WOW, so just a few posts ago, you said you take the verses LITERALLY. But then now, you said "No, I don't think so..." blablabla, isn't that strange? You can choose to take SOME verses literally (and not ponder upon them) and the rest of the verses, you interpret according to your own whims and fancies? <_< He means that HAVE YOU DISMEMBERED anyone before. Take that question LITERALLY then you'll see it 's so obvious.
the icon that I chose to use was not the "tongue in the face" icon, but more of trying to be funny (which doesn't seem to be funny. -unsure). this is the "tongue in the face" icon = -tongue2 ... they are two different thing (at least to me.) truthfully, when i made that statement i didn't mean any harm. we did argue and disagree within that thread however, i thought we were at least on a friendly bases. but i guess i was very very VERY wrong. it was like if one of my friends says football is better than wrestling. i would debate with him and in the end, i would say, "wrestling is still better. " that doesn't mean i wanted to insult him, but simply stating my belief again. anyways, that probably doesn't solve anything. so, i'll leave at that. but i do remember apologizing for that statement, i still believe that Christianity is the only way, but i did apologize for any hurt feelings. obviously, you don't accept my apology. well, what else can i do -shrug you shouldn't. if you don't think we are worthy, then don't give it to us. we are not here for your approval. I believe that the Bible is inerrant and the inspired word of God. However, that doesn't mean that all of its context should be taken literally. there are some to be taken literally and some figuratively; but the word of God should not be taken out of context. well, i did explain why it would be logical to state that non-believers are going to hell. in my "Understanding Christianity a bit more ..." thread. http://www.dramasian.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17390 but in a nut-shell. since everyone is judged by God upon the standard of the Law. everyone has falling short of it. so the punishment for sin (or breaking of the Law) is death. and since Christians do believe in a conscious that precedes after death where does it go? (before Christ) it went to Hades or She'ol. In Hades or She'ol, (imo and understanding) there are two Hells, one of the "Abraham's bosom" and other of "Gehanna"-type of hell. This "Gehanna"-typed hell is the place of fire and extreme suffering. i explained more in-depth in the thread. well, since Christ was a divine by of God and by Man. He was able to atone and be sacrificed for our sins. Therefore, with it the gift of salvation is passed to the world and its creation. This represented and showed that God really indeed cares and loves us. He provided a way out of Hell; through Jesus Christ.
Interesting thing is that Christianity has emerged from Judaism, with the Christian Old Testament being practically the same as the Hebrew Bible*. Biggest difference was the culture, language and INTERPRETATION of the religion; Jews mainly focus on the Covenant with God and they try to live a holy life on earth (amongst other things I haven't mentioned to keep this short as some are too lazy to read not necessary pro Christian essays) and don't put the same weight on the Afterlife like the Christians do. For Christians it's mainly about Salvation, Sin and Heaven. So, why would the christians like Barnabas -born to Jewish parents(!)- think he has the right to tell the Jews that the christian interpretation is the right one? Also, some Jews, like the Orthodox or conservative ones do believe in a Heaven, so why was it necessary to use violency to convert them? Wikipedia
I will keep this comment in mind next time when someone, namely you, say that "respect each other's choices" or something like that. Inerrant because it's inspired word of God, okay, I got that part. But then who are you, or any Christian for that matter, to judge which verses are to be taken literally and others figuratively if the Bible is inerrant and inspired word of God? As usual, my question remains: did God not love those of his creations, namely human beings, before Jesus walk the Earth? In no way you can convince me that the God who discriminates humans by their time to be all-loving. <_< So while God take those who follows him (or accepts him) AFTER Jesus walks the Earth, he left those who doesn't know Jesus because Jesus is not BORN YET to suffer? If that's all-loving, I guess I may not be going to hell afterall. Since this God of yours is apparently very sketchy in his judgement.
We WERE on friendly basis, but then you had to go make that last comment, which made me lose my respect for you <_< Wow, I can't believe you compared religion with sports. Religion is something very sensitive to a person who have their own beliefs. Some deem their beliefs as important as their lives, they are willing to die in the name of God. So how can you compare sports with religion? Besides, saying something "is better" is DIFFERENT from saying something is "the ONLY way". If you can't see that already. I don't know about you, but I think anyone else would have feel insulted if you put down their beliefs right in their faces when they tried to be civil and courteous to you. Right, then don't come asking for respect or expect anyone to listen to your views.. Or ask why am I picking on you... (like a vampire?!) Like what Hiake has said, who's to decide which verses to be taken literally and which are not?! It's all a matter of interpretation, which again falls back on the argument, that you cannot prove your interpretation to be the correct and only way. So why that arrogant and ignorant attitude?
ok. so with the establish fact of an inerrant God that has given the world His inerrant words and laws, written in the Bible, which is therefore inerrant as well, we can then assume what is literal and what is figurative. b/c since the Bible cannot contradict itself, like God, then when one reads its contexts and description one can separate what is literal and what is figurative. since if a context is taken literal but was meant to be taken figurative, it will contradict another passage or work; vice versa. so it isn't I that determine what is to be taken literal or figurative, but to thinking logical and with non-contradicting analysis of the biblical passage, one can determine what is literal and what is figurative. i don't want to be mean or anything. but please read up on the thread that I made on this subject. i spend a lot of time writing it and trying my best to answer that question of "why an all-loving God will sent people to hell?" unless you have specific question - i suggest you to read it up. it is long, and i'm sorry about that. lol. but it's late for me. so, this is probably the last post for the night.
Okay, so it is impossible for the Bible to be contradictory in itself. Given that as the premise, as your argument suggests, why take SOME verse figuratively and others literally? If the Bible is inspired word of God and thus inerrant (which in fact I still have my reserve about that), it should not be contradictory no matter where and when one takes it to be figuratively, or for that matter, literally. The fact that you ADMIT the Bible CAN be contradictory depending on the means of interpretation (literal vs. figurative) means it is NOT inerrant. Inerrant is a VERY encompassing adjective. Just like you cannot be half right and still call yourself RIGHT, you cannot be inerrant with numerous strings attached or only under VERY specific circumstances. And, just for the record, I am discussing the Bible being inspired words of God and thus inerrant BASED on the possibility that there IS a God and the Bible is indeed inspired words of him (whose truth is still under debate, but it's a discussion for another thread, if not done already) And somehow different people will interpret the same verse differently even though they are of the same faith and sect, and yes, I am not talking about the "False Christians" but the oh-so-mighty "True Christians" who preaches their God as their only way. Now you are just insulting every single Bible-reading person who may not interpret the Bible in the EXACT same way as you do. Oh and? Sounds like that particular aforementioned "logic" is shared by precious few individuals with a limited, not to mention skewed, world view. To accept everything an ancient book, whose origin and authenticity is in debate, as truths set in stone, is obviously not logical. So while Christianity MAY, and I am being generous here, be logical in some other way, Biblical interpretation and logic is as removed from each other as this Earth can allow. So please refrain from insulting the word "logic".
I don't think you understand my viewpoint of inerrancy of the Bible when it comes to interpreting the verses literal or figuratively. for example. i make to statements. 1) Rain are water droplet that are caused by precipitation. 2) It was raining "cats and dogs" yesterday. obviously, my second statement should be taken figuratively or else it would contradict my first statement. if it is to be assume that i am flawless and free of error (which i'm not saying i am, but lets assume) then my statements cannot contradict each other; therefore when the second statement is taken in a literal interpretation it would be errored and wronged. so in defense, with the analyzation of the contexts in the Bible; one can come to the conclusion if something is to be taken literally or figuratively. also was the parables that Jesus taught to be taken literally happened or figuratively told? I'm not saying that my interpretation is absolute. I could be wrong. but that isn't my point. my point is that the Bible is inerrant of errors. so if the context is written to be taken literal it should be taken just that and not interpret figuratively. and if something is meant to be taken figuratively then it should be taken in that context. it is up to the readers and the Christian to interpret whether it is literal or figurative. and since we believe in a just and consistent God, there will be one interpretation. also i want to point out in the "Christianity: Do Non-Believers go to Hell?" thread ... i made a grave mistake. please read my first post on the first page.
But unlike "raining cats and dogs", us modern people have no way of knowing whether a phrase in the Bible utilized certain figure of speech or a truthful narration. So who is it to decide? And will those who misinterpreted the Bible be redeemed?
Sure, we can. if we can understand Homer's writings (ie. pssages in the Iliad) to be figurative or literal; then why not the Bible and then New Testament (which is younger than the Iliad). IMO, some people are afraid to take what needs to be taken literal, literal. Since it would change their lifestyle/way of acting. they prefer the excuses and viewing that the Bible is not inerrant; but filled with flaws. with such a statement brings them comfort and the feeling that "it's ok, what is consider sinful has a possiblity of not being sinful at all, i'm fine. if this brings me pleasure, why shouldn't i do it? the bible is just trying to make me fill bad about myself." (of course, i'm not saying that all Christians or new/mature Christians do not battle with these thoughts; however, there is difference. Instead of dismissing the BIble and the Law against the sin, the Christian would see that it is wrong and "try his/her best" to fight against it. Sometimes it can be won; but most of the time, it will be a continual battle till death between the man (humans) vs his/her sins. Perfection is incredibly difficult to achieve. However, for a Christian, since Christ was sinless and he is God. And since, once a Christian is a believer of Christ, the Holy Spirit will regenerate him/her. Then perfection lives within the Christian. But that does not mean that we are perfect in a sense that we as Christian do no sin... no. but, now we no longer have the burden that if we do not reach perfection by ourselves; then we are condemn to punishment. we have freedom, in a sense, to live our lives to be the best of being sinless, like Christ, but be aware that sin is still a consistent in this world and when we do fail and sin. standing up again is no longer a path of "doing it alone". we have Christ; for He reaches out his hands everytime we fall. isn't that something to be rejoiced over? i think so. and also it is true, that the bible can show the flaws in human. it was its original purpose in the OT (Old Testament); however, Jesus Christ abolish the old Mosaic Covenant between God and His people (not b/c it was wrong; but b/c (imo) wasn't able to help all of the people in the world.) so, Jesus Christ made a new covenant, "John 3:16", that infamous verse. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." i agree with master_g, the bible does not redeem/save the person, Christ does. but what happens to those that misinterprets and add stuff to the Bible that was not suppose to be added/misinterpret. well, God will be there in the end with His judgment. For that is a wrong-doing. And truthfully on that day, if God says to me, "apollon, you have misinterpret these scriptures and verses." I would, if not already, dodge behind Jesus Christ and hold onto his clothings. you may laugh at my viewpoint and at what i said. but it isn't funny. at least on that day, i would have Jesus Christ to hold onto. but for others that rejected/condemn/hated Christ; who will they hide behind that is worthy and will be significant before God? I am not condemning anyone, but if Christianity is true and God is true. and then Jesus Christ is true. Judgment will be true, as well. but at least for a Christian, he/she will have Christ to intercede for them. do you see, it is the best possibility. For faith in Christ not only changes our heart to be less sinless (which everyone hopefully strive to be); but allows a hope on the day of judgment, that the punishment would not be pass onto you when God comes to judge his creation. but is faith the price to pay, brain-washed and unable to perceive common sense? lol. no. ask anyone who has faith, not only Christian, but Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims. Faith is not a burden; but a release of the burden that was once there. Christianity is about love and understanding. That God indeed loves his creation and provided a way out of punishment and sin. There is no price to be paid anymore; Jesus Christ did it for us already.
We Buddhists don't believe that faith is a release of burden. In fact, our faith in Buddhism places a moral burden on us. A conscience to be good and responsibility to abstain from all sinful desires. That is a burden. At the end of the day, we are held accountable for our own actions, past, present or future. No one is there to absolve all those guilt from us, no one is to answer for our wrongdoings. <_<
well, that isn't what i meant. faith, in itself, is not a burden. by your example, it is the aftermath of faith in Buddhism that causes burden of morality; but faith itself is not a burden. but, if Buddhism is correct and true. would I have lost anything? I also strive to a moralistic lifestyle; however I do it through Christianity. and according to my understanding, that is alright in Buddhism. so, if Buddhism is true, I would not lose much. but, i can't say the same thing for a Buddhist, if Christianity is true.
Well, if we were to compare Buddhism and, Atheism for example, our faith in Buddhism does place a burden on us. Because since we believe in afterlife, we also believe there's a judgment for us and we are held accountable for all our wrongdoings, whereas if a person does not believe in the afterlife, he can be the baddest ass in the world, as long as he escapes from the man-made law and judgment, then he's got nothing to worry about. So in a way, faith does place a burden on us. What's the difference between 'aftermath of faith in Buddhism' and 'faith'? It's the same thing. There we go again... -rolleyes the threat of eternal damnation. I think I speak for all non-believers that that issue doesn't bother us at all. Oh actually, I think I may have something to add to this statement. It's true that being a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc would not make a difference to your afterlife. But, if one's attitude in life is ignorant, prideful, non-tolerant, those can, in fact, be very detrimental to one's level of enlightenment. I think I did say before, for example, "to compel a person to take a certain Path against his or her will is useless, it merely adds to the karma of the person compelling and does no good to anyone". and of course, that person may take much longer to attain Nirvana.
there is a difference between the "aftermath of faith" and "faith" itself. As Christian, we also have a "burden" from the aftermath of faith. One will become regenerated with Christ in his/her heart; therefore always showing and telling him/her the righteous way to live. but "faith" in itself is not a burden. it is actually gift of awareness and humility. sorry, i gotta to go for now. i'll be back later on since i do have a comment on the aspect of Buddhism's reincarnation and achieving Nirvana
If buddhism is true, then my next life would be either good or bad depending on this life. If buddhism is not true, then I have no loss anyways. If christianity is true, then I will go to hell for sure when I die (I'm atheist). If christianity is not true, then no loss again for me. ---------------------------------------------- So basically, I don't have to worry about buddhism as long as I'm a good person in this life. Now here's a question I was thinking about. What is worse in the christian view: not believing in the christian god (or any other god) or believing in a god from another religion (also not believing in the christian god)? Logically thinking, not believing in any god is less severe than believing in another religion's god. Let's say I was a christian and I see allah when I die. Allah will obviously punish me for believing in the christian god and not him. However, if I was an atheist and I see allah when I die, I think I would get the less severe punishment than a christian would. So roughly speaking, there are over 4200 religions in the world. The chance of believing in the correct one and not be punished when one dies is not that high. As a good atheist, I don't have to worry about buddhism or be overly worried about the 4200 religions since the superior beings of those religions will severely punish people who believe in other religions first before they deal with atheists (who will get the lighter punishment). If I was a christian, although I still don't have to worry about buddhism, I need to worry about being punished by the 4200 religions if christianity is not true. Therefore I think atheists get the slightly better deal. ---------------------------------------------------------- By the way, "aftermath of faith" and "faith" itself are almost the same in the religious sense. The only difference is that "aftermath of faith" has the words "aftermath of" while "faith" doesn't have those 2 words. It is almost like saying Johnny's rabbit and rabbit of Johnny. The difference is the " apostrophe s" and "of." What is the purpose of faith? There is faith in a religion because followers believe and trust the religion they are following. If followers have no faith in the religion they are following, then they aren't true followers and will suffer the consequences if their religion is true. Referring back to buddhism and christianity, having faith in either of those religions is for the purpose of followers to believe in them and hope that as a result of their faith and belief, they will receive goodness after they die.
I don't understand your futile distinction between the two. "Aftermath of faith" still comprises of "Faith" in the religion itself. What's the difference IF there is any? Having said that, since aftermath of faith = faith, and you acknowledge that you christians have a burden from the aftermath of faith, therefore faith creates a burden. If the above is not clear enough to you... According to Free Online Dictionary, 'aftermath' = A consequence, especially of a disaster or misfortune and 'faith' =Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence/The body of dogma of a religion. So putting it together, given that the burden itself we are talking about comes from a CONSEQUENCE of having faith, you are saying "consequence of belief that does not rest on logical proof creates a burden" and "belief that does not rest on logical proof creates a burden" are different? LOL. BURDEN comes from consequence of having faith in a certain religion, therefore burden = consequence. Consequence of faith =/= faith ---> X It's a figure of speech. One can say that faith gives you the gift of awareness and 'humility'. But another person can also claim that faith gives you a moral BURDEN, since you have faith in a particular religion which means you also believe in afterlife, then you have fear of judgment. And that fear gives you a burden to be good, or else you'll be punished for it. That itself, is a burden. I think we Buddhists will share the same deal as you then... Actually, would like to correct on the sentence that "If buddhism is true, then my next life would be either good or bad depending on this life" to "If Buddhism is true, then i would have to worry about being stuck in the cycle of rebirth until I am truly a good and awakened person". Again, I would like to add to the statement regarding Buddhism. We Buddhists don't believe that we shall receive any rewards or goodness after we die, purely because we believe in Buddhism. We shall receive reward (good karma) if we do good in our lives, and disadvantage (bad karma added) if we do bad. Then, the ultimate reward of doing good is to attain Nirvana. Receiving good has nothing to do with us believing in Buddhism, it is not that simple. But if you talk about believing in Buddhism and live as a good Buddhist (following the four Noble Truths and the Middle way) then, yes, we receive the 'goodness' after we die.
I don't think there's a difference between 'aftermath of faith' and 'faith'; I think it's just the 2 sides of the same coin. If you use 'faith' in this context you will always be confronted with the consequences of it which you've called the 'aftermath of faith'.
