Part 17 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Part 17 is a continuation of Post your tough questions pertaining to God/Jesus/Holy Bible and I will do my best to clarify and make sense of it to those who are unaware...I still have questions unanswered in Part 6 thru 16.

Also I might answer questions that are on other members threads and so this will keep me real busy with the many questions that I will answer from my point of view/perspective keeping in line with Scripture.

I don't want my intentions to come across as converting you or whatever lol... but rather clear up things etc... so ask away.

 

So in your opinion just because the Evangelicals believe in inerrancy they are an embarrassment?...such nonsense!

 

That is just one of many reasons but a good one. Folks that believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that Noah's ark landed 2100-2300 BC are truly an embarrassment to humanity and to intelligent Christians.

 

Humanity is an embarrassment to itself.

 

Not all of humanity and some more so than others. Bible Literalists being the latter.

One mark in your favor is you realized this and have changed your perspective.

 

Interesting contradiction ... Mitt/WanRen ... Any thoughts ?

 

What perspective of mine are you suggesting that I have changed?

 

Like I have always stated numerous of times on these threads of mine the Bible is not for the interpretation impaired. Below is a thorough explanation from my favorite Christian website who always gives explanations that I agree with and that's why I use what they say to answer questions coming from non-believers such as yourself when you come across something in Scripture that doesn't make sense to you.

First, we must take this verse in the context of the chapter. Jesus is teaching His disciples, and like any good teacher, He begins with a truth statement that is hard to understand in order to get His students thinking. Then, He clarifies the difficult truth statement with a metaphor. The truth statement is the confusing verse 26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." So, if we don't hate our family and our own lives, we can't be His disciple. But does He mean we are to have real hatred for our parents?

Next, Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without counting the cost and finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do. He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required. Jesus is showing us the explanation to His difficult statement—that we must count the cost of discipleship. This is the point of the passage. In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus. Therefore, if our parents will not follow Jesus, or even if they disown us for being Christians, we must still choose Him over them. It is in this sense that we are "hating" our family members who reject the Lord or reject us because of the Lord. This is not easy, and of course it is right that we should love our family members and want our family members to love and follow God. After all, 1 John 4:7-8 says "Beloved, let us love one another for love is from God and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God for God is love." And that is only one of many passages commanding us to love others. But despite our love for the people we know, here is the key: if they don't love Jesus, He must still be our first priority. We must esteem Him more highly than the people we love here on earth and we must love Him more than our own lives. In fact, we must love Him so much that our earthly loves pale in comparison, even to the point of seeming like hate.

Second, let's take it in context of other places in the Bible. Matthew 19:29 says, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life."

So, here is the promise: God has required total commitment from His followers, to the point of heart-breaking separation from any natural family members who reject Jesus, but in heaven we will have a hundred times what we lost—an entire family of believers who love Christ and who love us! Even the material things that we had forsaken in order to follow Him will be given back to us in a form a hundred times better than what we lost! So, He is a good God, after all, and, no, He does not want us to literally hate (viciously despise or wish harm to) the members of our family. All we are required to do is choose Jesus over them even if they force us to do so by rejecting Him.

Jesus may have chosen the word "hate" to show us that this is how a mother or father will perceive the actions of a child who chooses the Lord above them. They will see it as disloyal, especially if we try to witness to them. The love of a Christian for a non-Christian is almost always seen as hatred, intolerance, bigotry, etc. But we must be okay with being seen as "hating." After all, our unbelieving relatives are part of the world, and Jesus said, “"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/hate-father-mother.html#ixzz32JCvcTnu

 

So that's your answer again ... It doesn't mean what it says.

And yet you tell us the book is the literal word of god and the book is inerrant.

I think I got it now let me sum it up ... The book doesn't mean what it says if it says anything kinda silly or not in line with MR's dogma ... But it means what it says when it confirms his prejudices.

I think I'm clear on it now ... Thanks!

 

You admit that the Bible is not the Literal "word of God" as it is a work of Man and therefore subject to error.

 

Absolutely... it is subject to error because of it being made by man. The same applies to all the scientific journals and notations, theories, etc.

Now for the big question. Where and when did I change my perspective? What was my perspective before? Give the complete details and leave nothing untold that would place your analysis in error.

 

Oh ... so now Jesus is using metaphor and allegory. So much for your "Literal Interpretation" claims. You can not throw those out the window.

Perhaps those writing the story of the Ark were using metaphor and Allegory as well. A story meant to convey a message. Not a story meant to be taken literally.

Your "got questions" site is a Joke. You should try thinking for yourself from time to time or at least trying to get both sides of a story = reading stuff that does not line up with your perspective to see the validity of arguments from the other side. Its called having "objectivity" and not going through life with pre-ordained conclusions about everything based on some spoon fed dogma that you worship.

The last time you posted something to me from that site (trying to apologise for Sola Fide) I went through the claims line by line and showed how those claims did not line up with what the Bible stated.

Your response ? Zero. This author claimed made absurd claims that were completely against what Jesus said.

You made no attempt to explain these fictitious claims when I pointed them out. There are things that are subject to interpretation (grey) and things that are not.

I agree that in this case the meaning of the passage is a bit grey. That was not the case with others and you were completely disingenuous in your continued "you interpreted wrong" and then not responding to my rebuttal if your "God Questions site"

One thing about this passage is that it looks like Jesus is talking specifically about his disciples. He talks about the cost of discipleship stating that in order to be a disciple of Jesus you need to "renounce" all that you have.

If Jesus is talking specifically about his disciples this resolves the contradiction. If Jesus is talking about his disciples specifically then passage then does not necessarily apply to those that are not his disciples = the rest of us poor slobs.

There is another possible interpretation as well. There is a tradition, and evidence in the Bible to support this tradition, that Jesus was acting the part of the Messiah that the Jews were hoping for. This Messiah was supposed to be a Military leader like David (and from the line of David) and lead the Jews to former Glory.

As a Soldier in such a cause you would have to renounce your family in a way. When the Romans find out about your military objectives this will put your family in peril.

The fact that the Author does not even consider the first possibility should be proof enough of his inability to provide an objective assessment. It is an obvious possibility that sticks out like a sore thumb.

My second suggestion has some parallels to his suggestion. Since this is the only possibility that fits in with the author's preordained belief system he runs with that and that alone.

Here the Author is able to come up with an explanation that is in keeping with the context of the passage.

In the previous example relating to Sola Fide the Author did not even come close to coming up with a rational response and the stuff he was claiming was directly contradicted by the words of Jesus and the entire idea and context of the sermon.

Try thinking for yourself sometime. You might be surprised and what you can come up with.

 

You used to believe that the whole Noah's Ark story was true.

 

Still do believe the same. That however does not preclude the story from being subject to error. You lost on that one.

 

No, it's not the believing part that is an embarrassment, it is making up ridiculous claims and agreeing with those ridiculous claims such as world wide cannibalism. Most christians would run away from those type of claims.
Some christians in the thread don't even think the written word is 'the word of God'.

 

What error would there be in the noah story?

 

Didn't you read what I wrote.. I said "subject to error".. I did not say absolutely that there was any error. Quit presupposing and being presumptuous.

 

Oh, so no error then. Just juxtaposing things around like wanren does.

 

Nope... just facing reality that anything manmade is subject to error. If that is too hard for you to swallow, then get on drugs so that you can escape reality.

 

That's your secret. You call it 'holy spirit'.

 

Here should be a softball question. Can anyone give an answer.

What will souls do in heaven?

 

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
http://godisimaginary.com/

 

No, as usual you are not understanding it correctly. Non-believers such as yourself have so much to learn but of course you refuse to learn because you're in denial, first off you deny the very existence of Almighty God the Creator and so you will deny His best selling book of all-time and will try your best to discredit it but to no avail. Christians like myself we always defend our Lord God and will always explain Scripture giving critics (non-believers) such as yourself the correct interpretations that you seem to always misinterpret.

Again like I've said numerous of times on these threads of mine, the Bible is not a book for the interpretation impaired. Those verses you presented from Scripture concerning honoring one's father and mother were part of the Old Testament Laws that was given to the nation of Israel during the time of Moses.

Along with the Ten Commandments there were numerous other laws that the Israelites had to abide by. Reading the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy one can see all the laws the Israelites were under. Below is a thorough explanation regarding the Old Testament law and how it applies to Christians.

Question: "Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law?"

Answer: The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).

In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). If we obey those two commands, we will be fulfilling all that Christ requires of us: “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.” The Old Testament law can be a good guidepost for knowing how to love God and knowing what goes into loving your neighbor. At the same time, to say that the Old Testament law applies to Christians today is incorrect. The Old Testament law is a unit (James 2:10). Either all of it applies, or none of it applies. If Christ fulfilled some of it, such as the sacrificial system, He fulfilled all of it.

“This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9; Galatians 3:24). The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html#ixzz32KAUupTb

 

With the exception of the 1st Monotheistic commandment most of all the Hebrew rules for health, food and social living were already practised in Nations prior to the Hebrews. They simply took those sensible rules and adopted them for themselves - including circumcision. Some of the religious ceremonies were also adapted from others, including Egypt. If you cared to study ancient civilisations you would know this.


For Anomaly. Unicorns - mistranslation of the Hebrew 'Re'em' (wild ox). That's it simply.

 

Why do you keep bothering us with your imaginary friend ?