Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    63,939
    Rep Power
    26
    Post Like Stats

    Default Which Bible stories do you find most problematic?

    It seems to me many people quote the implausible story of Noah’s Ark as one of the reasons for their loss of faith.




  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kissing Hank's ass
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Filthy Liberal
    Posts
    71,526
    Rep Power
    30
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BillBrown View Post
    Adam had more than three sons. He begot many children.
    Too bad God drowned almost all of them and/or their kids.

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    left coast
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Defiant
    Ideology
    Rightwing Nutjob
    Posts
    595
    Rep Power
    2
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meriweather View Post
    It seems to me many people quote the implausible story of Noah’s Ark as one of the reasons for their loss of faith.
    "The Atonement Doctrine."
    Its all about ritualistic blood sacrifice and torture. It makes no sense at all in regard to forgiveness and there is no relation of the doctrine to anything of a spiritual nature..
    What does make sense is that one of the Apostles invented the doctrine in order to lure Jews of the time into Christianity because blood sacrafice was deeply rooted in their religion.

    Noah, similar to the big fish story are real in the sense that there is value and meaning buried in the myth. It just takes a mature mind to interpret the message. If someone looses faith over a Noah like story maybe there was no faith to begin with.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    63,939
    Rep Power
    26
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rx4liberty View Post
    "The Atonement Doctrine."
    Its all about ritualistic blood sacrifice and torture. It makes no sense at all in regard to forgiveness and there is no relation of the doctrine to anything of a spiritual nature..
    What does make sense is that one of the Apostles invented the doctrine in order to lure Jews of the time into Christianity because blood sacrafice was deeply rooted in their religion.
    The doctrine (and the English word) Atonement came to be developed in the mid 1500s. It noted the reconciliation between God and man--and the redemption of mankind. Scripture (nor apparently the Apostles and early Church Fathers) don't mention "atonement". It falls into the category of "Trinity" where people have attached a title to certain teachings found in scripture. The only thing I have against "Atonement" is that I think it has come to overshadow Jesus' own words:

    This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. And... Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant...

    God never required a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Where a blood sacrifice was used was in establishing a covenant. The New Covenant (New Testament) was Repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

    Keep in mind that people in Jesus' day demanded by whose authority he taught this. This was answered both by his cross (his blood) and resurrection. We have a New Covenant (New Testament) with God. Our part: Repent. God's part: Forgiveness.

    When we turn away from sin, our lives are redeemed.




  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    63,939
    Rep Power
    26
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rx4liberty View Post
    Noah, similar to the big fish story are real in the sense that there is value and meaning buried in the myth. It just takes a mature mind to interpret the message. If someone looses faith over a Noah like story maybe there was no faith to begin with.
    I agree. Science is often able to contribute facts to Biblical events. These facts should enable us to better understand the themes and philosophies presented in the stories.




  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    left coast
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Defiant
    Ideology
    Rightwing Nutjob
    Posts
    595
    Rep Power
    2
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meriweather View Post
    The doctrine (and the English word) Atonement came to be developed in the mid 1500s. It noted the reconciliation between God and man--and the redemption of mankind. Scripture (nor apparently the Apostles and early Church Fathers) don't mention "atonement". It falls into the category of "Trinity" where people have attached a title to certain teachings found in scripture. The only thing I have against "Atonement" is that I think it has come to overshadow Jesus' own words:



    This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you. And... Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant...

    God never required a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Where a blood sacrifice was used was in establishing a covenant. The New Covenant (New Testament) was Repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

    Keep in mind that people in Jesus' day demanded by whose authority he taught this. This was answered both by his cross (his blood) and resurrection. We have a New Covenant (New Testament) with God. Our part: Repent. God's part: Forgiveness.

    When we turn away from sin, our lives are redeemed.
    A covenant is very personal, person to person in other words. When put into writing as in the New Testament it becomes a social function based on many opinions which is quite different. The associated rules and dogmas amount to acts of righteousness which the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican clearly debunks teaching that acts of reghteousness cannot be used to buy favor with God.

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    63,939
    Rep Power
    26
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rx4liberty View Post
    A covenant is very personal, person to person in other words. When put into writing as in the New Testament it becomes a social function based on many opinions which is quite different. The associated rules and dogmas amount to acts of righteousness which the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican clearly debunks teaching that acts of reghteousness cannot be used to buy favor with God.
    Righteousness cannot be used to buy favor with God for the very simple reason righteousness is what God expects of us. Think of it. We do not drive on the right side of the street to buy favor with the police. We drive on the right side of the street because it is fully expected of us.




  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,528
    Rep Power
    0
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meriweather View Post
    Righteousness cannot be used to buy favor with God for the very simple reason righteousness is what God expects of us. Think of it. We do not drive on the right side of the street to buy favor with the police. We drive on the right side of the street because it is fully expected of us.
    no, we drive on the right side of the street to avoid head on collisions on the other side.

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    63,939
    Rep Power
    26
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B Actor View Post
    no, we drive on the right side of the street to avoid head on collisions on the other side.
    And, we don't expect people to do this?




  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,528
    Rep Power
    0
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Meriweather View Post
    And, we don't expect people to do this?
    Humans can be predicted to generally avoid mutually assured destruction. Head on collisions happen, it's not 100% successful.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Defiant
    Ideology
    Independent
    Posts
    2,405
    Rep Power
    7
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    I have 3.
    1. The Creation story. Still have a hard time understanding if it was a literal 6 days of creation or each so-called day was actually a period of thousands of years in our concept of time, but only a day in God's concept of time.

    2. The Sabbath. I'm not an Adventist or Hebrew, but I believe they're right about the Sabbath day being Saturday instead of Sunday. One of the commandments is, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy". Are we breaking this commandment every weekend?


    3. The Sermon on the Mount. The greatest sermon ever preached, however by today's standards and current political climate here in America, people of faith who have been poisoned by partisan politics seem to ignore this entire passage. This sermon is essential to Christian living.
    Stay Woke......

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Happy
    Ideology
    Republican Party
    Age
    56
    Posts
    5,653
    Rep Power
    7
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamerican View Post
    I have 3.
    1. The Creation story. Still have a hard time understanding if it was a literal 6 days of creation or each so-called day was actually a period of thousands of years in our concept of time, but only a day in God's concept of time.

    2. The Sabbath. I'm not an Adventist or Hebrew, but I believe they're right about the Sabbath day being Saturday instead of Sunday. One of the commandments is, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy". Are we breaking this commandment every weekend?


    3. The Sermon on the Mount. The greatest sermon ever preached, however by today's standards and current political climate here in America, people of faith who have been poisoned by partisan politics seem to ignore this entire passage. This sermon is essential to Christian living.

    1. I really think you need to consider the creation story in a non linear fashion. You might even need to consider creation in a non linear non temporal fashion. The six days are more hierarchical than literal.

    2. The Sabbath is clearly the "Seventh Day" which is Saturday. Remember if you were to follow that rule (as do observant Jews today) you can't even open a refrigerator door (the activation of the light bulb is considered "work") or press the button for an elevator on that day. The Gospels state that Jesus stated that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Paul (I believe) stated that we are no longer under obligation to follow the Sabbaths. The "Lord's Day" (which is the Eighth day in a seven day week ... I know ... complex) is a "Holy Day of Obligation" but the requirements are only a small fraction of the strict absolutely no work rule of the Ten Commandments.

    3. The Sermon on the Mount is absolutely an important and vital key to understanding how to be a member of that group that was originally called "the way" (only later being known as "Christian").


  24. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •