Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.

So are the historical implications that you mention, but that neither here nor there. The Roman Empire, and particularly its successor in the Byzantine Empire, were not the babbling fools that made up most of Western Europe in the Dark Ages. They were very educated and masters of art literature, music, philosophy, science, etc. And Christians from the beginning had wealthy, influential and powerful men in their number. Besides the only oral tradition that is agreed upon in the NT is the four gospels, the Epistles were all written by the Apostles and early disciple themselves.

I'm honestly confused on why you are using the canon of the NT and professional Roman scribes, both used and developed centuries after, as an argument against oral tradition in the early years of Christianity. There were numerous gospels in early Christianity, as well as numerous church orders/doctrines. This proliferation of conflicting dogma, along with Marcion is what led to the development of canon.

Even after the canon, there are blatant errors and additions from earlier texts. Errors and additions even theologians acknowledge. This of course does not disprove God but it certainly challenges Biblical literalism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Regardless, it is moot. To believe that anyone can discern canon from texts that originated in the oral tradition, which were then transcribed under candlelight by one of the few members of the communities that had the ability to write (Whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text), which were then copied by hand/candle light for several hundred years after the fact (By those whom might have selfish motivation to alter the text)....well is a pretty big stretch.

Well at least it took 6 pages before this old argument was brought up.

I'm surprised it didn't come from frigs.

The thread death spiral has started.

That's rather combative. The argument may be old but it is solid and borne out by evidence.

Thread is getting worthless. But why we're on the subject of literalism, here's something interested that I posted a while back.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
And that is why we Trinitarians see such things as the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ's humanity, etc. as being completely relevant to those who wish to call themselves Christians.

You'll find I won't disagree with respect to their relevance from a standpoint of precise classification. Where I've said that doctrine is irrelevant, I've mean it in the sense that additional doctrine is irrelevant. The belief in Jesus as the Messiah is certainly a component of doctrine, and one that we can use to categorize individual belief sets.

Now, I suppose one resolution to this exchange is the development of a new term which links non-Trinitarian belief sets to Trinitarian ones (Christological?). That strikes me as needlessly obtuse given that we have a perfectly legitimate set of terms available, but I have no attachment to word 'Christian', so it doesn't really matter to me.

Manchu wrote:Thread is getting worthless.

I find your statement oddly timed. Two posts prior I said:

I wrote:Trinity is a subjective term that means different things to different people. It is also not an original Christian concept.

If I jumped to an epic conclusion, forgive me. I am a QA tester... I notice odd patterns... Sometimes, it's all in my head... Speculation until verification... Wow, what an odd statement to put in a religion thread...

My speculation, BTW, is that the tread is worthless now because I am trying to make it non-denominational...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see what I did there... Raptor Jesus, er, AgeOfEgos ninja'd my pagan statement... Is the redundant duplication of statements what you think is making this thread worthless?

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma- The bottom line. The teaching of the Trinity is Biblical, and is a fundamental aspect of orthodox Christianity.

It isn't biblical. Neither the word trinity, nor a near analogue, ever appears in the Bible. It is a tenet of those denominations conventionally referred to as orthodox, but not all denominations of Christianity are orthodox.

generalgrog wrote:
Cults use flowery words to hide what they really believe, like the Mormon GodHead that tblock referenced for example. The term GodHead is a Christian term for the trinity, that they have twisted into their own form. Or that Jehovas witnesses believe Jesus, is Michael the archangel(a created being). They don't worship the same God I do.

Godhead isn't really a reference to the Trinity. Rather, its a reference to the nature of God. In a Trinitarian Church that nature will be described as the Trinity, but that doesn't indicate that Godhead only references the Trinity.

All I meant is, we've reached the end of dialog in good will and are just grinding our wheels.

Manchu wrote:All I meant is, we've reached the end of dialog in good will and are just grinding our wheels.

Meh... That may be true... I personally don't think so, but I seem to remember Frazz saying he will not be closing religion threads any more... Now, don't get me wrong, I know he is lying. I can upload some stuff from my /b/ folder that will get this thread shut down with the quickness... All I am saying is let's keep the good will going...

@ Everyone:
I think we are missing the larger issue here... This thread is making a lot of absolute blanket statements. Let this thread be an experiment in communication and nerdrage management.
Remember, attack the post, not the poster. Be polite, and if you get pissed, go paint some mini's, or have a smoke, get laid, I dunno... Be creative. Try to calm yourself down.

Prove to yourself and this community that you are INDEED as tolerant and open minded as you say you are...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Food for thought:

Gamespot OT Forum Rules wrote:After numerous requests we have updated the religious guidelines to explain how to create a religious topic in this forum.

We expect users creating religion threads to be open to other opinions and beliefs (religious, atheist, agnostic, mayonnaise) and we expect users creating a new topic to reflect that in their opening post. Simply stating "I believe X and that proves everyone who believes Y is wrong" or simply creating a thread for the purpose of spouting your own beliefs as fact will result in the thread being closed and repeated violations severely moderated.

We expect all such threads to be opened in a civil manner promoting and accepting discussion on all sides of the issue. We appreciate those who take extra steps to encourage open, respectful, and inclusive discussions. If you're here to tell everyone you're right and they're all wrong and / or that there is no disputing that such threads will be closed. The Off-topic forum is about discussion not declarations about religion or god that you consider indisputable, use your blog for that.

Since the topic of religion comes up frequently and they tend to be notably active threads we ask that users check how many religion threads are active before posting your thread. If there are a couple active religion threads already active we ask you hold off on your topic for a while. We'd like there to be room for many topics in the OT forum. We also ask that users focus on the beliefs (or lack of belief) of any given group, and not the believers themselves. We've found that when the focus turns to the individual(s) it just gets nasty.

Note that while the above rules apply to creating a thread flaming, trolling and all the other rules still apply to the posts inside.

NOTE: These guidelines are subject to alteration as necessary and do not preclude the exercise of moderator discretion to lock threads as deemed necessary for reasons that these guidelines may not contemplate.

@Manchu-I'm not sure what the point of that video was.

@dogma-of course the actual word "trinity" doesn't appear in the bible. but that doesn't make it "unbiblical". The fact is, there are many places in the Bible that show that God is both one God, yet also made up of more than one person. Your just playing semantics now.

GG

generalgrog wrote:@Manchu-I'm not sure what the point of that video was.

Then watch it again. (Or do you mean that it is not related to the dying third or fourth current topic of this thread? That, I concede. I thought it was more interesting than the semantics game we'd gotten into.)

generalgrog wrote:
@dogma-of course the actual word "trinity" doesn't appear in the bible. but that doesn't make it "unbiblical". The fact is, there are many places in the Bible that show that God is both one God, yet also made up of more than one person. Your just playing semantics now.

No, I'm making a point about drawing a conclusion by filling in missing information. The Trinity is one of the valid interpretations of Biblical text regarding the nature of God. It is not the only one. Pretending that it is, and that any other conclusion is therefore non-Biblical is dishonest.

generalgrog wrote:@Manchu-I'm not sure what the point of that video was.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

generalgrog wrote:@dogma- Your just playing semantics now.

So is John...


Sorry, best funny pic of semantics I could find...

@tblock1984: Thank you, mate!

Uhhh..... WOW.... is all I can say.

I never said that I disagreed with what the guy on the video was saying. Of course, you can't take a RAW approach to every jot and tittle of the Bible. You have to look at the context, and let scripture interpret scripture. Some things are literal and others are not.

For example:Mark-16:18(KJV)They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

There are certain sects that claim Christianity that take this literally, and incorporate live poisonous snakes and the drinking of poison into their Church services. That is a prime example of taking a scripture out of context and reading into the Bible something that isn't there.

They correct context is that "they" did take up serpents, they did drink poison, and they did lay hands on the sick. These incidents were covered in the book of acts. It's certainly possible that these miracles happened since those incidents in the books of acts, but no where does it say that Christians are supposed to make it a normative practice during Church.

The Roman Catholics do the same type of thing with the Eucharist, in saying that the bread "transforms" into the "actual body of Christ". Most(if not all) protestents believe the bread to be a symbol of the body of Christ, not the "actual" body.

My point in asking "what the point of the video was" was that it didn't seem to have anything to do with a discussion of the trinity.

Anyway, I think I'll be unsubscribing from this thread now.

GG

Manchu wrote:, we've reached the end of dialog in good will and are just grinding our wheels.

T'would appear so, or soemwhat off the original point anyway...locked in 3...2...1.....