Well, I've honestly only read most of exodus and the gospels. And I skimmed Revelation because 8-headed goat demons are the most amusing code I've read.

Although sometimes you have to interpret the story. I'm hesitant to say it, because I'd rather not start another argument. But what about the creation stories? Modern science has proved them not quite accurate. And I'm sure if I read through the Bible, I could find other examples. Sometimes the story is just a story. But when interpreted, you find a moral.

That's one way to look at it. Anoter would be that the authors of the New Testament tailored it to the Old Testament in many ways as they wrote for the Jews of their time, applying Jesus to the prophecies so as to better explain him and his purpose. This doesn't undermine Jesus or who he is at all, but it is simply a different explanation and understanding of what went into the stories that we have today. The broader truths are still present.

It's difficult to explain all this in just one or a few posts however. I stand by my recommendation to watch that PBS documentary I mentioned earlier in this thread.

There are religious threads that I enjoy and members I enjoy talking to.

I usually get a lot out of such threads.

I also enjoy discusing my faith.

I get a lot out of those threads as well.

But arguing and defending myself against insults does not appeal to me.

I will continue to monitor this thread from an administrative view, but that is all.

I would also advise members to review the board rules regarding respecting each other's beliefs, (or lack of them).

False accusations could very well be construed as an insult. So you are right, it would be nice if all members had to abide by the rules.

I'd worry about thread jackage, but this discussion is the best thing going here, IMO.

By story, i mean the larger text. The story of genesis is about creation. There's no header that says "scientifically accurate" or anything. It's a story. you can read it as history, but i don't think the meaning is there. it reads like poetry. God's breath (ruah or spirit) moves over the water, and calls each thing in to being.

How that becomes a science textbook is beyond me. I'm willing to admit, i may be wrong. And i would take it seriously, if on the last day i was called to account for causing the scriptures to be held in low regard.

I'll close with a quote...it deals with why many things about the bible got turned in to truth claims. he begins by asserting that for some time, myth and history operated on similar levels and were not distinct. What happened when they were separated by modernism was to put a priority on "objective" history.

See what I mean.

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God I find it incredibly hard to believe that you don't think looking at naked people on the internet is a sin.

Exactly. The problem is when you get people who won't believe anything except the Bible. I look at it a a "holy-fied" Aesop's Fables. Was there a fox who wanted grapes? Not one that talked, at any rate. But the stories can tell us something about ourselves. (I think I might have changed my mind about the importance of the OT)

You know...after I made my post saturday morning and then left to go out of town I was really looking forward to coming back and reading the things others had said....it was even a topic of discussion amongst the group of people I was with. Its really sad that it degenrated like it did....it had much potential

best part of tfp? there's always another thread. i'm not sure where you wanted to steer things...but why don't we give it another shot?

and to Slavakion...i doubly agree with the fables comparison. when you literalize the text, the other thing that happens is that the "meaning" gets fixed. the book is of little use that way...the point is to struggle with the questions, and think with in the story.

The problem, though, is that some people go too far in the other direction. The question shouldn't be simply a matter of "How likely is this to have happened?" but also a matter of "How does this story read?" Much of Genesis, for example, doesn't even sound like history; it sounds like myth. Kings and Chronicles, on the other hand, sound like history. The gospels sound like eyewitness reports (usually, at least). All text needs to be interpreted according to what sort of text it is.

I guess the point is that, while it's not going to bother me that people take Genesis to be myth, the general historical accuracy of the gospels should be something all Christians agree on. Here, in this case, to say that the gospels are merely nice stories is to deny an idea that has been central to Christianity since its beginning - the death and resurrection of Christ. I can't stop you if you want to believe this, but it would seem to be at best misleading to say you were a Christian in this case.

You are absolutely right. It is a great shame that prejudice, hypersensitivity, and paranoia had to turn this into a witch hunt of sorts. If more people would have posted like you and fistf did, straight answers without judgmental personal digs, and preconceived conclusions, then I think that this thread could have been much more productive.

I, myself really wasnt trying to steer things in anyway.....I was simply looking forward to seeing how "we heathens that claim to be christians" (paraphrasing from the original post) responded to why we consider ourselves that way, when we know good and well we are sinning. I was thinking the responses would be more "spiritually" based and not scriptually...and certainly not the antagonistic vein its going in, or the catholic/christian debate since there is already another thread going on about that. SM70, I thought in his initial post, posted some very good information...then they were put on the defensive and it screwed the whole thing up :crazy:

I think that one of the problems that people may have is that even with today's technology (video/audio recording devices, computers, internet, etc), it would be impossible to obtain the level of implied accuracy, such as private conversations, and events such as the birth that were prior to their meeting that could not have been "witnessed" first hand by the credited author. And if it was merely "divine dictation" then there is really no need for the "perspective" of four authors that all come from the same "ghost writer".

james allison has said of the gospels that they are not primitive histories, or biographies of Jesus. they are witnesses. they are the apostolic response to the ressurection, the way they saw the last few years of their lives in light of what happened on Easter.

i think that's kind of smart.

There are some events in the gospels that no one outside of Jesus witnessed, it is true, but these are pretty few and far between, and it's possibly that Jesus may have related them after his resurrection. Other than that, the writers may have simply interviewed people who were there - Mary or Joseph, for the story of the birth, for example.

What I find interesting about the idea of looking at the Gospels as historically accurate is how they differ on what one would think to be the most important topic: Jesus' capture and death. If the Gospels are historically accurate, then we should surely expect the least divergence on a topic such as Jesus' capture and death. But, instead, there is just as much divergence here than throughout any other part of the Gospels.

Take the capture, for instance. In the Gospel of Mark, it says (chapter 14)...

Mark was written not long after the first Jewish revolt failed and the temple was destroyed. These people whom Mark was writing for struggled with the feeling that Jesus had abandoned them. Likewise, one sees in Jesus' capture, in the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus himself is abandoned at his time of need ("And they all left him and fled"). He is begging God, asking to not allow this to happen, but he will do what God wants. One sees a Jesus not in control and feeling abandoned. Precisely the feeling of the persecuted, Jewish community for whom Mark was writing. This is how they felt in their lives and in their deaths: abandoned and alone.

Now, in the Gospel of John (chapter 17), Jesus prays to God as well, but he does not beg God to free him from death. Instead, he makes a lengthy prayer regarding his followers and the world and one gets the impression that he is relatively comfortable with his fate. In chapter 18, Jesus is captured:

The first thing we notice is that it is no longer a crowd of people capturing Jesus, but soldiers. Sure, soldiers COULD be described as a crowd, but WOULD they be? Furthermore, throughout this scene one sees a Jesus who is in control of the situation: "Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him," "When he said to them, 'I AM,' they turned away and fell to the ground," "if you are looking for me, let these men go," "Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?" This is a sharp contrast to the capture in Mark, where Jesus lacks control of the situation. Here, over and over again, Jesus is shown in complete control, ordering the soldiers regarding what to do with the others, stunning them with his declaration, "I AM," and, most of all, not abandoned. No one flees.

Now, there is Jesus' death. One of two events that, were the Gospels truly historically accurate, there would stand to be almost no divergence on. Yet, there is. In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus eats a Passover meal before he dies. However, he does not do so in John - the last supper is eaten before Passover begins. In John, the process of Jesus crucifixion begins at noon on the day of preparation for Passover - the time when the Jewish priests begin slaughtering the lambs for passover, creating an effective metaphor in the story.

Indeed, the Gospels appear to be so historically accurate that they can't agree on which day their Messiah died. But, of course, this assumes that they care to be historically accurate. But what if they don't? In my mind, these "issues" are not issues at all. In fact, understanding things like this has only led to a greater appreciation of the Gospels and their message. Clearly, John is trying to tell the reader something about Jesus - in fact, he says it explicitly in the very beginning of his Gospel (1:29), "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." Being historically accurate about the day on which Jesus died is unimportant. Likewise, it is clear, when reflecting upon the community for which Mark was writing, why he chose to create certain images such as Jesus' followers abandoning him and Jesus begging God to let him live if there is a way. There are far more examples: literal historical accuracy is relatively unimportant throughout the Bible. Instead, there is far more to be learned when one takes into account the processes through which the Gospels (and the Bible) were written - keeping in mind the intended audiences and the cultures of their times.

What I meant when I said that a Christian has to believe that the gospels are historically accurate about the death and resurrection of Christ was merely that a Christian has to believe that these events actually happened, not that they have to believe that the accounts are literally true in all their details.

ah ok, I misunderstood. Yes, generally speaking I would agree. However, I do think that there's credence to the argument that far more contents of the Gospels are symbolically true (as opposed to being superficially true) than is commonly accepted by most.

You are using a translated version of the Bible. I would take into account that the translation could have caused some distortion, because it took more than one person to translate the bible.

I just say, becasue at my church our pastor know hebrew and latin so this added to discusions that we have. Well we do take the Bible literaly. I am Luthern and we follow the bible true to its word.

I'm using a translated version because we're discussing on an english internet forum. However, nothing I said is something that hasn't already been said by various Biblical scholars and theologians.

But, you're right, translation can have an affect on things. In this case, however, I'm quite confident that is not the case.

MrKlixx, who was it that made such bold statements and then you found lurking about in what you deem to be non Christian places?

Out of curiousity....Do you believe the version you use has not been translated?
And if so, What language is it written in?

Here is something to chew on as well:

http://www.abwoon.com/PrayersoftheCosmos.html

Neat book.

But no we do use the King James Bible. Just when certian things get come up we look at what was written in the original text. I am no expert though.

Example
We go by the literal translation of creation. Because the wording used for day meant "from sun up to sun down" and the fact that the original sin brought about death, so there can not be evolution before the original sin. Because sin is the cause for death. And evolution only works if there is death.

edit: i can not remember all the lang. that my pastor knows. Hebrew and latin are two. I think he knows German as well and a few others.

Since I've already been deemed a troublemaker, I don't think it would be too wise for me to point fingers at individuals, do you? I will say that some of the people that shocked me most with their revelation of Christianity have not even posted to this thread.

Since you are the only person that has posted that you believe the bible is literal, and since I have yet to get a straight answer about what actions people believe to be sins , I'll ask you. Do you believe that things like lust, pornography, extramarital-sex, substance abuse, etc, are sinful?

tecoyah...

i wouldn't give that too much credit. the aramaic in the text sticks out already. the grammar of all of them is greek...not semitic. i think the NT is all original greek compositions, with small passages as exceptions.

mrklixx of course those things are sinful. The question should not be what is sinful but what happens with the sin I have. There is nothing I can do to avoid sin competly. We all succumb to sin in one way or another. The beauty of Jesus is it doesn't matter.

Look what happens to the sinner in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 (specifically verse 5).

Understood. The point I was attempting to make is that the scriptures and holy texts have been translated , regardless of the version you decide to follow.. Having read several versions I was struck by the similarities, as well as the differences. The linked translation (while corrupted by translation) is quite beautiful, and sets a far more peaceful tone to the Bible, and to my mind, displays Christianity in a much more acceptable light.

I admit I am not a Christian by most standards, primarily because most Christians would not have me in their flock. But that will never prevent me from developing an understanding of the teachings of the Christ, any more than not becoming a Monk prevents me from learning of the Buddah.

So what would you say to people who label themselves as Christians who do not believe that those things are sins, and don't need to be dealt with as such?

And while it may be impossible to avoid sinful things completely, isn't it possible, and even "strongly recommended" to make a conscious effort to avoid situations that meet the sinful criteria?

And just to prove that I don't pretend to have the answers, I'll tell you that I read 1 Cor 5:5 in several different translations, and I have no idea what it means.

i cor 5:5...read the preceeding verses, and the problem of the text is a couple. man lives with his father's wife, and they may or may not be bumping uglies. my guess would be not, that they are claiming radical celibacy.

Paul can't really take this...while it is profoundly anti social...and Paul loves that...its going to be misunderstood and bring slander down on the community. He tells the church to stop praying for the man, to cease admitting him in to the group. Paul hopes this will bring the man to repentance, at least in time for the Big Show. his concern is shown several verses down...associating with the man will cause others to stumble.

so...associating with sexual immorality is bad. but paul doesn't define it for us. and i think it's quite possible to hold a Christian definition of sexual immorality that doesn't conflict with erotica, or some of the things that you mention as un-Christian.

But,is it not Paul making these judgements, and not the Christ. Again we get into translation, and interpretation of the teachings of the Christ. I think the issue here has little to do with what this great man taught us, but instead how we are to blend these things into our social settings. This cannot be done without first understanding the fundamental messages in these lessons.
My personal descisions regarding this difficult issue is to disregard the many interpretations of scripture as accurate dictations of the words of Jesus, and instead delve into the "message" contained within. I do this by reading numerous translations of the same passage, and attempting to reverse engineer what the Christ actually meant. I do the same with Hindu texts, and Celtic mythology.
There is no reason, In my opinion, to limit my spiritual growth to the teachings of a single path or manifestation of what we refer to as God. I find it likely there have been many Avatars on this Earth, and the Christ is but one of them.

The part I was pointing out in 1 Cor 5:5 was the last little bit, dealing with the man being saved. Despite his sins.

Do people who sin need to be delt with? Not in the way you are implying. We are to love the sinner and do nothing to make him sin more. In the end it is not us who says who is right or wrong. The bible clearly states this many times. Do not judge others.... Remove the plank from your own eye.... There is even a verse that says directly do not say who is going to heaven and hell.

God is the one who judges all in the end not us. It is our job as Christians to be there for the sinner when they are ready. We should not persecute them, we should not slander them, we should not put them down, we should not gossip about them, we should not put ourselfs above them, no instead we should only love them. That is what the bible teaches us.

I agree with everything that Rekna says; one of the verses from scripture I like to quote runs "I do not even judge myself." At the same time, we should not merely let them continue in their sin. I don't think it's appropriate to castigate random people on their street for their sins, but if you see a friend who is a Christian in a sinful lifestyle, or someone in your church if your in a certain sort of position in that church, you're not only allowed, but required to try and get them to repent.

I haven't heard that one before, but I'd like to be able to quote it to those 'god hates fags' baptists - Not that it would make them any more reasonable Christians, people or otherwise.

There are many people who follow a religion, nationality, football team, pub, brand, company or games console for no reason other than that they are exposed to [it] at some time in their life. [It] fills a hole and provides a sense of identity and community.

Not everyone thinks about the implications or remifications of their beliefs - in fact very few people want or even care to. Christianity may be as successfull as it is because it allows those who are not interested in philosophy to leave all the thinking up to Bishops and Priests, and be told what is right or wrong by them in the same way a Doctor tells us to stop smoking, or loose weight, or lower our blood pressure. Healthy spiritual living and healthy physical living are not too distant from one another - over indulgence leads to self harm, both spiritually and mentally.

BTW: This isn't a dig at Christianity or Christians, I know and understand that there are many who intently and deeply think about and consider everything about the world from within their religious framework

The idea of a moral, or absolute right or wrong is a nice way of simplifying a difficult concept so that your average Joe can understand it. If you went to the Doctor about a cold and he started talking about the way a virus enters a cell and translates its genetic code into the host, causing it to replicate the virus' code over and over again, which causes changes to various passageways in your nose and triggers the release of enzymes and hormone levels in your system, and how they delicately interact with one another to in turn effect the sugar and salt levels in your blood which in turn might effect...etc...etc...You might stop listening - However, if he says, take 2 aspirin before bed - you're happy.

As for helping others to live a healthy spiritual lifestyle, I think it's just as acceptable to tell someone they are doing something they shouldn't, as it might be to steer them clear of the dessert tray once in a while.

Each of the the above is a tricky balance to find between caring for someone's (spiritual and physical) health on one hand, and being an interferring busy-body on the other. One more reason why Priests (and Doctors) are so handy, they both have (or should have) the authority to point out where the rest of us are going wrong - or at least be there to turn to when we are spiritually (or physically) ill.

I'm sorry that you both (Rekna & asaris) typed lengthy responses based on a misinterpretation of what I typed. On a second read, I do see how it's possible that it be translated that way, and I apologize for not being clearer. It is amusingly relevant though on a thread that is somewhat about translation and interpretation. Hope nobody went out and started a religion based on what I said in my last post. :D

What I meant was, that if and individual that is a self-professed Christian does not view the "obvious" sins as sinful, then that individual will not treat them as sins and "deal" with them accordingly (i.e. avoidance, repentance, etc).

As to 1 Cor 5:5, I'm wondering if that verse wasn't used in things like the Salem witch burnings, because that's definitely one interpretation that crossed my mind. "deliver such a one to Satan(-->hell-->fire) for the destruction of the flesh(by fire), that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

That seems like a good idea, except John 14:6 seems to state (in just about any translation), that Jesus did not agree with you.

Ah....but, who was John but another Man ....attempting to translate the teachings. That becomes irrelevant in the context of my personal faith, as I find my own ability to garner meaning from the basic messages, on Par with John.
I have simply decided that the fewer humans between me and the teachings....the more accurate is the likely interpretation.

Please understand I do not think myself "Better" than anyone else at interpreting these teachings. I am just different in my reading of intent in scripture.

A sin is a sin, and there is no way to get out of it.

What are you looking for in my answer?

We should try to live our lives in a manner that is out lined in the following versus folloeing John 14:6. Once you have sinned you are guilty in all of them. There is no lesser sin than any other. Murder/rape are just as guilty as stealing a peice of candy from the store.

But, becuase of Jesus we are forgiven of our sins, and we are sinnless in God's eyes. Since we can never be sinnnless as Jesus was we should try to live our lives in a good manner. Help those who need help, live an all around good life, and all the usual stuff that are associated with Christians. But, technoically we have been forgiven, and as those passages (John 14-15) state that those who truely beleive try to live that way. Basically alll it says is that those who truely beleive will live their lives that way, while there will be those who say one thing and act out another.

there's no responsible reading that can support the idea that they were going to burn the guy. Flesh means something very different to Paul, nor do they have any state power to do somethign like that. Paul expresses hope that the wayward will return, in many places.

and yeah, it's Paul trying to settle a dispute. he would not have expected us to make it scripture.