Lolikon
: I love how you are trying to discuss this while you have you own trash bin labeled "Christians":
https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=34492&ppp=20&page=4#779366

tRIUNE :  Oo  Good catch, there.  That made me laugh a little, but that's really quite sad.

Lolikon : How can you claim to be Christian?  I'm not sure you know that the word means, based on your last post.  Being 'Christian' isn't like saying "I was born with white skin."  You can't just 'be' a Christian by the nature of how you were raised.  It's so, so much more than that.

(And no, this wasn't an attack on you.  It's a genuine question on how you think you can still call yourself a Christian while holding those beliefs.  What do you think a Christian is, in other words?)

Singelli : Well, let's put it like this. If there is an afterlife (in which I'm still slightly hoping there is), Great. and if there isn't, it won't bother me either. It's more like being Christian yet accepting fate as it plays out. if it doesn't play out how it's 'supposed' to.

Lolikon :  So in your mind, being  Christian is about accepting there is a possibility of an afterlife?  If that's the case, then nearly every single religion out there is 'Christian'.    Surely there are other reasons you might consider yourself a Christian?  I know the term 'Christian' has become almost a cultural identity these days, but I don't think I've ever heard the term being used as generally as you are using it, and I find that thought a little disturbing.  (Not that you are, but that people in general are.  What you are describing seems to be an agnostic viewpoint, and it baffles me that agnostics might use the term 'Christian' to describe themselves.)

Singelli :

I hate to be the one to say this... but I think I have a bone to pick with something you said.

" How can you claim to be Christian? I'm not sure you know that the word means, based on your last post. Being 'Christian' isn't like saying "I was born with white skin." You can't just 'be' a Christian by the nature of how you were raised. It's so, so much more than that."

I guess my parents weren't Christian then, even though they clearly were.

You are free to honor your god however you wish so long as it doesn't violate the "rules" of the religion.

This is one of the many reasons I stopped practicing faith so long ago. So many people are too literal and uptight with every little thing that is said in the bible, and is told of them.

It should be enough to respect and acknowledge your god.

It should be enough to cherish his name, and spread his words.

And who are you to say "How can you claim to be Christian?" anyway? You aren't God's right hand woman. For all you know, he's probably fine with people just acknowledging his presence and honoring his name.

But what do I know? I am just speaking from the view of a human being. One who thinks that there are too many "rules" to follow.

Singelli : Well it's hard to explain really. Like I feel as I should believe it more, but I have the urge..like..Not to? If that makes sense?

legacyme3 :  You are putting context into my words that wasn't there.  It was a genuine question. I was asking her the reasons she views herself as a Christian, not attacking her.

Lolikon :  Yes, it makes sense. Thanks for explaining it to me.  

Lolikon : Many people misunderstand that being a Christian is based on what you do. When you defend yourself of being a Christian, you immediately listed how you were raised Christian, how you prayed, how you read the Bible, how you went to church, all the do do do do. That is not what it means to be saved. All of us, including myself, are born of sin. No one is born saved or born a Christian. That is why Jesus said that we need to be "born again." That's why in Ephesians it says that "we are saved by grace through faith, NOT of works." Our trust in Jesus Christ is what saves us and redeems us. The works will come as a result of salvation.



Now back on topic, this is probably my first time seeing your post, so I really don't know you. I also did not say that you hated Christians. All I'm saying is that from what you said to back up your opinion on how the Bible is not inspired by God, they are either too generalized or false and it just tells me that you might not know the Bible as well as you would think. That's all. Like I said, if I'm wrong, I am willing to back out from it, but that is how you are appearing based on what you said.





legacyme3 : I don't know the context about your parents nor their background, so unless you are planning to clarify that, I'm just going to move on from that.



What Singelli is saying to say is that when you look at what it means to be a Christ follower, saying that someone was "born" a Christian makes absolutely no sense. Being a Christ follower is not like joining a group or being passed down like a family inheritance. Basing on our own standards, it would seem that "respecting" God is enough or "spread his word" is enough, but all of this is pointless without faith in Jesus Christ; it's pointless when our actions themselves separate us from God, when our sins are what God hates. In fact we would probably not do any of those things without having faith in Christ That is why God is not just fine with people acknowledging that He exist. The sin problem still exists and is not dealt with except in placing our trust in Jesus' sacrifice.



Because of what they don't understand, many "Christians" instead of actually being of faith in Christ, people are just going through the motions, but they are not actually saved. The Bible even said that this would happen, that there are people who do things for Christ, but they are not actually saved, and Christ would say "I never knew you. Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness" (paraphrased) Noticed that she didn't say anything about rules. It is ALL about what Christ did. It's not that people are being too picky of what the Bible says, it's just that the Bible makes it clear on how we really are and why we need to be saved.





whitesox51 : I was planning to reply on what you wrote previously. From what you wrote, are you in the stance of the Bible being infallible but not inerrant?

play4fun : Don't they both mean, basically, the same thing? Here is a problem I have with the doctrine of inerrancy: It tends toward a univocal hermeneutic. It is purely a child of Cartesian modernity. What I mean is, the doctrine of inerrancy restricts all possible "meanings" of the text to one "meaning" which must be ascertained by means of presuppositionless objectivity. The early church fathers did not view scripture this way, Paul did not interpret scripture this way, and post-critical theory has greatly dampened modern thought.

whitesox51 : No, they're not. The current definition between infallibility and inerrancy is that infallibility states that the Bible is authoritative and wholefully trustworthy in terms of topics of God and faith. So if you want to know how one gets saved, the Bible would be the infallible text to seek out that answer. Inerrancy says that it is without errors in what is written, though one still needs to keep in mind of what people's understanding of the world is at that time to know how they describe and write things in scripture. 

Also know that the doctrine of inerrancy is ONLY applied towards the original autographs, not the manuscripts and copies of manuscripts. So the doctrine is saying that the original writings of the Bible are perfectly they way God intended and that it is without error. You also notice that God uses human expression and style to be part of God's revelation, which to me, is quite amazing. What people do afterwards with it can err due to mistakes or distortion of Man. However, the doctrine does affirm that the translation and textual criticism work that is happening today has been faithful to getting as close to the original.

I think you might be confusingly mixing inerrancy with hermenutics. Inerrancy just means "no errors" in the text and what you are stating is a strict form of "authorial intent" which isn't really relating to the whether the text is inerrant or not. The authorial intent can have more than just the upfront meaning, but it is important that we do find the authorial intent. Both inerrancy and infallibility are vital in having us to be able to interpret scripture and understanding our doctrine, but it doesn't restrict us in finding the whole meaning.

play4fun : I was referring to an extreme literalist approach to the doctrine of inerrancy, where interpreters believe that an objectivistic hermeneutic, properly employed, can ascertain the univocal meaning originally intended by God/the author(s). I get what you are saying, but one could only theorize such a doctrine regarding autographs, since none have ever been recovered. One must also take into account the problem of sources. For example, it would be fairly naive to assume that some guy named Moses sat down one day and composed Genesis. The problem with sources also comes into play with the Gospels (see many of the major works by Kloppenborg on the Q hypothesis). If one were to hold that the original autographs were inerrant, one would also have to readily admit that such a theory could only be assumed, never proven.

play4fun : I really don't understand why you think I'm mixing two incompatible things. Hermeneutics is not merely an historical or linguistic enterprise, but profoundly theological. For example, how one perceives hermeneutics, that is, the art of interpretation, is based in part on certain theological and philosophical suppositions (e.g. the doctrine of the incarnation, the doctrine of the trinity, etc.). You have implicitly linked them in every post, but accused me of making some logical fallacy .

You quoted the Bible for every example of why inerrancy is true. There is a certain logical and hermeneutical problem with that, of course. How could we ever know that a book is inerrant when the only evidence is that the book tells us that it is so! Again, it comes down to hermeneutics, not some well-trodden, crutch of a doctrine like inerrancy. For a thorough exposition of this, you should check out the philosophical writings of Paul Ricoeur (Essays on Biblical Interpretation, Conflict Interpretation, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning).

All I'm suggesting is that appealing to hypothetical autographs is faulty and not very convincing. Appealing to scripture is circular. The issue is FAR more complicated than a few proof texts and an appeal to a fundamentalist doctrine, which was neither purported by the early church fathers or is necessary for orthodoxy. This is where hermeneutics becomes very key.

austipokedude :
"why would they write about something thats not important"
quoran
birth of a nation
mein kamf
the simpsons comic book
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-45 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

it being written doesent make it fact.
why would people write untrue books?
power maybe?
worked for hitler.
it works for the leaders of religions, who live lifes of luxury.
whether their religions are true are debateable. but because they are all written does not automatically make it true.

thenumberone : Out of those books how many of them took 120 people to write it?They put so much effort into one book it would have to be true.

austipokedude :
so if I get 130 people to put their experiences with the flying spaghetti monster into a book (real religion) then it will be more true than christianity.

if there are 2 sides arguing, the larger will be correct?
like say, germany v poland? since there were more germans and they claimed the west of poland was german, and that god had granted them the right to all of europe?

a bunch of people echoing each other doesent automatically make them right.

thenumberone : It is still the word of God and nothing will ever change that.Yes usually the larger majority is correct then the lower majority since there are more brains put together.

Excuse me, but I think we're getting slightly off topic here.
Anyways, although I am not super religious, I do believe in the Bible and Christianity.