The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

I am unable to respond? I'm wondering if it's because of too many characters?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

I am unable to respond? I'm wondering if it's because of too many characters?

No worries. Just the systems way of giving me the last word.

[1213]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

I am unable to respond? I'm wondering if it's because of too many characters?

I had the same problem when I tried to answer your another post.

Again, if Jesus did not write it himself, then it logically follows that he required others to write his words for him. This requires that he is reliant on humans.

In biblical point of view humans are reliant from God and Jesus and could not have done it without Jesus and God. That is why it really comes from Jesus and God, even if it was the people who wrote it.

And humans are fallible. Such a chosen path has demonstrated mass confusion, as we have almost countless opposing beliefs, while all referring to the same collection of books. Why is Jesus pleased with this result?

I believe Bible has exactly the words it needs to have. If some people twist them to their own purposes and distort the message, it is their own fault.

I created a thread and asked how one is saved. Many earnest Bible reading folks did not give the same answer as you. Does this mean all these folks are lost? Maybe many of them think the same of you, including Jesus? Maybe it is you, who is lost?

The Bible is the same for all. The words don't change depending on who reads them. So, if people give different answers, it is not because of the Bible, but because of what they think. To know who is lost or wrong, one needs to know what they say and check is it the same as what is said in the Bible. By what i see, the problem often comes from that people take just one line from the Bible, give ti their own meaning and think that is all.

If i am lost, it would be nice if someone could show me how I am lost.

You stated --> "People don't become righteous by refusing or accepting something"

You agree that you have to accept Jesus to become righteous. Which means your prior statement is false. Accepting something is required.

I don't think I have said " have to accept Jesus to become righteous".

Not providing more clarity has caused many JWs to die, due to blood loss.

I don't think that is true.

Had these individuals received blood, they would have lived longer.

Or maybe not. You really don't know how things would have gone in alternative reality.

1) Did Jesus not care to provide more clarity, to avoid more needless death(s)?
2) Jesus was simply not aware that someday, blood transfusions would exist?
3) Other?

Is there ever needed death? In Biblical point of view, everyone will die at least once and the goal is not to prevent body to die, but prevent the soul to be destroyed. Bible and Jesus are about higher matters, and people should not worry about death.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. "Aren't two sparrows sold for an assarion? Not one of them falls on the ground apart from your Father's will, but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore don't be afraid. You are of more value than many sparrows.
Matt. 10:28-31
He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds! Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height? If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith? Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious. For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things. But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Luke 12:22-31

I think you mix up two separate things, clarity and knowledge. Jesus doesn't give in Bible more knowledge about blood transfusion. And I believe the reason is that it was not necessary.

But, is this person right or wrong? An incorrect choice can have dire consequences. This 10-year-old could be stuck in between a rock and hard place. a) Refusing blood will cause the raped 10-year-old's death. b) Accepting the blood can cause her eternal torment. Since you are presumably righteous, I'm asking you. Do you give your 10-year-old daughter the lifesaving blood, or not?

I think that is a False Dichotomy. There is no guarantee that the blood saves anyone. Or don't the people who receive blood, ever die?

If I would accept the blood transfusion, I would accept it only with parents blood. I believe it would not be a problem. But, it is possible that I am wrong in that. And then I would have to rely on that God is merciful, if I have done wrongly.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

I am unable to respond? I'm wondering if it's because of too many characters?

No worries. Just the systems way of giving me the last word.

No, there's something amiss with something.... 1213 stated he received the same when attempting to respond to one of your posts too. I'll try responding later, in a differing way, when I have more time.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

No matter how I try to reply, I get: "Forbidden, you do not have permission to access this resource. 1213 presumably gets the same error when trying to reply to some of your responses....

I have a response qued, but I cannot send it. If I remain unsuccessful, I will need to reply in a different way. Stay tuned....

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

No matter how I try to reply, I get: "Forbidden, you do not have permission to access this resource. 1213 presumably gets the same error when trying to reply to some of your responses....

I have a response qued, but I cannot send it. If I remain unsuccessful, I will need to reply in a different way. Stay tuned....

The system: This poster continues to bring opinions to a facts fight. I shall not allow him to proceed. Forbidden permission: activated.

[POI]

In biblical point of view humans are reliant from God and Jesus and could not have done it without Jesus and God. That is why it really comes from Jesus and God, even if it was the people who wrote it.

Fallible humans wrote it.

I believe Bible has exactly the words it needs to have. If some people twist them to their own purposes and distort the message, it is their own fault.

I'll give you a specific example. I assume you are not a Catholic. In applying your position, all Catholics twist and distort, as they all share the same position in beliefs of their doctrine, which likely oppose some of your beliefs.

The Bible is the same for all. The words don't change depending on who reads them. So, if people give different answers, it is not because of the Bible, but because of what they think. To know who is lost or wrong, one needs to know what they say and check is it the same as what is said in the Bible. By what i see, the problem often comes from that people take just one line from the Bible, give ti their own meaning and think that is all.

If i am lost, it would be nice if someone could show me how I am lost.

Does Jesus have the ability to convey clear messaging, where any/all can understand if they are earnest in their endeavors? Assuming your answer here is yes, then Jesus has failed. Why? Many earnest Christians devote their lives to study and come to many opposing/differing conclusions than you. Is Jesus going to apply grace if you are the one who is completely wrong, even though you too are earnest in your research?

I don't think I have said " have to accept Jesus to become righteous".

You must accept Jesus to become righteous, right? If so, then you must accept something, and that something is accepting Jesus. And you clearly stated "People don't become righteous by refusing or accepting something", which is absolutely false.

I don't think that is true.

I provided a link which demonstrates that JWs do die because they refuse blood products. Hence, your belief is invalid.

Or maybe not. You really don't know how things would have gone in alternative reality.

Hemorrhage IS a cause of death. And many die from this process. Read up on it.

Is there ever needed death? In Biblical point of view, everyone will die at least once and the goal is not to prevent body to die, but prevent the soul to be destroyed. Bible and Jesus are about higher matters, and people should not worry about death.

Doesn't this mean then that a righteous person would always refuse the necessary blood transfusion to save their raped and stabbed 10-year-old daughter?

I think that is a False Dichotomy. There is no guarantee that the blood saves anyone. Or don't the people who receive blood, ever die?

In many cases, it is a guarantee, as hemorrhage is the cause of death for many. Thus, it is not a false dichotomy, according to your view. Unless you answer and give me the exception to the JW's rule, that receiving blood products is sometimes conditionally okay?

a) Receive blood and be damned, unless this is one of those graceful exceptions?
b) Refuse the blood and die from blood loss on the OR table prior to laceration repair.

If I would accept the blood transfusion, I would accept it only with parents blood. I believe it would not be a problem. But, it is possible that I am wrong in that. And then I would have to rely on that God is merciful, if I have done wrongly.

I find it odd that God did not clarify here. We are speaking about life/death matters here. It's almost as if the Bible writers had no worldly clue that someday, blood transfusions would be quite common.

[1213]

I believe Bible has exactly the words it needs to have. If some people twist them to their own purposes and distort the message, it is their own fault.

I'll give you a specific example. I assume you are not a Catholic. In applying your position, all Catholics twist and distort, as they all share the same position in beliefs of their doctrine, which likely oppose some of your beliefs.

I think more specific example would be necessary. Can you give one example of a scripture that they think means something else than what I think it means?

Does Jesus have the ability to convey clear messaging, where any/all can understand if they are earnest in their endeavors? Assuming your answer here is yes, then Jesus has failed. Why? Many earnest Christians devote their lives to study and come to many opposing/differing conclusions than you. Is Jesus going to apply grace if you are the one who is completely wrong, even though you too are earnest in your research?

I say Jesus has the ability and everyone can understand. If not all don't understand, it is not because they don't have the ability, nor that the message is not clear, but because of some other reason.

Crucial thing is, what is the reason for being wrong. If I am wrong, because I don't want to hear the truth, I believe that is a big problem.

You must accept Jesus to become righteous, right?...

I don't think so. By what is told in the Bible, person can be counted righteous, even if he would not have heard of Jesus. If person is righteous, he accepts Jesus, because he sees the goodness in Jesus.

Hemorrhage IS a cause of death.

I disagree. The cause of death is the thing that causes hemorrhage.

Is there ever needed death? In Biblical point of view, everyone will die at least once and the goal is not to prevent body to die, but prevent the soul to be destroyed. Bible and Jesus are about higher matters, and people should not worry about death.

Doesn't this mean then that a righteous person would always refuse the necessary blood transfusion to save their raped and stabbed 10-year-old daughter?

What I meant is, you speak of needless death. That implicates the other deaths are needed. And this leads to question, why are the other deaths needed in your opinion?

And my second point is, in Biblical point of view we should not worry about death. It is inevitable that every body dies once. People can't save themselves from the inevitable death.

I find it odd that God did not clarify here. We are speaking about life/death matters here. It's almost as if the Bible writers had no worldly clue that someday, blood transfusions would be quite common.

I think you are using wrongly the word clarify. To clarify something, one would have to say something about the matter that needs to be clarified. There are many things that Bible doesn't mention. It does not mean Bible is not clear in what it says, only that it doesn't speak about everything. Many things are left for us to decide. But, we can use Bible as an advice in many issues, even if it doesn't speak directly about them. The general rule in the Bible is to love God more than anything and neighbor as yourself. This means, any decision we make, must be in line with those two. In the case of blood transfusion this means, if you think it goes against loving God, don't do it. If you do it, even though you think it is against God's will, then it is not good.

[1213]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #190]

No matter how I try to reply, I get: "Forbidden, you do not have permission to access this resource. 1213 presumably gets the same error when trying to reply to some of your responses....

Just to clarify, I got it when tried to answer to one of your posts, not to SiNcE_1985's post.

[POI]

I think more specific example would be necessary.

I'll do you one better. I'm sure there is at least one below which you do not jive with...

Below are some beliefs that are distinctive to Catholics:

The Trinity
Catholics believe in one God who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church
Catholics believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and is a gift from God.

Salvation
Catholics believe that salvation through the Catholic Church is the only way to reach Heaven.

Purgatory
Catholics believe that those who die are sent to Purgatory to be cleansed of sin before going to Heaven.

Transubstantiation
Catholics believe that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Sacraments
Catholics believe that verbal formulas and objects, such as holy water or medals, can have religious significance.

Other beliefs of Catholics include:
The incarnation of Jesus Christ
The meaning of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus
The Communion of Saints
Sin and the means of salvation
Judgment and the world to come

I say Jesus has the ability and everyone can understand. If not all don't understand, it is not because they don't have the ability, nor that the message is not clear, but because of some other reason. Crucial thing is, what is the reason for being wrong. If I am wrong, because I don't want to hear the truth, I believe that is a big problem.

Many are as earnest and eager as you, and yet, still reach differing conclusions/beliefs. Case/point, Catholics. Either Jesus does not have the ability to make everyone understand, or he does, and chooses not to. Pick your poison.

I don't think so. By what is told in the Bible, person can be counted righteous, even if he would not have heard of Jesus. If person is righteous, he accepts Jesus, because he sees the goodness in Jesus.

But then you are completely ignoring Romans 3, where it tells the reader --> "righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ"

I disagree. The cause of death is the thing that causes hemorrhage.

Not true. The blood loss is what causes the death. The stab wound is what causes the bleeding, infection, other.

What I meant is, you speak of needless death. That implicates the other deaths are needed. And this leads to question, why are the other deaths needed in your opinion? And my second point is, in Biblical point of view we should not worry about death. It is inevitable that every body dies once. People can't save themselves from the inevitable death.

This is why the English language can be difficult, as you are referring to a differing context than me. I'm asking if a righteous person would EVER, under any circumstances at all, allow for their raped daughter to receive blood products, and still be considered righteous? Yes or no?

Assuming you state yes, why do you assume it is okay to receive blood from one's own family? Is this just a hunch, or is there Scripture to back this up?

I think you are using wrongly the word clarify. To clarify something, one would have to say something about the matter that needs to be clarified. There are many things that Bible doesn't mention. It does not mean Bible is not clear in what it says, only that it doesn't speak about everything. Many things are left for us to decide. But, we can use Bible as an advice in many issues, even if it doesn't speak directly about them. The general rule in the Bible is to love God more than anything and neighbor as yourself. This means, any decision we make, must be in line with those two. In the case of blood transfusion this means, if you think it goes against loving God, don't do it. If you do it, even though you think it is against God's will, then it is not good.

Well, we apparently cannot use it as any advice in this scenario, can we? Can folks accept blood transfusions without offending God, or not? In the U.S. alone, over 20 million blood transfusions are given. It's as if Jesus had no idea that someday, millions upon millions would be receiving blood products