Greatest Sect of Christianity

[molly bloom]

You're terrible at logic. Oh man.

He has moved on from one set of unrealistic millenarian beliefs (Communism) to another. The logic in that doesn't escape me. I'm simply waiting for his announcement that he's joined the Tea Party Republicans.

I note as well his characteristically 'Christian' generosity in assuming I had to look up a particular Christian sect on Google. Wouldn't be the first Christian to know the words but fail at the praxis.

[Elok]

To be fair, he didn't invent the notion that you rely on google-fu, he's just perpetuating it.

[Kidlicious]

Molly my rebirth has nothing to do with communism, or the Tea Party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Kid is right on laughing at literal interpretation of Genesis.

[molly bloom]

To be fair, he didn't invent the notion that you rely on google-fu, he's just perpetuating it.

To which I say:

Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness .

He could have asked me who they were, or where I'd heard of them. He chose the uncharitable response.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth

Tsk tsk.

Molly my rebirth has nothing to do with communism, or the Tea Party.

How nice for you. You've gone from building the revolutionary party to building a new Jerusalem.

[Kidlicious]

It was a joke Molly. Only HC believes that's you rely on google.

[Hauldren Collider]

Drake is actually the person who said that.

[Kidlicious]

Well I apologise. I really didn't expect you to take it wrong.

[Proteus_MST]

Well, Kid is right on laughing at literal interpretation of Genesis.

Yep, I agree on this, as well as on laughing at christian fundamentalists believing in earth being just 6-7k years old.
On the other hand I have to admit that at least one thing christian fundamentalists say is true...
and that is about non fundamentalist christians cherrypicking the stuff within the bible.

Of course I agree that things like the creation story have to be dismissed into the realm of fables.
The big question however (IMHO) is, how much stuff from the bible we can dismiss and still call ourselves followers of the religion, founded by Yeshua ben Joseph (that is, if we assume that a historical Jesus really existed).
Do we dismiss the old testament stories about god ordering tha slaughter of all its inhabitants (including the cattle) of enemies cities (well, in 1-2 cases with exceptions of the female virgins so that they could taken by israeliste soldiers), because these stories don´t fit into our (NT) picture of an all loving god?
Do we even dismiss the NT story about Jesus causing an olive tree to wither, because it didn´t bear any fruit when Jesus came along, because it doesn´t fit into our picture of a loving Jesus?

Who has the authority to decide which biblical stories we can dismiss and which are canon? Everyone of us? Only our Preachers/Bishops?
(I have to admit that christian fundamentalists are at least consequent in this regards...if the universe/science disagrees with the bible, the universe/science must be wrong )

How much can we dismiss and still be believers in Jesus/the same god as Jesus?


IMHO one of the hardest/most interesting questions for christianity today

[Jon Miller]

You accuse 'non-fundamentalists' of cherry picking but many are not.

They just have different interpretations.

You can see that all the time, even on apolyton.

Cherry picking is saying "I don't think Paul was inspired or was right" or "I think the *certain* old testament books were a bunch of crap invented by the jews after the babylonian captivity to provide themselve an identity and *other* old testment books were not".

JM

[Elok]

While the various OT war stories are troubling, I don't see the problem with the story about the *fig* tree. It's pretty obviously a metaphor: those who do not "bear fruit" will wither. And if Jesus the carpenter can kill a tree to make a chair, why can't Jesus the preacher kill a tree to make a point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the other hand I have to admit that at least one thing christian fundamentalists say is true...
and that is about non fundamentalist christians cherrypicking the stuff within the bible.

Christian fundamentalists also cherrypick the stuff within the Bible - how many of them mandate that women wear headcoverings in church, for example (of course that was something that was stated in term of the cultural context of that era - but fundamentalists don't believe in things like cultural contexts for Bible stories)

Who has the authority to decide which biblical stories we can dismiss and which are canon? Everyone of us? Only our Preachers/Bishops?

We do. Jesus gave us the power of bind and loose, and tht this will be bound and loosened in Heaven as it is on Earth (Matthew 16:18; 18:18). It was not just for Peter and the Apostles to hoard, but for the Church entire (ie, all of us in community). It is in a section of Matthew which deals with sin in the Church. Jesus gives the Church the power to decide which is forbidden (bound) and which is allowable (loosened).

See also: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...ng-and-loosing

& yes, Jon is correct that different interpretations doesn't make it wrong. After all, there is a ton of stuff in the Bible that is allegorical or written to teach a lesson rather than for the historical truth of the matter (the Book of Job for one).

[Kidlicious]

Yep, I agree on this, as well as on laughing at christian fundamentalists believing in earth being just 6-7k years old.
On the other hand I have to admit that at least one thing christian fundamentalists say is true...
and that is about non fundamentalist christians cherrypicking the stuff within the bible.

Of course I agree that things like the creation story have to be dismissed into the realm of fables.
The big question however (IMHO) is, how much stuff from the bible we can dismiss and still call ourselves followers of the religion, founded by Yeshua ben Joseph (that is, if we assume that a historical Jesus really existed).
Do we dismiss the old testament stories about god ordering tha slaughter of all its inhabitants (including the cattle) of enemies cities (well, in 1-2 cases with exceptions of the female virgins so that they could taken by israeliste soldiers), because these stories don´t fit into our (NT) picture of an all loving god?
Do we even dismiss the NT story about Jesus causing an olive tree to wither, because it didn´t bear any fruit when Jesus came along, because it doesn´t fit into our picture of a loving Jesus?

Who has the authority to decide which biblical stories we can dismiss and which are canon? Everyone of us? Only our Preachers/Bishops?
(I have to admit that christian fundamentalists are at least consequent in this regards...if the universe/science disagrees with the bible, the universe/science must be wrong )

How much can we dismiss and still be believers in Jesus/the same god as Jesus?


IMHO one of the hardest/most interesting questions for christianity today

Strawman

edit: I mean I don't "cherry pick" but then you were actually quoting Imran.

[Uncle Sparky]

The Book of Job is a Persian fairy tale. Too bad Nicean council preceded the Brothers Grimm.

[Kidlicious]

Christian fundamentalists also cherrypick the stuff within the Bible - how many of them mandate that women wear headcoverings in church, for example (of course that was something that was stated in term of the cultural context of that era - but fundamentalists don't believe in things like cultural contexts for Bible stories)



We do. Jesus gave us the power of bind and loose, and tht this will be bound and loosened in Heaven as it is on Earth (Matthew 16:18; 18:18). It was not just for Peter and the Apostles to hoard, but for the Church entire (ie, all of us in community). It is in a section of Matthew which deals with sin in the Church. Jesus gives the Church the power to decide which is forbidden (bound) and which is allowable (loosened).

See also: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...ng-and-loosing

& yes, Jon is correct that different interpretations doesn't make it wrong. After all, there is a ton of stuff in the Bible that is allegorical or written to teach a lesson rather than for the historical truth of the matter (the Book of Job for one).

You're free, of course, to interpret the Bible. I don't understand your position that you can dismiss parts you don't like. Also, if you dismiss parts or interpret parts incorrectly then you may become guiltyy of blasphemy against the holy spirit, the worst sin.

This is a good place to talk about liberally interpreting the bible. Maybe you can tell me, why a person would do that, beyond just saying that's what I believe, because you must have made a decision that interpreting the bible liberally is ok, and there are warnings in the bible.