Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Matthias

Defining a True One

73 posts in this topic

either the Bible should be interpreted literally or it's just a set of lessons that we may or may not want to accept depending on societal and cultural constructs surrounding those lessons both in the time they were written and today.  You may think some of those lessons are more worthy than others (imo this is fine so long as you accept the worthiness is your personal/religion's opinion and not divinely ordained) but you lose the whole "Word of God" argument when you toss out half of that word because it's inconvenient today.

 

This reasoning makes it seem like I'm throwing teaching out because I personally don't like it.  I'm not throwing anything out based on how I feel about it.  I don't want to use the words "throwing out" necessarily, but you have to look at the context of what is true for a Christian compared to what was done under the commandments and things like that.  Ask me some questions, and I can better show you what I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must Genesis be literal for the teachings of Jesus to be sensical?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a corrupt nature?  How can you know that one's being is corrupt versus uncorrupt?  Who is this Jesus fellow you say wasn't in possession of a corrupt nature?  Is there anything outside of your one text corroborating any of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must Genesis be literal for the teachings of Jesus to be sensical?

 

What teachings specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What teachings specifically.

 

Pick any.  Perhaps the parable of the good samaritan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's a corrupt nature?  How can you know that one's being is corrupt versus uncorrupt?  Who is this Jesus fellow you say wasn't in possession of a corrupt nature?  Is there anything outside of your one text corroborating any of this?

 

A corrupt nature is basically one that is not operating as God created it to operate.  Before I answer any more, keep in mind that these questions are asked in light of the Bible.  These questions aren't about actual evidence and me presenting my case in that fashion.  I'll have that discussion later on hehe!  Yet in terms of the biblical terms, man was originally made in the image of God.  So in essence, our nature mirrored His.  How can we tell a corrupt nature?  By trying to keep the Torah or Law.  Now, Jesus made it even clearer for us when it comes to the commandments, that even if you dwelled on things counter to the law, you are breaking it.  That if you lust after someone, you commit adultery.  If you hate someone, you a muderer and break those commandments.  So the Law reveals our true nature, because of course we want to lust after good looking people right?  It's just not how God created us.  Now the text say Jesus wasn't born with this nature, but was born after God's nature. (Like the first Adam)  I can't comment what's outside the text and what governs what outside it, but this discussion is concerning the text.

 

 

 

Pick any.  Perhaps the parable of the good samaritan

 

 

Well, teachings like that I agree aren't dependant on a literal Genesis.  Anyone can do good things and things like that.  Yet what's dependant on a literal Genesis is the whole reason why God is at odds with the world.  If God created the world like we see it today, or that we came about through the accepted history of the world, that eliminates the need for Jesus to come and "save" us.  Save us from what exactly and redeem us from what exactly, if there wasn't a fall of creation in the beginning?  So I argue, the whole set up for Jesus coming to redeem us, hangs on a literal Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the Bible should be taken literally except when it shouldn't.

 

One thing I keep in mind is the bible was written by dozens of different people over thousands of years. There are even a half dozen or so books that made it into and out of different versions of the bible. It was very interesting reading these in religion class.

 

Anyway the point is I think it would be difficult to argue that each one was meant to be interpreted with the same level of literalness. (although I take very little of it literally)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A corrupt nature is basically one that is not operating as God created it to operate  ...  Yet in terms of the biblical terms, man was originally made in the image of God.  So in essence, our nature mirrored His.  How can we tell a corrupt nature?  By trying to keep the Torah or Law.  

 

What does that mean that our nature mirrors God's?  By trying to keep the "Torah or Law" as you say reveals a corrupt nature?  That is what you are saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Jesus came into the world to save it, not to condemn it.

 

Matthais,

 

Jesus' crucifixion was a sacrifice for humanity's sins, but was it really that big of a sacrifice?

 

Most of us have been taught that heaven is a paradise.  

 

Jesus presumably knew this better than anyone, so sacrificing his earthbound body of flesh and blood was really not much of a sacrifice at all.  It amounted to little more than temporary pain and anguish for a big payoff at the end.

 

God should have simply cut out the "middle man" and decreed that humanity was getting a "do-over".  As long as individuals accepted God as their savior, they would be forgiven. 

 

Why all the unnecessary dramatics?

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Jesus REALLY that great of a guy? I mean, he did say he did not intend to bring peace to earth, but a sword. And he did refer to one non-Jew (Gentile) woman as a "dog" when she asked for him to heal her daughter. Matthew 15:22-28. He basically said, in whole, "No, I will not help you, because I came to help the Jews, not the non-Jews." Then, with all of his power, he was ultimately convinced to change his mind by her basically saying, "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table".

Jesus also gives numerous examples of bad advice (not saving money, not planning for the future, make people want to persecute you, if someone hits you, invite them to do it again, etc) and examples of things that are just patently absurd (marrying a divorced women is adultery, don't have sexual urges, if your eyes or hands do something wrong, pluck it out/cut it off, etc). And thought crimes, as you gave examples of, are also absurd. Thinking about doing ANYTHING immoral or harmful is NOT as bad as doing it. It actually is good if you can THINK of doing something like murder and have the restraint NOT to. To say "thinking it is as bad as doing it" sort of permits bad behavior since you haven't drawn a distinction between the two.

So, on top of his "sacrifice" not really being a real sacrifice, he's also a bit of a dick and a bit crazy. Do we REALLY need to strive to be like that character?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites