I get the thinking behind this, but I don't know if it equates to choosing what to believe from the Bible. If a kid wrote an essay in school on the Civil War, for example, and got some dates and names wrong, they can be demonstrated to be false by relying on historical records that are in existence. When it comes to God and the Bible, we have no such luxury. We are basically left to choose to believe in whatever we feel is right. I think vickilynn's question about biblical truth is a good one to consider; namely, how does one decide which parts to believe and which parts to ignore? It would be interesting to gauge an individual's thought process as to how one decides which parts represents Divine Truth and which are merely the opinions of the people who wrote the Bible.This is a silly question. It demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. If a kid writes an essay for a teacher, chances are some of it will be true. Some of it will be incorrect. If you find one error, it would be silly to assume everything is an error. The same is true in reverse. Just because the first paragraph written is correct doesn't mean the next eight pages will be. Do you believe everything anyone tells you? If I walk on to a car lot and the salesman says, "It is a beautiful day," and it is a beautiful day, do you assume everything said salesman says afterwards is 100% true? Critical thinking skills allow one to sort truth and fiction. The world is not black and white.
I disagree with the idea that the Bible must be either all true or all false, but I think it is an important theological discussion that could be had as to where the line is drawn between what one believes and what is passed off as erroneous.
We could go on into another theological discussion about the Bible, like the fact that Jesus Christ didn't use a book. We could point out nothing was written down until long after the fact and we can only presume the words even come from those to whom they are attributed. We could talk about the many contradictions within the Bible. We could discuss the oddity that the word of God seems so open to interpretation. We could discuss all sorts of things but they would be beside the point. I'm not opposed to such discussions in their own thread. This one is about, "what is God to you?" I thing a lot of these things have been tangents, rude attacks on people veiled as statements of faith, and wastes of time. I appreciate that you are tackling the subject in a more in depth manner.
I think you are reading more into her question than was there in fact. I don't think she was really asking a question. I think her meaning from the gestalt of her comments was an attempt to attack the comments of another person. At the very least, she did NOT ask a thoughtful question of the group saying, "how do we know the divine truth from fiction?" She already has her answer and has been trumpeting it for a good while now. Her argument is that it is in the Bible and that makes it true. All that being said, I agree with you that it is an important question. My own feeling is that we know the answer in our hearts and can apply the same critical thinking skills taught to us as children. If we have one person who talks about:I think vickilynn's question about biblical truth is a good one to consider; namely, how does one decide which parts to believe and which parts to ignore? It would be interesting to gauge an individual's thought process as to how one decides which parts represents Divine Truth and which are merely the opinions of the people who wrote the Bible.
1. Doing good works, helping people, soup kitchens, and the kind of love and community service attributed to Jesus...
and another person who talks about:
2. God and I think these people are abominations. (the definition of abomination being a thing which causes hate and disgust)....
...we can put on our thinking caps and select whom is acting in a manner more in line with Jesus Christ. I'm not trying to be negative, although it is hard not to do so in such a heated discussion. The big questions are who hears the word of God, and who gets to interpret the word of God? Do we follow the example of Jesus Christ (which is clear and unambiguous) or do we listen to the dueling cacophony of voices all saying they know what God says because they read it in the book (and someone all draw different conclusions)? In the end, lacking direct proof, people must have faith and find their way the best they can. I have enough to worry about with my own soul, that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about those of other people. I have faith that God (whatever form or name you want to give the divine) is wise and powerful enough to look out for the world.
You and I agree here. I don't think the Bible must be all true or all false. However, that puts you at odds with Vickilynn. For her premise to stand it must be all true. There is no margin of error. She has built herself a house of cards wherein the removal of even one brings the whole thing down.I disagree with the idea that the Bible must be either all true or all false, but I think it is an important theological discussion that could be had as to where the line is drawn between what one believes and what is passed off as erroneous.
You and I agree here. I don't think the Bible must be all true or all false. However, that puts you at odds with Vickilynn. For her premise to stand it must be all true. There is no margin of error. She has built herself a house of cards wherein the removal of even one brings the whole thing down.
Good point. I've just been trying to see both angles and am willing to give vickilynn the benefit of the doubt as I don't know her intent and haven't been terribly offended by what she has said thus far. But if she does insist on maintaining her position, I do think it would be beneficial for her to first define what it means for the Bible to be infallible, then to consider the various facets of the Bible that seem to conflict with this notion. ie, is it possible for the Bible to still be inerrant because it's overall message is true, despite apparent historical, scientific inaccuracies? I've heard some Christians argue as such.
So if the entire bible is to be believed...
Do you eat bacon?
Pigs are unclean.
Wear cotton blends?
That ain't ok either.
Cut your hair or shave?
Also a problem.
Or in Deuteronomy, you're supposed to kill others who don't have the same religion. I assume you don't go around murdering heathens. Of course, if you do, let me know, so I can stay out of your town because I am on your list. I am also an artist, and break the 2nd commandment on a regular basis. Everyday, in fact.
I suspect you eat pigmeat and wear cotton blends and cut your hair, because those passages are absolutely bonkers. Almost every Christian I know takes bits and pieces of the bible. What I am saying is that most (probably all) modern believers take out the inconvenient parts and don't follow them. And honestly, isn't all sin equal sin in the eye's of your god? Other than the 10 commandments, but homosexuality isn't on that list. So the pigmeat you eat is on the same level of sin as homosexuality. Do correct me if I misunderstand.
....sooooo, when do we pass the collection plate and get to the sandwiches and juice???.....