Theology

by sabastious 136 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  Nothing qualifies, Tammy. That is the point.

  If someone had actually spoken with God, been with God, came from God... that person would qualify.

  These credentials might not qualify unless that someone was proven to have done these things, mind you. But a person like that would qualify.

  That record was written decades after the events it describes by men who were not eyewitness to them. That record, in short, is hearsay, furthermore inconsistent hearsay, that would not stand up as evidence in any true court of examination. Regardless, even if I was to allow that there was one man who understood the mind of God it does not mean that anyone else does, yet so many claim to. What makes it apparent that they are all wrong is that none of them can agree.

  I know the records are hearsay and would likely not hold up in a court of law. I am not interested in that though. Sometimes what gets thrown out of court is still real... just not proven 'enough'. It is up to the individual to decide what is 'enough' for them, I suppose.

  As for the theologian, I have not read anything by him. Or anyone else for that matter, but for one of CS Lewis' books that was a gift. Theologians are no different than anyone else when it comes to knowing Christ and God. We only need Christ to know God. The Spirit teaches. The rest of us just talking about the bible? We're all subject to the errors in understanding, translation, mistranslation, scribes, etc. So we can only give our best guess at interpretation. We underline our interpretation with love, and we might get close enough that our mistakes don't matter.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  Godrulz - the written word can only be objective if it cannot be changed, or mistranslated, or having bias added in due to lack of understanding when copies and translations are made. As we know, there are so many different translations, so many different interpretations. It just does not seem very objective to me. The benefit to the bible is we can test what someone else says is written in it, by looking in it. We can learn about Christ, God, the times and people who were closest to Him. The danger from the bible is that it can become 'god' for some. Enough that the rules within become law. To the point that mercy is overlooked; that love is overlooked; that Christ and God are overlooked. Someone who looks at the bible that way might miss the love and the mercy that underlies everything within; even to the point that they miss Christ and truth altogether.

  What do you make of Jeremiah 8:8? Just curious. Also the verses that say God will punish children to the 3rd and 4th generation, and later also state that He does not punish the son for the sins of the father, or vice versa?

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  godrulz

  The original autographs are the objective standard, so you are correct about translation/interpretation. With textual criticism and hermeneutics, we can know the essential meaning of most passages if we watch our bias. The Word is objective from God even if we introduce a subjective element with our imperfect interpretations. Just relying on the Living Word apart from the written Word is more subjective leading to all kinds of false views about Christ and spiritual truth.
• 

  Nickolas

  
• 

  wobble

  Dear Godrulz, the original autographs do not exist.

  All we have are copies of copies of copies which are then translated, perhaps well, perhaps poorly and twisted to fit the "translators" theology and doctrines i.e the infamous NWT.

  Do you not think that a loving God , if He wanted us to put any trust in the Bible, would have furnished us proof of what was originally written ,proof in a form that does not have to be argued over by scholars of the original tongues ?

  I cannot be sure of what was written originally, and I see no proof that stands scrutiny that God had anything to do with the writing , or compilation,deciding what was Canonical, of the Bible.

  It is no more the word of God than any other sacred writing, Jesus may be The Word, but the bible is no proof of that.
• 

  PSacramento

  We cannot ignore our human past, Paul. Those things happened, peoples' lives were caught up in those events and if nothing else they demand a modern reckoning. At the end of my life, which is drawing near, I will look upon all of the things I have done in my lifetime and I will judge myself accordingly. Christendom must do the same or else it is false and irrelevant.

  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  FOR SURE !

  Christians have MUCH to answer for and we are answering, lets not forget that for any atrocity to be commited, it takes people willing to allowed it to be so.

  ALL Christians are to blame for the atroctites commited in Christ's name, just as all believers are to blame for the atrocities commited in God's name.

  There are those that commit and those that allow for the act to be commited and while I wasn't even born then, whenever I hear about or read of an intolerant christian act, I know that I am to blame, as are all of Us (Christians).

  Religion has caused much pain in this world and much joy, there is no denying that and while the pain gets more publicity that is rightly so and I will tell you why:

  Even though we are failed and fallen and being a christian doesn't make one any better, it just helps us to realise that we are NOt ANY better and that we need Christ to get better. It also reminds us that we are al in this together and responsible for each other and that teh Grace of God given to us freely makes us aware that we shoudl hold ourselves to a HIGHER STANDARD - we should love more, give more, be more not becauyse we HAVE TO , but because God did that for us and the LEAST we can do is tha same for each other, out of Love.

  A christian pedophile is far worse than one that refuse to accept a moral code that keeps him from being a pedophile, because a Christian is suppose to KNOW BETTER.
• 

  Nickolas

  A christian pedophile is far worse than one that refuse to accept a moral code that keeps him from being a pedophile, because a Christian is suppose to KNOW BETTER

  you see, that's where we have a disconnect. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless of what he believes. I understand and agree that Christianity has provided a moral compass for many people, that they would be inclined to be immoral, even evil, without it. All that means is that their morality is artificial and they are immoral or evil people at the core of themselves. If they lose their faith, a not unusual occurance among Christians, they may be expected to do objectionable things. Religion was probably the single greatest contributor to the civilisation of the human species, but we have matured. I for one no longer need the threat of punishment or promise of eternal reward to be a moral individual. The source of my morality is my love for my fellow human beings and the sense of inner peace it brings me to follow the golden rule. The golden rule is the only moral compass you need.
• 

  PSacramento

  you see, that's where we have a disconnect. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless of what he believes. I understand and agree that Christianity has provided a moral compass for many people, that they would be inclined to be immoral, even evil, without it. All that means is that their morality is artificial and they are immoral or evil people at the core of themselves. If they lose their faith, a not unusual occurance among Christians, they may be expected to do objectionable things. Religion was probably the single greatest contributor to the civilisation of the human species, but we have matured. I for one no longer need the threat of punishment or promise of eternal reward to be a moral individual. The source of my morality is my love for my fellow human beings and the sense of inner peace it brings me to follow the golden rule. The golden rule is the only moral compass you need.

  First off, Christianity doesn't say "be moral or else", it says be good as God is good and be good out of lov, not for a reward ( that is alreay yours) but out of love and for Christianity that is the STARTING place, not the end. Much like the "golden rule" is the starting place and not the end.

  It is not that human would be immoral without God, it's that God shows us what is and is not moral ( not getting into the argument of the immoral acts attributed to God in the OT) and without God, there is no "judgment" on what is or isn't moral.

  You said that the source of your morality is love fro your fellow man and so forth and THAT, my dear friend, is the heart of Christianity ( or should be), the thing is that Christianity tells us WHY it is so ( Because of God), not just that it IS so, know what I mean?

  I have never been afraid of "hell", and still am not, I don't try to be good because I want a reward or don't want to "burn in hell", since I don't believe in "that hell". Hell is nothing to me.

  God's love is everything to me and that love for God and God's love for me is what makes me love my fellow man, even the ones that hate and want to hurt me and those I love ( no, I won't let them do that, but I will still love them for being my brothers and sisters).
• 

  Nickolas

  ( not getting into the argument of the immoral acts attributed to God in the OT)

  An observation not unique to my own is that many Christians dismiss the immorality of the OT by pointing out that the Law has been superceded and one must look to the NT for guidance on morality. But it seems that the long arm of the OT repeatedly reaches forward into the NT to remind us what God really wants. In Acts 12:21-23 Harrod is struck down by an angel and eaten by worms because he didn't praise God. In Acts 5:1-10 a property owner sold his land and delivered most of the cash to the Apostles, but because he kept some of it for himself he and his wife were struck down and killed. In Luke 9:59-62 a man whose father has just died wishes to bury him first before following Christ but is told to let the dead take care of themselves and ordered to go out and prosthelytise, another man who wishes to say goodbye to his family is similarly instructed. In Luke 14:26 Jesus tells his followers to hate their families and their own lives if they wish to follow him. In Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus proclaims that he has come not to bring peace but to turn family members against one another. In Luke 18:29-30 Jesus promises eternal reward for those who leave their wives and children to follow him. In Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 we see the mysogeny of the NT, where women are commanded to be in subjection to their husbands and in 1 Timothy 2:9 they are instructed how they may dress themselves. Mark 7:9–13 and Matthew 15:4–7 reach back into the OT to rehash the admonition that children who do not honour their parents should be put to death. Same goes for Matthew 5:18–19, Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, and John 7:19 in which the currency of the old Law is not dismissed but affirmed. And we don't even have to get into the glorious destruction of billions depicted in Revelation.
• 

  sabastious

  An observation not unique to my own is that many Christians dismiss the immorality of the OT by pointing out that the Law has been superceded and one must look to the NT for guidance on morality.

  Jesus knew it was all bunk, think about it, if he was a smart man and he read the OT he'd have the same reaction as you and I Nick. It's got a lot of hogwosh in it. That's why Jesus did away with it almost completely.

  I suspect his first question was something along the lines of

  "Why do we cut our foreskin off? Wouldn't it be easy on our ears if we got rid of that custom? I mean if I hear another newborn shrieking out in pain in the middle of the night, by God, I am going to start a revolution!"

  -Sab