Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CX · 09-23-2004, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

This was taken from another thread... and this is for 'serious' atheist readers of the bible

I guess that puts me right out. I'm more of a jovial atheist reader of the bible.

Madkins007 · 09-24-2004, 08:34 PM

I fully agree that a LOT of modern doctrine is based loosely, if at all, on solid Biblical foundations. (Obviously, I disagree that you cannot make good doctrines out of the Bible.)

Looking at doctrines alone, you can see how some came about as various sects struggled for recognition, numbers (money), etc. If Sect A says -this-, then Sect B is going to say -that-. The more Sect A says what it says, the harder Sect B works to justify its stand and they begin to create doctrines that are more and more esoteric and seperate from each other.

We see this in many of the differences between churches on issues like tongues, baptism, diet, the Sabbath, dancing, various aspects of 'creation science', music, church decorations, misionary work, the trinity, the virgin birth, inerrancy/infallability of the Bible or of people, and so on and on and on...

The OP finds Christadelphians to have merit, I find preterism to have some (www.planetpreterist.com if you want to see what this is). With the troubles in mainstream Christianity, perhaps we will see some sort of 'revival' of throwing out 2000 years worth of tainted teachings?

Vorkosigan · 09-25-2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CX

I guess that puts me right out. I'm more of a jovial atheist reader of the bible.

:notworthy :notworthy

Vorkosigan · 09-25-2004, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Also there must be an emphasis on science and attempting to 'take the bible seriously' for the moment. Instead of just a flawed human work of literature.

How is believing the Bible "a flawed work for human literature" not taking it seriously?

Magdlyn · 09-25-2004, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

How is believing the Bible "a flawed work for human literature" not taking it seriously?

No, get it right dear, "a flawed human work of literature" is the non-serious approach.

I guess the only serious approach is to read it as: "a perfect work of divine literature."

Which flawed humans will twist themselves in knots to defend rationally, as above. And if rationality fails, quick! fall back on FAITH, and call yourself the only True Christian.

Jabu Khan · 09-25-2004, 05:53 AM

Sometimes I wonder if we have become a sort of proving ground for future charismatics.

Vorkosigan · 09-25-2004, 07:07 AM

Off to GRD

Vorkosigan · 09-25-2004, 07:08 AM

I decided that ~E~ was better.

harishsubramanian · 10-20-2004, 04:17 AM

Can anyone tell me,to what extent Old Testament and the Torah has been Inspired by Zoroastrianism?Does this influence the mythology as well?

10-20-2004, 04:17 AM	#19
harishsubramanian Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: bangalore Posts: 123	Christianity and ZoroAstrianism Can anyone tell me,to what extent Old Testament and the Torah has been Inspired by Zoroastrianism?Does this influence the mythology as well?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2004, 08:34 PM	#12
Madkins007 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 591	I fully agree that a LOT of modern doctrine is based loosely, if at all, on solid Biblical foundations. (Obviously, I disagree that you cannot make good doctrines out of the Bible.) Looking at doctrines alone, you can see how some came about as various sects struggled for recognition, numbers (money), etc. If Sect A says -this-, then Sect B is going to say -that-. The more Sect A says what it says, the harder Sect B works to justify its stand and they begin to create doctrines that are more and more esoteric and seperate from each other. We see this in many of the differences between churches on issues like tongues, baptism, diet, the Sabbath, dancing, various aspects of 'creation science', music, church decorations, misionary work, the trinity, the virgin birth, inerrancy/infallability of the Bible or of people, and so on and on and on... The OP finds Christadelphians to have merit, I find preterism to have some (www.planetpreterist.com if you want to see what this is). With the troubles in mainstream Christianity, perhaps we will see some sort of 'revival' of throwing out 2000 years worth of tainted teachings?

09-25-2004, 05:53 AM	#16
Jabu Khan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads Posts: 1,308	Sometimes I wonder if we have become a sort of proving ground for future charismatics.

09-25-2004, 07:07 AM	#17
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Off to GRD

09-25-2004, 07:08 AM	#18
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I decided that ~E~ was better.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.