in the minors.”

My salvation is not based on a collection of stories from the Old Testament, the writings of Paul the Apostle, or my political views. Jesus is a non-denominational common denominator, and the relationship I have with God through Christ is a personal one. I thank God that I have to suspend my doubt, and extend my Faith, no further than the teachings of Christ Jesus to be saved.

422537, instead of accusing people of being dictatorial, set an example by being gentler and simplifying your posts as well.

True, but are you then doubting that the epistles are God-inspired? Salvation is indeed through Christ alone, but are you then saying that the disciples have not been instructed by Jesus Christ and their writings are not after all his teachings and from him? I don’t want to put any words in your mouth so correct me if I’m wrong.

Galatians 1:11-12 11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul only ever claims to have been directly instructed by Jesus. He never claims that his writings are his own teachings.

Now, I will speak to the rest of you, though I do not have a direct command from the Lord. If a Christian man has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to continue living with him, he must not leave her. -The Apostle Paul -1 Corinthians 7:12

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. -The Apostle Paul -1 Corinthians 7:12

Believe me son, you don’t want to bark up this tree.

Paul said that because, for that particular command he didn’t have a command from the Lord, hence the “Though I do not have a direct command from the lord”

In other passages he clearly doesn’t say this, but he did say, as I have already demonstrated, he speaks from revelation from the Lord, not from human origin. Read it in context, he was directly referring to the notion of marriage in your particular quote.

EDIT: You still have not answered my question, do you think that the epistles where not instructed by Jesus?

Originally posted by 422537:

Paul said that because, for that particular command he didn’t have a command from the Lord, hence the “I do not have a command from the lord”

In other passages he clearly doesn’t say this, but he did say, as I have already demonstrated He speaks from revelation from the Lord, not from human origin. Read it in context, he was directly referring to the notion of marriage in your particular quote.

EDIT: You still have not answered my question, do you think that the epistles where not instructed by Jesus?

Are you saying the Apostle Paul was infallible? Did not Paul himself say that he was a wretch, a chief of sinners, and that God’s strength is made perfect in our weakness. Paul may have been more on the ball than the pastor down the street, but he covered plenty of doctrine that, according to the Gospels, Jesus said nothing about.

Are you a follower of Jesus, or a follower of Paul. Paul himself was concerned about this, saying, “I’m glad I only Baptized a few of you, because now you’re all arguing over who baptized who, don’t you know that we are all of one Spirit?”

Likewise, when performing miracles, the people bowed to Paul, and he said, “We are men of like devises, the same passions.”

I would go so far as to say that God is present in these very writings, because here we are having a conversation under the name of Jesus in a little corner of cyberspace… but sin is still present on both our parts. No ministry is untainted. God be praised that He uses us for the greater good of His Providence despite ourselves.