Does anyone here take the bible completely litteraly

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: windword

I guess if that's what you have to tell yourself to keep with your dogma that the Bible is the infallible word of God......

Did you even read my post?

I read this:

There's a condition snuck in there. What you're asking for has to be consistent with God's... "essence" (I guess) or you're not going to get it. It must "glorify the Father".

If that's what you have to tell yourself to justify why prayers aren't being answered.........

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NthOther

So then you admit that Jesus does not answer all prayer as the Bible says.

If it'll make you happy, sure.

But I don't pray to Jesus, so how the hell should I know? Like I said, I'm not a Christian. I have no real stake in defending the Bible from your "gotcha-ism".

I just don't like bullies.

a reply to: NthOther

There's a condition snuck in there. What you're asking for has to be consistent with God's... "essence" (I guess) or you're not going to get it. It must "glorify the Father".

I think the point here by Jesus was that he is the intermediary between God and man.
Whatever you would ask God for, you would ask Jesus for.
Maybe the other aspect is his role as Messiah, where that would be his job, but was thought of before as something he would do as a more ordinary king.
The unusual thing about Jesus' messiahship was his doing it from Heaven, with yet another kind of intermediary between them and him, the "Spirit of truth" or Advocate.

a reply to: NthOther

You think I'm a bully? Funny, because the posted question and comments were about my being bullied by that very scripture. People use that scripture to blame people for their ills, saying "If only you had enough faith"...... or, use it to proselytize and as a bribe to become a Christian.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NthOther

You think I'm a bully? Funny, because the posted question and comments were about my being bullied by that very scripture.

I'm sorry. I don't think you're a bully. It was entirely the wrong word. Vindictive? I don't know.

People use that scripture to blame people for their ills, saying "If only you had enough faith"...... or, use it to proselytize and as a bribe to become a Christian.

That's why I'm not a Christian. "By their fruit ye shall know them."

If they had a lower case version of Christian (christian), much like Libertarian/libertarian, then I guess I'd be ok with that.

Dig the core principles, hate the party.

a reply to: borntowatch

The majority of all your examples are not literal.The dilemma is the old and new testimony scriptures are not about moral and ethical religious doctrines.Those are extrapolated to create the doctrines of men which is religion.

The old testimony is mostly a history (not written as a strict history) about a nation of people called Israel.The new testimony centers around a man named Yahoshua of Nazareth.

Both the new and old testimony are about one thing and and have one purpose only.The proclaiming of the coming of the Kingdom of the creator God through Yahoshua.That is all both testimony testify of.Yahoshua means Yahweh (the creator God) is salvation…which means deliverance.The Yahoshua is that ALL of mankind will be delivered from the realm of death.That's the Good News.

The good news has NOTHING to do with ANY religion.It is the antithesis of religion.Part of the salvation process(it is a process not an event) is being delivered from your religion.ALL of mankind's nature is religion.

The amalgamation of all of your experiences form your faith in "your" Belief System which is your religion.The problem is that belief is false no matter what it is.Mankind CANNOT perceive (know) the truth through a Belief System… they can only believe.

That is the reason all of the interpretations of the scriptures are false.They are "believed IN faith through the persons Belief System.

Well even if a person is shown that does not mean that they will have anything other than their word and a strong desire to convince others without proof. Yes i know for sure but did not take pics so to most nothing happened but just imagine for a moment that you were in my shoes cause i feel i know very well what it would be like to go through life believing that the majority of people believe in something false and the ones that are more convinced are just having some mental issues.

Now the real question i think is why set it up in a way that is unverifible for most. What would be the gain. I would say that the reason is that faith can be measured and collected as energy. So knowing would destroy the gap in between knowing and not knowing we call faith. To me it is not hard to imagine a technology that could create everything we see. It is really just a matter of time and perhaps we have already past that point and came back around to something that has taken place already.

a reply to: borntowatch

This is a fallacy. Poor attempt at trolling bud.

a reply to: FlyersFan
Excellent point well made,
ALL religions are based on faith so for all the people that constantly ask for proof,,,,,it is never going to happen, ever that is why its called faith and not fact.
Those people that find comfort in religion should be regarded as luck I think, you have something that makes you feel better, does not have to cost money and you have a larger support net work around you.

I am not a believer although I went to RC school and served as an alter boy for years.
Why people have to attempt to belittle those that do believe is beyond me how does ANY of it effect you?
Or is it just an easy target and you can feel a little superior in a pointless argument?

originally posted by: shayhorse
ALL religions are based on faith so for all the people that constantly ask for proof,,,,,it is never going to happen, ever that is why its called faith and not fact.

Yup, there's no good reason to believe it, and yet people still do. 'Faith' is nothing but gullibility.

Those people that find comfort in religion should be regarded as luck I think, you have something that makes you feel better, does not have to cost money and you have a larger support net work around you.

Ignorance is bliss I guess, and it all comes down to whether or not you care if the things you believe are true or not.

Why people have to attempt to belittle those that do believe is beyond me how does ANY of it effect you?

Yeah, because religion and the religious have no influence on every else right? There aren't religious people attempting to legislate laws based on their holy books that tell other people (regardless of whether or not you also believe) what they believe they should be able to do or not do. And the spread of misleading and dangerous information such as telling the people living in AIDS-riddled Africa that condoms are bad and can increase the chances of infection.

The day they stop doing that, stop indoctrinating children, stop mutilating childrens genitals and the day they stop killing one another all in the name of their own geographically selected entity is the day they'll deserve respect (in my eyes at least).

Or is it just an easy target and you can feel a little superior in a pointless argument?

Well undoubtedly it is an easy target, and yet those who can throw reality out of the window and believe bad things for no good reason can be truly fascinating.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yup, there's no good reason to believe it, and yet people still do. 'Faith' is nothing but gullibility.

The word Faith, based on the New Testament usage, is a term for a larger thing that has as its entrée, a simple belief, but which opens up into a lifestyle facilitated by a spiritual connection with the object of belief, specifically, in the case of Christianity, the person of Jesus Christ, which in turn of course connects us to the spirit of God Himself.
There is in this environment a richness of blessing that is beyond what can be accounted for by the assumption of mere gullibility.

Ignorance is bliss I guess, and it all comes down to whether or not you care if the things you believe are true or not.

Ignorance can also result in lack of belief, such as accepting blindly the claim of some that there was no actual person, Jesus.

. . . stop killing one another all in the name of their own geographically selected entity . . .

Obviously there are false religions out there.
The way to deal with that, in my opinion, is to teach the true religion.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
The word Faith, based on the New Testament usage, is a term for a larger thing that has as its entrée, a simple belief, but which opens up into a lifestyle facilitated by a spiritual connection with the object of belief, specifically, in the case of Christianity, the person of Jesus Christ, which in turn of course connects us to the spirit of God Himself.

Well then those that wrote/translated these books have done it incorrectly. What you have described is not, in any definition of the word, faith.

However most people and most Christians do use the word faith correctly and in the definition I described, as it perfectly describes their attitudes. Whereas your definition smacks of a desperate attempt to move in the opposite direction with slightly more credibility.

There is in this environment a richness of blessing that is beyond what can be accounted for by the assumption of mere gullibility.

A richness of blessing? Youre not in the pulpit and you don't have to speak like you're in one. Do you mean the feelings people get when they pray/attend services etc? do you have evidence? as feelings are not good reason.

Ignorance can also result in lack of belief, such as accepting blindly the claim of some that there was no actual person, Jesus.

Perhaps you can illuminate the rest of the world with whatever information/evidence you have that will ensure it does not result in a 'lack of belief'?

such as accepting blindly the claim of some that there was no actual person, Jesus.

Not many would argue with you over whether or not there was a person called Jesus, but many would over your claim that such a person was the son of god that's also his own father and who created the universe. It's a claim that has no evidence and can only be accepted 'blindly'

Obviously there are false religions out there.
The way to deal with that, in my opinion, is to teach the true religion.

Find me a religious person that doesn't also think they've found the one true religion....

a reply to: Prezbo369

Well then those that wrote/translated these books have done it incorrectly. What you have described is not, in any definition of the word, faith.

Paul was writing in the common form of Greek, so he wasn't actually using the word "faith" but something that has been translated into that English word.
So he wasn't consulting the dictionary for the right word to use.
Back then, there wasn't so many words to use like we do today, where we use load words from a lot of different languages to express different connotations.
People were used to just using idioms instead, and look to the context as a way to figure out what the writer or speaker meant.

Whereas your definition smacks of a desperate attempt to move in the opposite direction with slightly more credibility.

I hope I do have some credibility, and it comes from reading a lot of Bible commentaries and studies of things in the Bible.

Youre not in the pulpit and you don't have to speak like you're in one.

There is a use for pulpits because someone needs to say what others need to hear.
If someone else was saying those things, I would just sit back and listen.

Do you mean the feelings people get when they pray/attend services etc? do you have evidence? as feelings are not good reason.

Not just that, but it is part of it.
There are actual results from prayer, and it is something that comes from personal experience, which is probably only evidence for myself, but it means I am not speaking hollow words here, but about things that I know.

Perhaps you can illuminate the rest of the world with whatever information/evidence you have that will ensure it does not result in a 'lack of belief'?

Some of the biggest skeptics admit that there was a Jesus, they just choose not to believe what they see as the hype about him.

Not many would argue with you over whether or not there was a person called Jesus, but many would over your claim that such a person was the son of god that's also his own father and who created the universe. It's a claim that has no evidence and can only be accepted 'blindly'

I think some of that is accepted blindly, as you say, but I don't see it as being all that relevant. What you want is real results, and someone who you can trust, and who is just plain good.
I am satisfied with what I have found, concerning someone who fulfills what I consider as the requirements of a God.

Find me a religious person that doesn't also think they've found the one true religion....

False religions exist for a reason because they satisfy psychological needs in the people who adopt them, where they allow evil as sanctioned by this religion.
A true religion is not going to be popular with evil people because it takes away their permissions.
Actual good people at heart will recognize the true religion when confronted with it because it will only be goodness inside.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
Paul was writing in the common form of Greek, so he wasn't actually using the word "faith" but something that has been translated into that English word.
So he wasn't consulting the dictionary for the right word to use.
Back then, there wasn't so many words to use like we do today, where we use load words from a lot of different languages to express different connotations.
People were used to just using idioms instead, and look to the context as a way to figure out what the writer or speaker meant.

Completely irrelevant JM, from what your saying the bible is incorrect at least in it's translation.

I hope I do have some credibility, and it comes from reading a lot of Bible commentaries and studies of things in the Bible.

Not on this issue, IMO.

There is a use for pulpits because someone needs to say what others need to hear.
If someone else was saying those things, I would just sit back and listen.

Im sure you would, but when people attempt to speak as though they're characters in the bible, it just comes across as contrived.

Not just that, but it is part of it.
There are actual results from prayer, and it is something that comes from personal experience, which is probably only evidence for myself, but it means I am not speaking hollow words here, but about things that I know.

Personal testimony on 'supernatural' claims such as this are pretty worthless, but you know this. It's why you don't believe the claims made by members of other religions/cults that are made constantly.

Some of the biggest skeptics admit that there was a Jesus, they just choose not to believe what they see as the hype about him.

By 'hype' I assume you are referring to the claims of supernatural powers?

There's no 'choosing' to believe as such claims require evidence, hearsay isn't enough.

I think some of that is accepted blindly, as you say, but I don't see it as being all that relevant. What you want is real results, and someone who you can trust, and who is just plain good.
I am satisfied with what I have found, concerning someone who fulfills what I consider as the requirements of a God.

Even if I were to accept your claims, I wouldn't consider your god to be someone/thing that is plain good nor trustworthy, but that another thread.

False religions exist for a reason because they satisfy psychological needs in the people who adopt them, where they allow evil as sanctioned by this religion.
A true religion is not going to be popular with evil people because it takes away their permissions.
Actual good people at heart will recognize the true religion when confronted with it because it will only be goodness inside.

I'm sure people from every religion that has ever existed have said the exact same thing...

a reply to: Prezbo369I just noticed a typo in my earlier post.
I meant loan words (not load words). Oops.

Completely irrelevant JM, from what your saying the bible is incorrect at least in it's translation.

I'm saying there are limits built into translations by the very nature of them.
And that Paul had a limited vocabulary with which to work with when he was writing what is now part of the New Testament.
Biblical scholars understand these nuances now, and if you are reading a Bible commentary that doesn't get that, then you need to switch to a better one that is up to date on advancements in NT studies.

Not on this issue, IMO.

I think I do because I have made it a special study for forty years, since I was involved in a cult based on misusing the word Faith as used by Paul in the NT.
So I was disagreeing with your claim that most people use it correctly, as if Paul wasn't.

Im sure you would, but when people attempt to speak as though they're characters in the bible, it just comes across as contrived.

Its pretty difficult to talk about experiences in a very positive way without sounding like an advertisement.
It is easier to be negative, and takes little effort to seem sincere.

Personal testimony on 'supernatural' claims such as this are pretty worthless, but you know this.

If I knew you, and we were having a personal conversation, I could get into some experiences but I don't very much on the internet because of all the people and situations involved.

It's why you don't believe the claims made by members of other religions/cults that are made constantly.

Don't be so sure. Can you actually quote me being negative about someone else's spiritual experiences?
OK, I just thought of one but all I was doing was offering that voices in your head are not necessarily the voice of God.

By 'hype' I assume you are referring to the claims of supernatural powers?

I think you are on the right track.

There's no 'choosing' to believe as such claims require evidence, hearsay isn't enough.

I'm sorry that you don't feel like there is.
I don't think that I ever questioned it.
I have always had the feeling like I just left Heaven, and remember God's face.

Even if I were to accept your claims, I wouldn't consider your god to be someone/thing that is plain good nor trustworthy, but that another thread.

Just buying someone else's god doesn't work.
The whole point is to come to your own knowledge.

I'm sure people from every religion that has ever existed have said the exact same thing...

You have to free yourself from that, sort of like what Rex282 says on this forum, where there is a point to it that I think is true.

a reply to: Prezbo369
I think it says more about people of every race, creed or color can be greedy and abuse power.
The Crusades were no more about spreading the good book as Iraq was about WMD`s its just a means to an end for those that can.
However I do think its poor form to make fun or belittle the belief of others, if it gives comfort brilliant of course this must also mean that no others can be harmed by it? f you are making yourself feel better by causing pain or suffering to others I would suggest that the person is already flawed and that religion is just an excuse to not face the fact they are a dick.

Many people hold up the shambles that has been the way claims of abuse have been ignored by the heads of church. I would argue that many sexual predators act out and have no religious background but the churches actions have only made things worse. Like many old boys clubs too many secrets.
Meh....What do I know faith only requires that you believe so god / aliens / time travelling monkeys if you believe in anything someone else will try to shoot it down.

A great Irishman always used to sign off with may your god go with you. I like that.

a reply to: Prezbo369
All of the issues you list are things people do.
Just about every religion states that people have free will so by definition its the actions of people and not the teachings of a religion.
Are you suggesting that every person teaching religion is pushing for FGM? Areas you mention also suffer from low or no education options. These are problems in dictatorships the world over education is denied and replaced by various brands of rhetoric but again this is not the fault of a parable written thousands of years before.

It is impossible to relate writings and teachings given thousands of years ago.
In a society with little or no levels of punishment what else do you have? Judas would not of been given community service and then on tag....these things were not there which is why so many of the punishments seem so brutal.
On saying that RC is very different to fundamentalists or COE etc..

As for the question at the start, no I dont think it is possible to live by EVERY word of any book...for instance if we take old and new testament as a single source of information an eye for an eye is in direct contention with thou shall not kill.

I live my life by having respect for others show kindness where I can this is not because I am scared of any afterlife damnation but because I feel it is the right thing to do.
Almost all religions were designed as control mechanisms to keep masses in line irrelevant to which one you choose to follow are if you take them literally are out of date for the issues of today.

originally posted by: shayhorse
a reply to: Prezbo369
I think it says more about people of every race, creed or color can be greedy and abuse power.
The Crusades were no more about spreading the good book as Iraq was about WMD`s its just a means to an end for those that can.

Thats a strange comapason to make considering manyt would say that the invasion of Iraq was indeed a Christian invasion or crusade.

However I do think its poor form to make fun or belittle the belief of others, if it gives comfort brilliant of course this must also mean that no others can be harmed by it? f you are making yourself feel better by causing pain or suffering to others I would suggest that the person is already flawed and that religion is just an excuse to not face the fact they are a dick.

If questioning someone's claims causes pain and suffering, well, I couldn't care less to be honest.

Many people hold up the shambles that has been the way claims of abuse have been ignored by the heads of church. I would argue that many sexual predators act out and have no religious background but the churches actions have only made things worse. Like many old boys clubs too many secrets.

Religion has a big part in the cultivation and promotion of said abuse. And it cannot and should not be ignored and brushed under the rug....

Meh....What do I know faith only requires that you believe so god / aliens / time travelling monkeys if you believe in anything someone else will try to shoot it down.

If you believe/say anything stupid you should be prepared to have those beliefs poked, prodded and questioned. And if they're really ridiculous then prepare to be ridiculed, religious or not.

originally posted by: shayhorse
a reply to: Prezbo369
All of the issues you list are things people do.
Just about every religion states that people have free will so by definition its the actions of people and not the teachings of a religion.

There are two issues to consider here. One is that apparently God knows everything and so everyone's life is predetermined and we do not have any free will, and the other is that there are many many atrocities carried out on a daily basis all in the name of a god.

Are you suggesting that every person teaching religion is pushing for FGM? Areas you mention also suffer from low or no education options. These are problems in dictatorships the world over education is denied and replaced by various brands of rhetoric but again this is not the fault of a parable written thousands of years before.

Ummm, no, no more than im saying all religious people teach for MGM (although many do). However, both are religious practices and are only done (outside of medical procedures) in the name of a god. And lets not forget the effect religion has had on education even here in the west. How many people in the US reject the theory of evolution?

It is impossible to relate writings and teachings given thousands of years ago.
In a society with little or no levels of punishment what else do you have? Judas would not of been given community service and then on tag....these things were not there which is why so many of the punishments seem so brutal.
On saying that RC is very different to fundamentalists or COE etc..

These 'writings' or 'teachings' are claimed to have at the very least, been 'inspired' by a god. A god that cannot think of a better way to deal with social issues than to stone someone to death etc. There are people in 2014 that still take these 'teachings' and live their lives by them.

As for the question at the start, no I dont think it is possible to live by EVERY word of any book...for instance if we take old and new testament as a single source of information an eye for an eye is in direct contention with thou shall not kill.

Yep there are many contradictions in said books, but they are usually conveniently brushed under a rug and ignored.

I live my life by having respect for others show kindness where I can this is not because I am scared of any afterlife damnation but because I feel it is the right thing to do.

Although you've not said it outright, it seems asthough you are yourself religious? if so, this claim seems a little weak. I mean you are being threatened with eternal damnation.....but if you're not then I apologise.

Almost all religions were designed as control mechanisms to keep masses in line irrelevant to which one you choose to follow are if you take them literally are out of date for the issues of today.

Again this takes on a different form if you are religious. But if not then here's something we agree on (i think)

a reply to: Prezbo369

If questioning someone's claims causes pain and suffering, well, I couldn't care less to be honest.

I'm not even sure that was what the person meant.
I thought it was, when I first read it, but now don't think so.
I think shayhorse meant people who do evil while pretending that their religion gives them permission.