snookums Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Whatever the 'flavour' they will inevitablily deny either section..old or new........ what section of the bible has the final authority ? Stupid question but I'm sick of reading the 'liberal's' deny the old testament is part of the same book they hold in there hot little hands! My observation is that 'all' christians - liberal & fundy - cherry pick their way through the bible. What's behind that do you think...the slippery side steps if questioned about the 'facts' contained in the bible. I'd like to come up with a simple reply in my own mind at least...instead of the one I have which is 'fuckoff you idiot!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Heh, so very true. They just pick and choose which parts they preach about or apply to their lives, and either disregard the rest, or claim that there's some nebulous "symbolic" interpretation to the stuff that doesn't look good. Either way, "fuck off" is about all any of it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBeeland Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'm a little tired so this might not be right, but I've heard some folks say that the NT and Jesus are the final words because of Jesus saying the things like "fools follow old traditions" or something that I can't remember right now. I don't think I've ever met a christian who follows every rule in both. When they get to something they don't like, suddenly "that part" was just a metaphor. Like how some gay men can honestly call themselves christian, and they say "oh, when God said homosexuality is detestible, he just meant that 2 men or 2 women couldn't have kids, and God couldn't have people not having kids way back then when there weren't so many people." (I've actually heard that explanation before) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGJ@ReligionisBullshit Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Whatever the 'flavour' they will inevitablily deny either section..old or new........ what section of the bible has the final authority ? Stupid question but I'm sick of reading the 'liberal's' deny the old testament is part of the same book they hold in there hot little hands! My observation is that 'all' christians - liberal & fundy - cherry pick their way through the bible. What's behind that do you think...the slippery side steps if questioned about the 'facts' contained in the bible. I'd like to come up with a simple reply in my own mind at least...instead of the one I have which is 'fuckoff you idiot!' It does depend upon who you talk to whether they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Christian Spiritualists, or Christian Reconstructionists. I would guess that 90% of Christians have no idea what they believe when it comes to the Old Testament. I have found that most Christians I have talked to do not answer this type of question until they are asked because they know very little about their church’s history or the history of Christianity. They do not know why they believe the things they believe, only that they do. Some Christians I have talked with are very anti-Roman Catholic, as far as beliefs go, and yet they believe in non-scriptural beliefs and practises given to them by the Roman Catholics. All of this can look like “cherry-picking” to non-Christians, but you have to remember that for every type of Christian there is, there is a different view. What Christians need to remember is that the Bible of Jesus was the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament though not in the form it is today. The Hebrew Bible has books that the OT does not. The overall final authority between the New Testament and Old Testament where Christians are concerned will always be the New Testament since that is where they get Christianity. It is where you divide the OT into its parts is where the confusion begins. The OT can be divided into Law, Prophets, and Writings. If Christians followed the Law portion, they wouldn’t be Christians they would be Christian Jews. This caused the first conflict in early Christianity between Paul and Peter along with the other Christian Jews of the time. It is not until the Paul that Gentiles were invited into Christianity and many of them would not join unless some of the Jewish customs were removed, first to go was circumcision. Later Paul removed other Jewish practises from Christianity and this is what begins your question. At first it was Paul’s way, then Constantine’s way, then the Roman Catholic Church’s way and finally to Martin Luther and others that followed after him who did not agree with everything Luther had to say, other non-Lutheran Protestants. So it depends entirely upon who you talk to and it would seem like “cherry-picking” if you pour all Christian beliefs into one pot. If you want to take them on you have to do it one denomination at a time and one person at a time because not all agree with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 EXACTLY!! christians will follow the NT because that is where they get christianity. early christianity started out as a political and social movement against the romans, who were a threat to judaism and it's practices. around Paul's time, it changed from a political/social movement, to a full-blown religion. the NT was written as a means of appealing to non-jews and those who threatened the religion to convert. that's why many myths, core beliefs, practices, and even celebrations were taken from pagan cultures were "borrowed" and put into christianity. for more info check out this site on the history of judaism/christianity: History of the Bible and Christianity now if i were still religious and getting into a debate with a proponent of the NT, this would be my rebuttal: first off, it says in the OT that God's laws are eternal. they do not change. he said laws cant be added or taken away. they are FOREVER. Jesus even says in the NT that he comes not to break the laws, but to fulfill them. but of course now we have paul saying in his letters that the old laws are a curse. he says we dont need to follow the old laws. who the HELL does he think he is!? God said his laws are eternal! christians today are called pauline christians and follow the instructions of paul. christianity came from judaism. the jews were the inventors of the core beliefs. they were the chosen ones... yet it's funny how most christians today never wonder or question why jews dont believe jesus is the messiah promised TO THEM and why they also dont believe in the new testament. we all know [but they dont] that jesus never fulfilled any prophecy. to believe and follow him would by idolatry!!! of course they get around this by saying that Jesus, God, and even the Holy Spirit are one. and again, we all know this doesnt make sense when the bible and logic says they are different, and not one. whenever there is a reference to them being one, it's more symbolic like when it says husband and wife when married are one. nowhere in the bible does it ever mention the "Holy Trinity." that was a doctrine made in the 4th century to get around the obvious mistake of idolatry by worshipping JeBus. again if i were to use scripture: isaiah 42:8 "i am the lord, that is my name; i will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven images" isaiah 43:11-12 "i, even i, am the lord, and there is no savior besides me. it is i who have declared and saved and proclaimed, and there was no stange god among you; so you are my witnesses, declares the lord. and i am god." isaiah 45:21-22 "...and there is no other god besides me, a righteous god and a savior; there is non except me. turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for i am god, and there is no other." the OT even sets down instructions on how to recognize a false prophet. Jesus seems to be one of those false prophets. Deut 13:1-5,18 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy God." Also: Deut 18:20-22 "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Some key points to consider in these instructions from God: * The performance of miracles does not mean that someone is a valid teacher or prophet from God. * A false teaching can be a test for the people of God, to see if they will hold to his commandments. * False teachers may try to redefine God and make claims in his name which are not true. * Prophecy that does not come true is an indication of a false prophet. * False teachers are to be put to death for the crime of trying to deceive God's people and lead them astray. These key points all come into play when one inspects the New Testament claims about Jesus being a valid Messiah, and they also come into play when analyzing the common Christian assertions, which advertise that the New Testament represents the unembellished and accurate thoughts of God, as beamed into the minds of his "inspired" writers. now with that being said... and i know that was kinda lengthy... sorry i get all riled up and i just go off.... but now... dont even get me started on why the OT isnt believable!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 now with that being said... and i know that was kinda lengthy... sorry i get all riled up and i just go off.... but now... dont even get me started on why the OT isnt believable!!!! Hehe, quite a lot of stuff from Brad's site. Yup I do the same. About the "law fulfilling" thing, christians claim because he fulfilled it therefore they don't have follow it. Check out the "one verse at a time" thread in Lion's Den Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Whatever the 'flavour' they will inevitablily deny either section..old or new........ what section of the bible has the final authority ? Funny that we talk about "authority". We don't assign authority to the writings of Ernest Hemmingway. Or James Michener. Or Stephen King. The Bible is no different. A collection of writings from the minds of men. Men with agendas. A few facts interspersed within a shit-load of sheer fantasy. A god did not write that book. A god did not dictate that book. The only authority the bible has, exists once again - in the minds of men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snookums Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Whatever the 'flavour' they will inevitablily deny either section..old or new........ what section of the bible has the final authority ? Funny that we talk about "authority". We don't assign authority to the writings of Ernest Hemmingway. Or James Michener. Or Stephen King. The Bible is no different. A collection of writings from the minds of men. Men with agendas. A few facts interspersed within a shit-load of sheer fantasy. A god did not write that book. A god did not dictate that book. The only authority the bible has, exists once again - in the minds of men. May I insert Women as well..... Yes I know that.......but how come xwistians don't but will inevitable quote on verse or the other...then when questioned will slide away use the standard denying phase...'well its in the OT'. That's my point why is one half of the bible denied when I speak to any kind of xian.. As far as the point about 'authority'..that's a secular phenomia as well.....Many an 'expert' is created after a book is published. Hell ---- a book is the ants pants in the 'authority' stakes! Doesn't it seem a little more credible if you read it?....its crap of course. Oh and what about philosophy - that is a humble pursuit of knowledge....but don't some people hail their 'idea's' as the truth while other's become ardent followers - same deal imo. thanks for all the replies so far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 now with that being said... and i know that was kinda lengthy... sorry i get all riled up and i just go off.... but now... dont even get me started on why the OT isnt believable!!!! Hehe, quite a lot of stuff from Brad's site. Yup I do the same. About the "law fulfilling" thing, christians claim because he fulfilled it therefore they don't have follow it. Check out the "one verse at a time" thread in Lion's Den you know it Skeptic! i'd rather be a disciple of brad haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts