How much research is necessary?

[nobspeople]

When someone mentions biblical contradictions, often times they're met with responses like:
"Well, if you read XYZ, you will see that what it really means is..."
"You have to understand the world they lived in at the time"
"What god really means is...."
"The original language says...."

It seems as though, many think that in order to understand the bible, you must first have to have a understanding of the time it was written, history, other biblical passages (which I personally find hysterical - you expect someone to read another part of the bible to understand a different part of the same bible?!?), have an 'innate' understanding of what god 'meant', knowledge of the language of origin, and on and on and on.

This is the bible.
It's god's word directly (or inspired if you believe that) and it's meant as a map to god and or christ (again, depending on what sect you want to believe).

So why can't the bible just be presented, as an all-in-one roadmap, instead of needing other references and understandings?
Surely god knew not everyone would have access to knowing the 'original language', have the ability to 'know' what god means instead of what's written, a understanding of the time of it writing, and on and on and on, right?

Should the bible be the best and only source needed to find christ, or should people actively look for other sources to find christ?

[TRANSPONDER]

That's how Faith works. You pick (or are taught) a Belief and you argue for it accordingly. Critical thinking ought not do do but it's a human tendency and forgivable if the person IS willing to consider questions and evidence fairly. Too often, though it becomes a matter of trying to make the evidence fit the faith, and slipping into various forms of Denial if they can't.

Still, so long as we keep on researching and discussing the results, the 'truth will out' as they say and those who dismiss anything that doesn't fit their Faith are going to lose ground. And that's the point - not to get them to change their views but present the best case to the lurkers who are the ones who Really matter.

Since I started on the debate in the 90's a lot has changed. Morality was considered a good apologetic for religion. Now it isn't (though many think it is). It was considered that human emotions and aspirations were a preserve of religious thought, and science had no place there. Now it looks like we have to turn to science to understand what these things are. The Big Bang was a hotbed of debate as was Evolution vs.I/D. But that has moved on a lot, too. After all, the BB can be presented as an act of 'Creation'. And 'kinds'or 'Baryma' as some have dubbed them, are seen as the basis of a super- fast evolution (post Flood) proliferating into all the species today,over a 1,000 years'period, it seems.

Research has pushed the 'Big Three'(Cosmic origins, origins of life,Consciousness) back to very small'gaps for God' or they have vanished pretty much.

[Bradskii]

I think it is enough when one remains in truth, avoids making own interpretations and allows Bible to explain what is means.

If you don't have your own interpretation then where do you get it from? Given that there are numerous interpretations out there, how do you figure out which is the correct one? I'm going to guess and say it's the one you like best.

If you pick the best then that assumes one has made a choice of various options after studying each one. What do you think would be the proportion of religious people (of all religions) that have done that? Less than 1%?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #24]

If a person has no doubt then he has knowledge, not faith.

Ehhh maybe. You can know 1+1=2, and still doubt it. You may be 'crazy' to do so, but it is entirely possible. But then, we have to consider how honest one's being with themselves. But that may be infringing on a more philosophical vein of thinking.

I can say that it is true of every form of orthodox Christianity of which I am aware. If you know of a form of Christianity that teaches faith in Christianity then I would be interested to hear off it.

Thanks for the correction. As neither knows every sect of Christianity, it's not possible to say 100% one way or the other. But from what I've seen, if you have faith in christ and use christianity to get to christ, you have faith in christianity as well.

Has there ever been a good writer?

A question for another topic, I suspect. But, in regards to the bible, if it was written by men who were inspired by god, and god had a hand in it and loved humanity and wants them to succeed, I'd suspect everything in it would be relevant for centuries and the need to understand the 'history of the time' wouldn't be necessary. Same to be said about the various translations.
I don't think god would 'inspire' the writing of the bible and then say 'Yup - all good. I'm just gonna' sit back and see how this turns out.'
Though that's entirely possible.
If so, it's very unbecoming of a thing for a god to do, in my humble opinion.

True, but that’s not us.

There's more to the world then 'us', which was the point I was making in the grand scheme of things.

Funny, you (a non-Christian) now not only declare what it is that Christians really believe, but also insist that if we don’t agree with you about our beliefs then we are being dishonest.

It doesn't take a christian or non-christian to know that christians want to get to heaven and avoid hell. Everything else in the middle is butter. If that offends someone, that's their issue. They can continue to lie to themselves until the cows come home. It's their life, now isn't it?

The basics? Yes.

Which is what I was saying

But in this thread you talked about finding contradictions in the Bible. That goes beyond the basics.

I disagree. Reading is fundamental. If anyone can read they can read some of the contradictions and thus, need to address them or ignore them.

(Side note: Christianity is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. Is there a reason you refrain from correct grammar?)

There is a reason but it has nothing to do with this thread.

[1213]

I think it is enough when one remains in truth, avoids making own interpretations and allows Bible to explain what is means.

If you don't have your own interpretation then where do you get it from? Given that there are numerous interpretations out there, how do you figure out which is the correct one? I'm going to guess and say it's the one you like best.

I think it is best to allow Bible to explain what it means and not make own interpretations at all. Or what do you think, where would own interpretation be necessary?

[brunumb]

I think it is enough when one remains in truth, avoids making own interpretations and allows Bible to explain what is means.

If you don't have your own interpretation then where do you get it from? Given that there are numerous interpretations out there, how do you figure out which is the correct one? I'm going to guess and say it's the one you like best.

I think it is best to allow Bible to explain what it means and not make own interpretations at all. Or what do you think, where would own interpretation be necessary?

When you decide that something in the Bible has been explained to your satisfaction but someone else thinks otherwise, then you have obviously made your own interpretation.

[1213]

...
When you decide that something in the Bible has been explained to your satisfaction but someone else thinks otherwise, then you have obviously made your own interpretation.

Can you give one example of this?

[We_Are_VENOM]

When someone mentions biblical contradictions, often times they're met with responses like:
"Well, if you read XYZ, you will see that what it really means is..."
"You have to understand the world they lived in at the time"
"What god really means is...."
"The original language says...."

It seems as though, many think that in order to understand the bible, you must first have to have a understanding of the time it was written, history, other biblical passages (which I personally find hysterical - you expect someone to read another part of the bible to understand a different part of the same bible?!?), have an 'innate' understanding of what god 'meant', knowledge of the language of origin, and on and on and on.

This is the bible.
It's god's word directly (or inspired if you believe that) and it's meant as a map to god and or christ (again, depending on what sect you want to believe).

So why can't the bible just be presented, as an all-in-one roadmap, instead of needing other references and understandings?
Surely god knew not everyone would have access to knowing the 'original language', have the ability to 'know' what god means instead of what's written, a understanding of the time of it writing, and on and on and on, right?

Should the bible be the best and only source needed to find christ, or should people actively look for other sources to find christ?

I would answer that those who read the Bible and are actively choosing not to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, should not concern themselves with Christian theology.

I am not a Star Wars fan, so I could care less whether or not Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father.

Why do I care? Why do you care?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #37]

I would answer that those who read the Bible and are actively choosing not to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, should not concern themselves with Christian theology.

If only it were that simple. In the United States it is embedded in many institutions and even laws. References to God are on our money, the song God Bless America is sung at nearly every major league baseball game, the Pledge of Allegience has a reference, being sworn in as President, or in a courtroom, usually involves placing a hand on the Bible (although affirmation is now allowed in courts I believe), and there are many other examples. It is pervasive in our society, because Christianity is still the dominant religion in the USA as far as I am aware.

If someone doesn't want their kids exposed to this sort of thing (and having to explain to them there there are other options, including other religions and gods, etc. when the whole religion can of worms is opened) it is nearly impossible to avoid in this country. So just not concerning themselves with Christian theology is often not an option. It crops up far too often to simply ignore it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #37]

If only it were that simple. In the United States it is embedded in many institutions and even laws. References to God are on our money, the song God Bless America is sung at nearly every major league baseball game, the Pledge of Allegience has a reference, being sworn in as President, or in a courtroom, usually involves placing a hand on the Bible (although affirmation is now allowed in courts I believe), and there are many other examples. It is pervasive in our society, because Christianity is still the dominant religion in the USA as far as I am aware.

It is the dominant religion in the USA for good reason

And besides, evolution is the dominant teaching on the origin of species in our biology classrooms...and the teachings are being paid for at tax payers expense.

So we are even.

If someone doesn't want their kids exposed to this sort of thing (and having to explain to them there there are other options, including other religions and gods, etc. when the whole religion can of worms is opened) it is nearly impossible to avoid in this country. So just not concerning themselves with Christian theology is often not an option. It crops up far too often to simply ignore it.

Yeah, and if I don't want my kids exposed to that sort of thing (evolution), I have to yank them out of public school and find them a private school which doesn't teach it.

So again, we are even.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #39]

And besides, evolution is the dominant teaching on the origin of species in our biology classrooms...and the teachings are being paid for at tax payers expense.

For very good reason ... it is the current best understanding of the subject backed up by overwhelming physical evidence that supports it. If/when anything more accurate and consistent with observations and analysis comes along it will replace ToE in our biology classrooms. Until then ... ToE is the current frontrunner because it far better describes the situation than 2000-3000 old religious stories.

Yeah, and if I don't want my kids exposed to that sort of thing (evolution), I have to yank them out of public school and find them a private school which doesn't teach it.

Which you are free to do, but you'd be depriving them of exposure to how things really work. Why not expose them to both and let them decide for themselves as their education progresses?