|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 29, 2006 6:42:25 GMT -5
This came up in another thread, and since it seems to be a running theme lately, I thought we should address the subject directly. I dont agree with the first part of your response. God inspired the bible - I believe that some of the bible is indeed as holy as the holy Quran. But some of it is not, some of it is just garbage that men have inserted. Okay, let's run with that. Who determines what is holy and what is "garbage"? On what basis is that determined? What should be the criteria for what is in the Bible and what is not? And how do you know that the "men" who "inserted" what is in our Bible today did not use this criteria (or a better one)?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 30, 2006 8:09:17 GMT -5
Wow... I thought as often as this has been coming up someone would have an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 30, 2006 13:20:54 GMT -5
Well my view is nothing new.
God talked to prophets they wrote stuff down. Some of it got put into the Bible. The Bible did not come down to us without errors or omissions, but on the whole is a great book with tons of Gods wisdom. It does not hold an exclusive right to this status though.
I've heard lots of stories about how the books for the NT where chosen (most blaming Constantine) I'm not sure I believe any of them though.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Aug 31, 2006 1:47:29 GMT -5
Yeah... they just don't hold water when you actually study history.
Meantime, there is no question that the books of the Bible were determined through men. They didn't just pop together and fall from Heaven. But if you look into who those men were and what decisions they were making at the time, we discover that their criteria was more stringent than any that could be applied today.
|
|
|
Post by theodore on Aug 31, 2006 14:30:07 GMT -5
God talked to prophets they wrote stuff down. Some of it got put into the Bible. The Bible did not come down to us without errors or omissions, but on the whole is a great book with tons of Gods wisdom. It does not hold an exclusive right to this status though. I've heard lots of stories about how the books for the NT where chosen (most blaming Constantine) I'm not sure I believe any of them though. What makes you think that God stopped talking to people? The Bible is so old and fragmented that trying to accurately determine the deep spiritual meanings is very difficult. This is one of the reasons that there are so many different interpretations of the book. Each person thinks that their particular belief is the only real truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that the New Testament contains many solid spiritual principals. The problem is that it was disseminated to a people of a different era. What the people of that time could generally grasp is far less than what people are now capable of understanding. Although the truths are timeless, they are rather limited in their scope. God has spoken through many people since the time of Jesus. God speaks, or I should say communicates, with all of us although most people don’t recognize the message. The “prophets” are merely those who provide a clear channel for the message. God isn’t making a secret of the meaning of life. “Seek and ye shall find” is an absolutely true statement. The only prerequisite is to have an open and inquisitive mind.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Aug 31, 2006 17:08:03 GMT -5
I never said God was not speaking to men now.
But the last books of the Bible where written 1900 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Sept 1, 2006 6:41:24 GMT -5
What makes you think that God stopped talking to people? The Bible is so old and fragmented that trying to accurately determine the deep spiritual meanings is very difficult. This is one of the reasons that there are so many different interpretations of the book. Each person thinks that their particular belief is the only real truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that the New Testament contains many solid spiritual principals. The problem is that it was disseminated to a people of a different era. What the people of that time could generally grasp is far less than what people are now capable of understanding. Although the truths are timeless, they are rather limited in their scope. God has spoken through many people since the time of Jesus. God speaks, or I should say communicates, with all of us although most people don’t recognize the message. The “prophets” are merely those who provide a clear channel for the message. God isn’t making a secret of the meaning of life. “Seek and ye shall find” is an absolutely true statement. The only prerequisite is to have an open and inquisitive mind. Theodore, all of what you wrote here is true and is the best argument (to my mind) for the necessity of God's Church.
|
|
|
Post by theodore on Sept 1, 2006 14:01:22 GMT -5
Theodore, all of what you wrote here is true and is the best argument (to my mind) for the necessity of God's Church. I would venture to guess that your definition of Gods Church and mine would be somewhat different. I have come to realize that there is no "one size fits all" Truth. Everyone is at a different point in their spiritual evolution and sees the world differently. What resonates with me doesn’t necessarily resonate with you. What is real for you may not be real to me. You asked the questions: “Who determines what is holy and what is "garbage"? On what basis is that determined? What should be the criteria for what is in the Bible and what is not? And how do you know that the "men" who "inserted" what is in our Bible today did not use this criteria (or a better one)?” These are excellent questions. What better way to answer them than to study as many theologies available in order to determine what makes sense and what doesn’t. To study other sources that are claimed to be the word of God and see if they agree or disagree with what is in the Bible. As you may have noticed, I don’t always agree with the church’s (Christianity in general) interpretation of scripture. This is partly due to finding out about all the parts that were not included in the Bible, and partly due to seeing how the church has had to fabricated bits of “scripture” to make up for it. The church, in many cases, then seals the deal by saying that the Bible is the ONLY true word of God and everything else is the work of Satan. This is utter horse droppings. There is much more to God and the meaning of life than is expounded on in the Bible. That’s why I would encourage a broad range of study to determine which path fits best.
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Sept 5, 2006 15:51:51 GMT -5
But the last books of the Bible where written 1900 years ago. That brings me to my next question. Who was it that decided that people should call it quits and stop adding to the Bible? And let's say God is still speaking to the people... would there be any new messages? Or are humans so predictable that no matter which time period, or which point in the evolution of human history that the same message is and must be iterated?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Sept 6, 2006 4:45:19 GMT -5
Tara, no one decided that people should stop adding to the Bible. That's not how it happened.
What happened is that the leaders of the Church disputed what should be considered canonical for more than 400 years. All that time, there were many versions with more or less the same books included floating around the world. By the time St. Jerome compiled the Latin Vulgate, there was general consensus over what should be included, and his Pope (Damasus I) instructed him to do so... which he did (even though he didn't entirely agree with all of them). But none of that was done overnight either -- St. Jerome worked on the Latin Vulgate for 30 years.
The canon as it is known today has, for the most part, been in use ever since in the Catholic Church. In 1442 (about a THOUSAND years after St. Jerome), the Council of Florence listed the books of the Bible and attested to their inspiration by the Holy Spirit, but did not deem it necessary to close the Canon.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, Protestants in the 16th century opted to remove books from the Bible (which is strange, considering they are the ones who insist on the Bible as the "sole authority" for Christian faith). As far as I can tell, they removed the books because they didn't agree with what was in them. It's all very bizarre.
Anyway, because of this, the Church had to clarify what comprises the Canon of the New Testament. So in 1546, the Council of Trent promulgated an official decree, reiterating the list from the Council of Florence exactly, but this time making it very clear that nothing is to be removed from Sacred Scripture.
Now, none of that precludes God speaking to people. However, it is believed that the time of the Apostles and those called the Early Church Fathers was a very special time in which God was guiding men to pen the books of the Bible. No Council was ever convened to say that this stopped -- it was generally agreed upon by educated Christians at the time. The only reason the Canon was formally closed at all is that Protestant reformers insisted on removing from it.
|
|
|
Post by theodore on Sept 6, 2006 17:15:49 GMT -5
That brings me to my next question. Who was it that decided that people should call it quits and stop adding to the Bible? And let's say God is still speaking to the people... would there be any new messages? Or are humans so predictable that no matter which time period, or which point in the evolution of human history that the same message is and must be iterated? The chance of anything being added to the Bible at this point in history are slim to none. There are plenty of instances of God speaking to people. God has been talking to humanity since the dawn of time. The book “Conversations with God” is but one of many books of this type. I am reading “Emmanuel’s Book” right now which an absolutely beautiful book.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Sept 6, 2006 18:22:16 GMT -5
I read Conversations with God in 1998, I think... not long before I became Christian. All in all, I enjoyed it... but the sexual aspects put me off. Having come out of a period of promiscuity, I knew he was dead wrong about that. And if that, who knows what else?
It didn't take me long to find a better Way...
|
|
|
Post by theodore on Sept 6, 2006 19:35:54 GMT -5
I read Conversations with God in 1998, I think... not long before I became Christian. All in all, I enjoyed it... but the sexual aspects put me off. Having come out of a period of promiscuity, I knew he was dead wrong about that. And if that, who knows what else? It didn't take me long to find a better Way... I don't remember him advocating promiscuity. He said that sex was a natural function between people and should not carry the stigma of being dirty or morally wrong. Misusing sex, like anything else, will create problems. But sex, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Sept 7, 2006 4:47:52 GMT -5
We are going several years back for me. But I do remember that I read it at a time when I had no problem with promiscuity and that reading his book and seeing him not discourage the behavior was an eye-opener. I just knew he was wrong... and the recognition of it was strong enough for me to begin changing my lifestyle.
I should have found what he wrote encouraging, but it had the opposite effect, even though ultimately it meant I stood condemned.
Abortifacient contraception is as much murder as abortion is. Other contraception is as much an affront to God's intended purpose of human sexuality (as unitive and procreative) as abuse of sexuality. I don't say these things to condemn anyone else -- I say them because they are true, and I stand condemned as a result. I would help anyone avoid that path if I could. Unfortunately I am often misinterpreted as being "holier than thou" when nothing could be further from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by theodore on Sept 7, 2006 14:48:42 GMT -5
We are going several years back for me. But I do remember that I read it at a time when I had no problem with promiscuity and that reading his book and seeing him not discourage the behavior was an eye-opener. I just knew he was wrong... and the recognition of it was strong enough for me to begin changing my lifestyle. I should have found what he wrote encouraging, but it had the opposite effect, even though ultimately it meant I stood condemned. Abortifacient contraception is as much murder as abortion is. Other contraception is as much an affront to God's intended purpose of human sexuality (as unitive and procreative) as abuse of sexuality. I don't say these things to condemn anyone else -- I say them because they are true, and I stand condemned as a result. I would help anyone avoid that path if I could. Unfortunately I am often misinterpreted as being "holier than thou" when nothing could be further from the truth. His explanation of sexual expression between two people was based on our desire to become “one” with another. In other words, we all have a deep seated desire to reunite and become one with God. In many ways, a sexual union is a result of that longing to become one. When the physical desire is added to the spiritual longing it becomes a powerful drive to consummate a passionate union. We long for that intimacy. The book is merely saying that this is a natural human condition and nothing to be ashamed about. God is saying that we feel this way because that’s the way He made it. How can He make a moral judgment and say that sex is wrong when He designed it this way in the first place? Same thing with abortion. God does not condemn us for making decisions he provides for us. Abortion, like everything else in this world, is only morally wrong if we decide it is. God will not give us the option to do anything He doesn’t want us to. Think about that! If a woman terminates a pregnancy, what does that mean? It means the physical life of an unborn soul has been ended. Has that soul died? No Can that soul have another chance to live a physical life? Absolutely. Has any permanent damage been done? No. People will continue to have sex and make babies by the millions. They all need souls. So where does the condemnation come from? Man’s ignorance. In thinking that a soul only has one shot at life, the horror of a life being cut short in the womb is born. “Thou shall not kill” rings as a false indictment and condemnation of every woman who has had an abortion. Ignorance of the true nature of this world is the only “crime” here. God puts us in this “disposable” world to learn and make mistakes. Whatever we do here has no permanent effect other that the spiritual growth we take with us. Everything here is ultimately disposable, even our bodies. We can all die in a thousand different ways, so why would abortion be any different? I don’t advocate abortion, but I also don’t think it’s a reason for condemnation. Self forgiveness is a much healthier remedy than condemnation.
|
|