What If We Are Wrong?, Enter if you dare but don't be offended

I agree Antwn.

I think the only thig I would add is that many who demand respect for their religion do not extend the same expected respect to others.

I would say it is less about respecting someonesle's beliefs and more about respecting their RIGHT to belive as they wish. But should be a mutual respect. you cannot expect someone to respect your right to belive if you deny him that right.

By virtue of the fact that one is able to conceive of a belief he has the right to it. Who has the ability to deny anyone the right to believe anything? How's that possible? No one controls your mental choices, therefore its a moot point. Its like the phrase "having a right to one's opinion" - your ability to formulate an opinion ensures your right to have one. No one can remove that ability, you either engage it or pretend you don't have it, therefore the phrase "having a right to an opinion/belief" makes no sense.

When I said respect, I did not meen ignorance. We have come to the crux of the matter here. There are many religions in our world. Many of them sound familiar. (my personal research is definatly not exhaustive) Some (ie christianity, judaism, islam, etc) say that there is 1 way to heaven. This is exclusive, it means that according to our beliefs and the BIBLE that other people are wrong. Nobody likes to here that they are wrong and this justifiably stirs up emotion. I have had the phrase, "you need to respect my beliefs" thrown at me. But, by my understanding of how to get to heaven, my saying, "your belierfs won't get you to heaven" is a sign of respect (depending on how its said) I care enough about you as a human to take the time to try to show you the right way according to my beliefs. What you (generic person) do with that is up to each, but just because a person believes differently doesn't mean that I stop thinking they are wrong. I respect their belief by pointing out any obvious problems it has.

Back to the Bible and sin.
First off I only quoted a few verses about a very expansive topic. The Bible says all have sinned (everybody) Me, you the person down the street. There is nothing we can do about it. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY one who can fix that. In the new testament there are many verses that talk about how a christian should nolonger sin. We are imperfect though, and still sin. YEs all christians go to heaven. The bible also talks about treasures that we earn in heaven.

I ran out of time to finish my earlier thought
The bible (especially New Testament) talks a lot about the continual conflict between sin and righteousness. That topic should probably go into another thread though as it is a huge arena.

How is the Bible subjective?

Subjective as defined my Miriam Webster's online:

3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

If the ideas held in the Bible are subjective, then it is an amazing coincedence that there are that many human authors who write about the exact same ideas and share the same philosophy over a few thousand years. Plus 2timothy 3:16 says that God wrote the bible "all scripture is God breathed....." That is, coming directly from God. He also said he would preserve it. There are more copies of the Bible, which are essentially unchanged, than any other ancient document in the world. If anyone is in a position to know right and wrong it is God.

btw how did we go from "what if we are wrong" to discussions about sin?

I believe that the bible is subjective for the following reasons:

First, it was recorded by people. Regardless of whether these people heard every word of the bible from God or not, in order for the bible to be a completely objective piece of material on God's word the recorders would have to have written everythign down just as God intended, with no interpretation of their own on events or what God was saying. I do not believe this happened.

The other part of this is I have to believe that everything in the Bible is only what God intended to be there and no additions by anyone else who either: a)had an agenda in adding something or b)thought they were hearing God when really they were mentally ill or c)recorded things second, third, etc hand or d) any other reason besides actual divine inspiration.

I also believe the Bible is subjective because even if everything in the Bible is objective recordings as God intended, people interpret the Bible differently. The factioning of the Christian Religions is only one part of this. People also believe very strongly in certain aspects of the bible and not others. Transubstatiation, what it takes to enter heaven, homosexuality, contraceptives, etc are all interpreted differently by different people and groups. Many things in the bible are agreed upon, but many are not.

That is why I believe the Bible is subjective.

Then it would be the people talking about the bible, not the bible itself that is subjective.
Is it correct to assume that a person who believes this way does not believe in an all powerful God that can work outside the known standards of science?

undoubtedly there were other witnesses to the same events that wrote their experiences down, but the ones collected into the Bible are the ones given authority for near 2000 years.

My belief is that an all powerful God selected these writings from any others because they say what he wants them to say. The way they understood their experiences was the correct way and the way that God wanted people to remember. Look at some of the writers: Moses, chosen to lead an entire nation out of captivity. David, king who the bible calls- A man after God's own heart. Mathew & John: 2 of Jesus' desciples that spent a lot of time with Him. Peter: also 1 of the 12 who later went all over the roman empire preaching. Saul (Paul) a member of one of the strictest sects of the Jews who converted to christianity

I think these people were in a good position to know God.

Not to wax theological, but I peter tells us that the Scripture was given by God to holy men of old and that it is of no private interpretation. There are many applications of Scripture, but only one interpretation. This is where all the conflicts arise.

I believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible. God was able to use individuals from all walks of life, most of whom did not know each other personally, and make a book with a common thread: the way of redemption for man.

Have a great day, all!

If mankind follows the basic teachings of most major religions; ie: do unto others as ye would have done unto you...

...Some religions extend this amentity to conver all aspects of life, animal, plant, etc...

...then this world would not be in the throws of inilation it now finds itself very near too...

I quote my great uncle the Jesuit... "Jesus lifted a rock and said " Behold the kindom of God our father."

This quote is in a scripture that the bishops of long ago decided did not fit their needs to control the masses.

All biblical verse we have today has been edited and twisted to fit the needs of the "church", just as the Koran is beeing distorted and used to fuel the hatred of christians and democrocy!

I am off my soapbox now. LOL!

Hi Shadows.

Don't' always agree with your posts, but always enjoy reading them.

I agree with you to a point on verses being twisted, but that depends on the version of the Bible that you use. Not to get ridiculously technical, but the Antiochian textual family is, IMHO, the best lineage for Biblical translation. The Alexandrian family has been corrupted and is unreliable. Most versions that twist Scriptures come form that family.

Take care and have a great day!

Not to be combative or disagreeing, but...

The christian church back in the "I forget the dates right now somewhere in the late 100's" had a council of bishops that sat down and decided what would be and would not be considered "the word of God".

To me this is not the word of God, but rather the words of man being described as the "word".

There are ancient texts coming to light today that refute as well as confirm some of the words of God.

divine insite is a self proclaimed trait and not all that say they speak the word of God or interpret the ancient verses as "gospel" can trusted.

One needs to go back to the ancient sources and read for themselves before one can make a truly " enlightened" decision on what is real and what is not...

In my opinion anything that has passed through man's hands since the origin of these texts ( most were written centuries after your saviours death ) can not be trusteds due to the "hand of man".

I honor your opinion and beliefs, but see fault in the centuries of manipulation of the words no matter what school of biblical study one follows.

Religion is like government; both are forms of control by appeasement.

Shadows, I do not consider what you are saying to be combative. I don't agree with you, but you are a gentleman and civil. I enjoy the dialog and thanks for your input.

I won't get into a debate on dating the writing of Scriptures. The Syriac and other versions can be traced to the Textus Receptus. As for the newer documents coming to light, one has to look at the presuppositions of the translators. John the Apostle had an ongoing battle with Gnosticism and other heresies. Many newly discovered ancient texts come from the Alexandrian school of thought. As you have eloquently stated, (in so many words) men mess up what God means for good. The tracing of the steps that brought about the Scriptures is actually a fascinating study. The councils that determined canonicity (and you're right! Who can remember the dates ) were not a group of "fly by nighters" who made arbitrary decisions. It is obviously way too detailed to go into on this forum, but a neat study, nonetheless. I would be interested in the references you have looked at in your research and would gladly share the same with you.

I also dislike religion in general. I am an Independent (non-denominational) Baptist and find many churches today in that control mode you speak of. I have had the joy, though, of being involved with churches that care about people more than they do their social standing or offerings. There is a man I am working with now who is wrecked by alcohol and is trying to save is marriage. It is a challenge, but the Scriptures have given him hope and made a difference.

Enjoy the debate, my friend! Have a good day and thanks for bringing these things up.

i've enjoyed reading all the posts regarding some of fundamental religious questions. i think it is wonderful that we can all have so many different viewpoints but can still share them with respect and kindness. if only the rest of the world were that way. sometimes it's difficult to see good people with hard times, disease, war, crime, corruption, etc., and be able to see that while God is perfect, people are not. He loves us, so He allows us to make choices as we strive to become more like him. Not all of our choices are good, and some are truly horrific.
i am comforted by the knowledge that He loves us and will bless us for the righteous choices that we make, regardless of our religion. And yes, I am a member of an organized Christian religion with defined doctrine, and I do believe that it is the truth of the gospel, that it is the one true church on earth today. However, I also know that our Father in Heaven is a merciful God, and will not 'condemn' anyone to hell simply because they were raised differently or have not come to a knowledge of the truth. All will have the chance to know and accept the gospel, whether in this life or the next, and will be judged on that and on the quality of their life on earth. There are many so-called "Christians" that do not live what Christ taught, that commit unspeakable evil, that are more likely to feel the wrath of God than are good Muslims (or Buddhists, or whatever) that live good lives according to how they have been taught. In the grand scheme of things, I am grateful for a loving Father that will do what is best for us. saves me a lot of worry.

I believe you're referring to the councils of Nicea, right? If you do a Google search using the keywords "Nicea council" you'll find several entries from which to begin your research. The first was in the year 325, the second in 787.